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


<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                    3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-26-1999
<CASH>                                              19
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      155
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                        130
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                   438
<PP&E>                                           4,129
<DEPRECIATION>                                   2,826
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   2,254
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            4,150
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                      1,745
<COMMON>                                           152
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     2,254
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 3,900
<CGS>                                            2,059
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    4,079
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  42
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   (221)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                               (221)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                      (221)
<EPS-BASIC>                                       (.02)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     (.02)



</TABLE>
Exhibit 99.2



AES Gener S.A.

Certification Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

(18 U.S.C. Section 1350)



Pursuant to the requirements of Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
(18 U.S.C. Sections 1350(a) and (b)), the undersigned hereby certifies as follows:



| | 3. |  | Francisco Castro is the Chief Executive Officer of AES Gener S.A. (the Company).
| | -- |  | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 4. |  | To the best of my knowledge:
| | -- |  | ----------------------------



| | (A) |  | The Companys Form 20-F for the year ending December 31, 2002 accompanying this Certification, in the form filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the exchange Act); and
| | --- |  | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | (B) |  | The information in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| | --- |  | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Dated: June 30, 2003



/s/ FRANCISCO CASTROFrancisco CastroChief Financial Officer
#### Tamas Premecz, Respondent, v RJHWong, LLC, Appellant.

[986 NYS2d 354]

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Pineda-Kirwan, J.), entered January 31, 2013, which denied its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

*690In support of its motion for summary judgment, the defendant failed to m&ke a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a mater of law *(see Alvarez v Prospect*Hosp., 68 NY2d 320 [1986]). Since the defendant failed to establish its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, it is not necessary to review the sufficiency of the plaintiffs opposition papers *(see Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr,*64 NY2d 851 [1985]).

Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Mastro, J.E, Skelos, Cohen and LaSalle, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 10.1


 


AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT


 


This Amendment, dated April
30, 2018 (this “Amendment”), to the Employment Agreement, dated May 1, 2015 (the “Agreement”),
is entered into by and between QPAGOS Corporation (the “Corporation”) and Andrey Novikov (the “Executive”).
Capitalized terms used herein without definition shall have the meanings assigned in the Agreement.


 


WHEREAS, the parties desire to extend
the Employment Term set forth in the Agreement for an additional period of one (1) year.


 


NOW THEREFORE, in
consideration of the premises and the mutual covenants contained herein, and for other good and valuable consideration, the receipt
and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, the parties hereto agree to amend the Agreement as follows:


 


1.       The
Employment Term set forth in Section 1 shall hereupon be extended for a period of one (1) year.


 


2.       The last sentence
of Section 2 of the Agreement is hereby deleted and replaced with the following:


 


“During the Employment Term, the Executive shall,
if requested by the Board, also serve, without additional compensation, as a member of the Board and in such other executive-level
positions or capacities at the Company, its parent company QPAGOS and/or their subsidiaries as may, from time to time, be reasonably
requested by the Board.”


 


3.       All
other terms of the Agreement shall remain in full force and effect. The Agreement, as amended by this Amendment, constitutes the
entire agreement between the parties with respect to the subject matter thereof.


 


4.
      This Amendment may be executed in one or more counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an
original but both of which together shall constitute one and the same instrument.


 


5.       This
Amendment is made and shall be construed and performed under the laws of the remaining provisions will nevertheless continue to
be valid and enforceable in the State of Delaware without regard to its choice or conflict of law principles.


 


IN
WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be duly executed as of the day and year first above written.


 





	 	QPAGOS CORPORATION
	 	 	 
	 	By:	/s/ Gaston
    Pereira
	 	Name:	Gaston Pereira
	 	Title:	Chief Executive Officer
	 	 	 
	 	 	 
	 	/s/
    Andrey Novikov
	 	Andrey Novikov
Exhibit 23

Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

The
Board of Directors
AmeriVest Properties Inc.:

We
consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statement (Nos. 333-112210, No. 333-101713, and No. 333-44210) on
Form S-3 and in the registration statements (No. 333-101803, No. 333-101802, and No. 333-116239) on
Form S-8 of AmeriVest Properties Inc. and subsidiaries of our report dated April 29, 2005, with respect to management's assessment of the effectiveness of internal
control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2004 and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2004, which reports appear in the
December 31, 2004 annual report on Form 10-K/A of AmeriVest Properties Inc.

KPMG
LLP

Denver,
Colorado
April 29, 2005

---



QuickLinks
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C.SECTION 1350 AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906
OFTHE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In
connection with the Quarterly Report of Intelligroup, Inc, (the Company) on
Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2009 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Vikram
Gulati, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002 and to the best of my knowledge and belief, that:

|(1) |  | The Report fully complies with
      the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the
      Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the Exchange Act);
      and
|--- |  | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|   
|(2) |  | The information contained in the
      Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition
      and results of operations of the
Company.                        

|DATE: August 14, 2009 | By: | /s/ Vikram Gulati            
|--------------------- | --- | -----------------------------
|                     
|                      |     | Vikram Gulati                
|                      |     | Chief Executive
      Officer

39

---
#### Dominick Zavaglia et al., Respondents, v Frank T. Gardner et al., Appellants.

[666 NYS2d 671]

—In an action, *inter alia,*for rescission of a contract for the sale of real property based upon mutual mistake, the defendants appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of (1) a decision of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Feldman, J.), dated January 24, 1997, as determined that there was a mutual mistake with regard to a material fact and that the contract should be rescinded, and (2) a judgment of the same court, dated April 16, 1997, as, upon rescinding the contract, is in favor of the plaintiffs and against them in the principal sum of $193,000.

Ordered that the appeal from the decision is dismissed, as no appeal lies from a decision *(see, Schicchi v Green Constr. Corp.,*100 AD2d 509); and it is further,

Ordered that the judgment is reversed, on the law, and the complaint is dismissed; and it is further,

Ordered that the appellants are awarded one bill of costs.

On or about April 15, 1988, the plaintiffs and the defendants executed a contract for the sale of real property owned by the defendants. The contract contained a rider, drafted by the plaintiffs’ attorney, which stated that the second-floor apartment was not subject to rent control or stabilization. In November 1989 the plaintiffs learned that the apartment was subject to rent control and commenced this action on or about July 12, 1994, seeking, *inter alia,*rescission of the contract. The trial court found, *inter alia,*that there was a mutual mistake of a material fact and directed that the contract be rescinded. We now reverse.

An action for rescission premised upon mistake is subject to a six-year Statute of Limitations, which begins to run when the alleged mistake or actionable wrong occurred *(see,*CPLR 213 [6]; *First Natl. Bank v Volpe,*217 AD2d 967). As the mistake in the contract rider herein was the wrong that would warrant rescission, we find that the cause of action for mutual mistake is untimely and accordingly dismiss the complaint. Mangano, P. J., Santucci, Joy and Lemer, JJ., concur.
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 31.2

                      EQUITY GENERAL PARTNER CERTIFICATION
            PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, ROBERT MCKINNEY, CERTIFY THAT:

1. I HAVE REVIEWED THIS ANNUAL REPORT ON FORM 10-K OF NATIONAL PROPERTY ANALYSTS
MASTER LIMITED PARTNERSHIP;

2. BASED ON MY KNOWLEDGE, THIS REPORT DOES NOT CONTAIN ANY UNTRUE STATEMENT OF A
MATERIAL FACT OR OMIT TO STATE A MATERIAL FACT NECESSARY TO MAKE THE STATEMENTS
MADE, IN LIGHT OF THE CIRCUMSTANCES UNDER WHICH SUCH STATEMENTS WERE MADE, NOT
MISLEADING WITH RESPECT TO THE PERIOD COVERED BY THIS REPORT;

3. BASED ON MY KNOWLEDGE, THE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS, AND OTHER FINANCIAL
INFORMATION INCLUDED IN THIS REPORT, FAIRLY PRESENT IN ALL MATERIAL RESPECTS THE
FINANCIAL CONDITION, RESULTS OF OPERATIONS AND CASH FLOWS OF THE REGISTRANT AS
OF, AND FOR, THE PERIODS PRESENTED IN THIS REPORT;

4. THE REGISTRANT'S OTHER CERTIFYING OFFICER(S) AND I ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR
ESTABLISHING AND MAINTAINING DISCLOSURE CONTROLS AND PROCEDURES (AS DEFINED IN
EXCHANGE ACT RULES 13A-15(E) AND 15D-15(E)) FOR THE REGISTRANT AND HAVE:

(A) DESIGNED SUCH DISCLOSURE CONTROLS AND PROCEDURES, OR CAUSED SUCH DISCLOSURE
CONTROLS AND PROCEDURES TO BE DESIGNED UNDER OUR SUPERVISION, TO ENSURE THAT
MATERIAL INFORMATION RELATING TO THE REGISTRANT, INCLUDING ITS CONSOLIDATED
SUBSIDIARIES, IS MADE KNOWN TO US BY OTHERS WITHIN THOSE ENTITIES, PARTICULARLY
DURING THE PERIOD IN WHICH THIS REPORT IS BEING PREPARED;

(B) EVALUATED THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE REGISTRANT'S DISCLOSURE CONTROLS AND
PROCEDURES AND PRESENTED IN THIS REPORT OUR CONCLUSIONS ABOUT THE EFFECTIVENESS
OF THE DISCLOSURE CONTROLS AND PROCEDURES, AS OF THE END OF THE PERIOD COVERED
BY THIS REPORT BASED ON SUCH EVALUATION; AND

(C) DISCLOSED IN THIS REPORT ANY CHANGE IN THE REGISTRANT'S INTERNAL CONTROL
OVER FINANCIAL REPORTING THAT OCCURRED DURING THE REGISTRANT'S MOST RECENT
FISCAL QUARTER (THE REGISTRANT'S FOURTH FISCAL QUARTER IN THE CASE OF AN ANNUAL
REPORT) THAT HAS MATERIALLY AFFECTED, OR IS REASONABLY LIKELY TO MATERIALLY
AFFECT, THE REGISTRANT'S INTERNAL CONTROL OVER FINANCIAL REPORTING; AND

5. THE REGISTRANT'S OTHER CERTIFYING OFFICER(S) AND I HAVE DISCLOSED, BASED ON
OUR MOST RECENT EVALUATION OF INTERNAL CONTROL OVER FINANCIAL REPORTING, TO THE
REGISTRANT'S AUDITORS AND THE AUDIT COMMITTEE OF THE REGISTRANT'S BOARD OF
DIRECTORS (OR PERSONS PERFORMING THE EQUIVALENT FUNCTIONS):

(A) ALL SIGNIFICANT DEFICIENCIES AND MATERIAL WEAKNESSES IN THE DESIGN OR
OPERATION OF INTERNAL CONTROL OVER FINANCIAL REPORTING WHICH ARE REASONABLY
LIKELY TO ADVERSELY AFFECT THE REGISTRANT'S ABILITY TO RECORD, PROCESS,
SUMMARIZE AND REPORT FINANCIAL INFORMATION; AND

(B) ANY FRAUD, WHETHER OR NOT MATERIAL, THAT INVOLVES MANAGEMENT OR OTHER
EMPLOYEES WHO HAVE A SIGNIFICANT ROLE IN THE REGISTRANT'S INTERNAL CONTROL OVER
FINANCIAL REPORTING.

DATE: MARCH 30, 2007


BY: FELDMAN INTERNATIONAL INC., ITS
    EQUITY GENERAL PARTNER


BY: /S/ ROBERT MCKINNEY
    ---------------------------------
NAME: ROBERT MCKINNEY
TITLE: PRESIDENT
#### State v. Fuller

Case below: 177 N.C. App. 149

No. 248P06

2. Allowed (06/29/06)

3. Denied (06/29/06)

1. Def’s NOA Based Upon a Constitutional Question (COA04-1022)

2. AG’s Motion to Dismiss Appeal

3. Def’s PDR Under N.C.G.S. § 7A-31
[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 189 (Monday, October 2, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Page 45914]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-21013]


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

POSTAL SERVICE


Product Change--Priority Mail 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 2, 
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 26, 2017, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a 
Request of the United States Postal Service to Add Priority Mail 
Contract 363 to Competitive Product List. Documents are available at 
www.prc.gov, Docket Nos. MC2017-209, CP2017-317.

Elizabeth A. Reed,
Attorney, Corporate and Postal Business Law.
[FR Doc. 2017-21013 Filed 9-29-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
FIFTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________

Case No. 5D2023-3509 

LT Case No. 2022-CF-7072-A 

_____________________________

TRAVEON D. MASON, 

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA, 

Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Duval County. 

London M. Kite, Judge. 

Matthew J. Metz, Public Defender, and Judson Searcy, Assistant 

Public Defender, Daytona Beach, for Appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, and Darcy Townsend, Assistant

Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee. 

August 20, 2024

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED. 

EISNAUGLE, SOUD, and BOATWRIGHT, JJ., concur. 
2

_____________________________

Not final until disposition of any timely and 

authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 

9.331.

_____________________________
Exhibit
      ___





**CERTIFICATION
      PURSUANT TO**


**THE
      SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**


**CHIEF
      FINANCIAL OFFICER**




I,
      Vincent De Lorenzo, certify that:





In
      connection with the Quarterly Report of Digital Creative Development
      Corporation. (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending September
      30, 2006 (the "Report"), the undersigned officer of the Company, 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) 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.




Date: October 9, 2007/s/ Vincent
              De LorenzoVincent
              De LorenzoChief
                Financial Officer
[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 191 (Wednesday, October 4, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Page 46227]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-21346]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY


DOE/NSF High Energy Physics Advisory Panel

AGENCY: Office of Science, Department of Energy.

ACTION: Notice of renewal.

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

SUMMARY: Pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act, App. 2, and 
Code of Federal Regulations, and following consultation with the 
Committee Management Secretariat, General Services Administration, 
notice is hereby given that the DOE/NSF High Energy Physics Advisory 
Panel (HEPAP) has been renewed for a two-year period.
    The Panel will provide advice and recommendations to the Director, 
Office of Science (DOE), and the Assistant Director, Directorate for 
Mathematical and Physical Sciences (NSF), on scientific priorities 
within the field of high energy physics.
    Additionally, the Secretary of Energy has determined that renewal 
of the HEPAP is essential to conduct business of the Department of 
Energy and the National Science Foundation and is in the public 
interest in connection with the performance duties imposed by law upon 
the Department of Energy. The Committee will continue to operate in 
accordance with the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 
the Department of Energy Organization Act (Pub. L. 95-91), and the 
rules and regulations in implementation of these acts.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. John Boger at (301) 903-4520.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on August 11, 2017.
Shena Kennerly,
Acting Committee Management Officer.
[FR Doc. 2017-21346 Filed 10-3-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ROY WARDEN,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

 v.

KATHLEEN ROBINSON, individually

and in her capacity as Assistant Chief of

Police; et al.,

Defendants-Appellees.

No. 14-15803

D.C. No. 4:13-cv-00283-DCB

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Arizona

David C. Bury, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted September 27, 2016** 

Before: TASHIMA, SILVERMAN, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.

Roy Warden appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment and

dismissal order in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging various claims arising from

his removal from a public park and arrest at a city council meeting. We have

FILED

OCT 05 2016

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

 * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

 ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal under 28

U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). Barren v. Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir. 1998)

(order). We vacate and remand.

The district court dismissed defendants Walkup, Kozachik, Miranda,

Rankin, Riojas, Villasenor, Couch, and the City of Tucson because Warden failed

to comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8. However, in his First Amended

Complaint, Warden set forth specific factual allegations against these defendants,

including their unlawful conduct and Warden’s resulting injuries. Warden also 

set forth five legal claims, and alleged which conduct supported each claim. See

Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2)

requires only “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is

entitled to relief, in order to give the defendant fair notice of what the . . . claim is

and the grounds upon which it rests” (citations and internal quotation marks

omitted)). Accordingly, we vacate the judgment as to these defendants and remand

for further proceedings. 

We do not vacate the district court’s summary judgment for defendant

Robinson because on appeal Warden does not challenge the order granting

summary judgment.

We do not consider issues and arguments incorporated by reference on

2 14-15803
appeal, see Acosta-Huerta v. Estelle, 7 F.3d 139, 144 (9th Cir. 1992), or matters

not specifically and distinctly raised and argued in the opening brief, see Padgett v.

Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).

The parties shall bear their own costs on appeal.

VACATED and REMANDED.

3 14-15803