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


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
THIS  SCHEDULE  CONTAINS  SUMMARY  FINANCIAL   INFORMATION  EXTRACTED  FROM  THE
UNAUDITED  FINANCIAL  STATEMENTS  FOR THE THREE MONTH PERIOD ENDED JUNE 30, 2000
AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
     (Replace this text with the legend)
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                                                      0001088201
<NAME>            EASTERN MANAGEMENT CORP. (Formerly Inforetech Inc.)
<MULTIPLIER>                                                        1
<CURRENCY>                                                         US

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              MAR-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                                 APR-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                   JUN-30-2000
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                        1
<CASH>                                                 0
<SECURITIES>                                           0
<RECEIVABLES>                                          0
<ALLOWANCES>                                           0
<INVENTORY>                                            0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                       0
<PP&E>                                                 0
<DEPRECIATION>                                         0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                         0
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                              2,650
<BONDS>                                                0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                  0
<PREFERRED>                                            0
<COMMON>                                              50
<OTHER-SE>                                       (2,700)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     (2,650)
<SALES>                                                0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                       0
<CGS>                                                  0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                          0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   2,650
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                     0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  (2,650)
<INCOME-TAX>                                           0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              (2,650)
<DISCONTINUED>                                         0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                        0
<CHANGES>                                              0
<NET-INCOME>                                     (2,650)
<EPS-BASIC>                                       (0.01)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     (0.01)



</TABLE>
In the United States Court of Federal Claims 

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

No. 17-1533V

UNPUBLISHED

CONNIE RAINBOLT,

 Petitioner,

v.

SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND 

HUMAN SERVICES,

 Respondent.

Chief Special Master Corcoran 

Filed: July 27, 2020

Special Processing Unit (SPU);

Ruling on Entitlement; Concession;

Table Injury; Influenza (Flu) Vaccine;

Guillain-Barre Syndrome (GBS)

Richard Gage, Richard Gage, P.C., Cheyenne, WY, for petitioner.

Linda Sara Renzi, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent.

RULING ON ENTITLEMENT1

On October 16, 2017, Connie Rainbolt filed a petition for compensation under the 

National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, 42 U.S.C. §300aa-10, et seq.,

2 (the 

“Vaccine Act”). Petitioner alleges that as a result of an influenza (“flu”) vaccination 

administered on November 26, 2014, she suffered Guillain-Barre Syndrome (“GBS”). 

Petition at 1. The case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit of the Office of 

Special Masters.

On July 23, 2020, Respondent filed his Rule 4(c) report in which he concedes

that Petitioner is entitled to compensation in this case. Respondent’s Rule 4(c) Report

at 1. Specifically, Respondent has concluded that Petitioenr suffered the Table injury of 

 1 Because this unpublished ruling contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, I am 

required to post it on the United States Court of Federal Claims' website in accordance with the EGovernment Act of 2002. 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note (2012) (Federal Management and Promotion of 

Electronic Government Services). This means the ruling will be available to anyone with access to 

the internet. In accordance with Vaccine Rule 18(b), Petitioner has 14 days to identify and move to 

redact medical or other information, the disclosure of which would constitute an unwarranted invasion of 

privacy. If, upon review, I agree that the identified material fits within this definition, I will redact such 

material from public access. 

2 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, Pub. L. No. 99-660, 100 Stat. 3755. Hereinafter, for 

ease of citation, all “§” references to the Vaccine Act will be to the pertinent subparagraph of 42 U.S.C. § 

300aa (2012).
2

GBS following a flu vaccine within the Table time period Id. at 4. Respondent further 

agrees that Petitioner has satisfied all legal prerequisites for compensation under the 

Vaccine Act. Id.

In view of Respondent’s position and the evidence of record, I find that 

Petitioner is entitled to compensation.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/Brian H. Corcoran

Brian H. Corcoran

Chief Special Master
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 third quarter ended March 31, 2009 of Integrated BioPharma, Inc. (the “Company”) as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), Dina L. Masi, the Senior 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 her 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.                            Dated:     May 20, 2009                       

 

                                                   By: /s/ Dina L. Masi                                                           Dina L. Masi

                                                   Chief Financial Officer & Senior Vice        President
#### In the Matter of the Claim of Dale Roundtree, Appellant. Commissioner of Labor, Respondent.

[987 NYS2d 525]

Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed March 19, 2013, which ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because his employment was terminated due to misconduct.

Claimant worked as a maintenance worker at a wholesale club for approximately five years. During this time, a telephone service provider that leased a kiosk inside the club reported that inappropriate websites had been accessed from an iPad that was on display at its kiosk. As a result, an investigation was conducted that included the installation of a video surveillance camera near the kiosk. Footage from the camera depicted claimant’s unauthorized use of an iPad at the kiosk during his overnight shift when he should have been working. Consequently, claimant’s employment was terminated. He was initially denied unemployment insurance benefits, but this determination was overturned by an Administrative Law Judge following a hearing. The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, however, reversed and concluded that claimant engaged in disqualifying misconduct. Claimant now appeals.

We affirm. An employee’s failure to comply with the reason*1218able policies of an employer that, in turn, has a detrimental effect on the employer’s interest has been found to constitute disqualifying misconduct *(see Matter of Strang [Memory Gardens, Inc.—Commissioner of Labor],*112 AD3d 1254, 1254 [2013]; *Matter of Coleman [City of New York—Commissioner of Labor],*72 AD3d 1318, 1318 [2010]). Here, evidence was presented that claimant engaged in the unauthorized use of the Internet while on company time in violation of the employer’s policies clearly prohibiting such conduct. Moreover, to the extent that such use involved equipment belonging to a vendor to access inappropriate websites, it was clearly detrimental to the employer’s interest. Notably, claimant admitted to using the iPad, but denied accessing inappropriate material and maintained that someone else must have done so. His testimony, however, presented a credibility issue for the Board to resolve *(see Matter of Manno [Commissioner of Labor],*8 AD3d 869 [2004]). In sum, given that substantial evidence supports the Board’s decision, we find no reason to disturb it *(see Matter of Kemp [Commissioner of Labor],*10 AD3d 793 [2004]; *Matter of Barcene [Commissioner of Labor],*6 AD3d 855 [2004]).

Peters, PJ., Lahtinen, Egan Jr., Lynch and Devine, JJ., concur.

Ordered that the decision is affirmed, without costs.
Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,
Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h

Elizabeth A. Weave r

Maura D. Corriga n Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markma n Diane M. Hathaway,

J ustices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

_______________________________________ __ Clerk May 4, 2010 

# Order

May 4, 2010

139920 & (128)(130)

RICHARD RUDOLPH, DAN GRIFFIN, CHRIS WELLS, and CAROLYN ALLEN, Plaintiffs-Appellants, Cross-Appellees,

v SC: 139920 COA: 279433 Wayne CC: 06-622199-CZ GUARDIAN PROTECTIVE SERVICES, INC., a/k/a GUARDIAN SECURITY SERVICES, INC., and GUARDIAN BOND ED SECURITY, Defendants-Appellees, Cross-Appellants.

________________ _______________ __________/

AMENDMENT TO ORDER

On order of the Court, the order of April 7, 2010 is amended to correct a

clerical error. The statemen t following the text of the order is amended to read:

“K ELLY , C.J. and C AVANAGH , J., would grant leave to appeal.”
I 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2993 

To amend chapters 95 and 96 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to 

terminate taxpayer financing of presidential election campaigns. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JUNE 23, 2009 

Mr. COLE (for himself and Mr. JORDAN of Ohio) introduced the following bill; 

which was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means, and in addition to the Committee on House Administration, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such 

provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned 

A BILL 

To amend chapters 95 and 96 of the Internal Revenue Code 

of 1986 to terminate taxpayer financing of presidential 

election campaigns. 

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

3 SECTION 1. TERMINATION OF TAXPAYER FINANCING OF 

4 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION CAMPAIGNS. 

5 (a) TERMINATION OF DESIGNATION OF INCOME TAX

6 PAYMENTS.—Section 6096 of the Internal Revenue Code 

7 of 1986 is amended by adding at the end the following 

8 new subsection: 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with BILLS
2 

•HR 2993 IH

1 ‘‘(d) TERMINATION.—This section shall not apply to 

2 taxable years beginning after December 31, 2008.’’. 

3 (b) TERMINATION OF FUND AND ACCOUNT.— 

4 (1) TERMINATION OF PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

5 CAMPAIGN FUND.— 

6 (A) IN GENERAL.—Chapter 95 of subtitle 

7 H of such Code is amended by adding at the 

8 end the following new section: 

9 ‘‘SEC. 9014. TERMINATION. 

10 ‘‘The provisions of this chapter shall not apply with 

11 respect to any presidential election (or any presidential 

12 nominating convention) after December 31, 2009, or to 

13 any candidate in such an election.’’. 

14 (B) TRANSFER OF EXCESS FUNDS TO GEN15 ERAL FUND.—Section 9006 of such Code is 

16 amended by adding at the end the following 

17 new subsection: 

18 ‘‘(d) TRANSFER OF FUNDS REMAINING AFTER

19 2009.—The Secretary shall transfer all amounts in the 

20 fund after December 31, 2009, to the general fund of the 

21 Treasury.’’. 

22 (2) TERMINATION OF ACCOUNT.—Chapter 96 

23 of subtitle H of such Code is amended by adding at 

24 the end the following new section: 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with BILLS
3 

•HR 2993 IH

1 ‘‘SEC. 9043. TERMINATION. 

2 ‘‘The provisions of this chapter shall not apply to any 

3 candidate with respect to any presidential election after 

4 December 31, 2009.’’. 

5 (c) CLERICAL AMENDMENTS.— 

6 (1) The table of sections for chapter 95 of sub7 title H of such Code is amended by adding at the 

8 end the following new item: 

‘‘Sec. 9014. Termination.’’. 

9 (2) The table of sections for chapter 96 of sub10 title H of such Code is amended by adding at the 

11 end the following new item: 

‘‘Sec. 9043. Termination.’’. 

Æ 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with BILLS
#### 2110-2118 ACBP, LLC, Respondent, v Lucy Holland-Harden, Appellant, et al., Defendants.

[987 NYS2d 369]

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Eileen A. Rakower, J.), entered May 15, 2013, which, following a traverse hearing, denied defendant-appellant’s motion to dismiss the complaint and vacate the judgment issued against her, and reinstated a previously vacated Judgment of Foreclosure and Sale, dated August 14, 2012, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff satisfied its burden of establishing personal jurisdiction over defendant-appellant (defendant), pursuant to CPLR 308 (2). At the traverse hearing, the process server testified that, after attempting to personally serve defendant and her husband at their apartment building, he delivered the pleadings to the building’s doorman, a “person of suitable age and discretion” (CPLR 308 [2]; *F.I. duPont, Glore Forgan & Co. v Chen,*41 NY2d 794, 797 [1977]). The process server also testified that, consistent with his affidavit of service, he then mailed the pleadings to defendant’s residence. Although the mailings were mistakenly addressed, under the circumstances of this case, the mailing requirement of CPLR 308 (2) was satisfied.

We have considered defendant’s remaining arguments and find them unavailing.

Concur — Friedman, J.E, Acosta, Saxe, Feinman and Gische, JJ.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5                                                        EXHIBIT 27.1
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000             DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000             JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                          79,548                  10,900
<SECURITIES>                                    64,471                   1,011
<RECEIVABLES>                                    3,131                     286
<ALLOWANCES>                                       225                     175
<INVENTORY>                                          0                       0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               147,695                  12,974
<PP&E>                                           9,886                   3,174
<DEPRECIATION>                                   3,210                   1,001
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 156,101                  15,237
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            9,244                   5,900
<BONDS>                                              0                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0                  29,801
<PREFERRED>                                          0                       0
<COMMON>                                            22                       4
<OTHER-SE>                                     145,875                (22,124)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   156,101                  15,237
<SALES>                                            843                     653
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 6,449                   1,276
<CGS>                                               96                      98
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    1,534                     425
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                23,165                  11,330
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   109                      33
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  89                      83
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (14,242)                (10,215)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0                       0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (14,242)                (10,215)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0                       0
<CHANGES>                                            0                       0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (14,242)                (10,215)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.65)                  (3.28)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.65)                  (3.28)


</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JAN-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               APR-30-1999
<CASH>                                          19,125
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  242,786
<ALLOWANCES>                                    10,109
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                          25,494
<DEPRECIATION>                                     404
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 314,248
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           178
<OTHER-SE>                                      37,018
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   314,248
<SALES>                                         18,215
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                26,866
<CGS>                                           10,144
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    1,556
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 7,847
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               5,711
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  1,608
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              1,608
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,608
<EPS-BASIC>                                      .09
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .09


</TABLE>
Order entered April 29, 2015

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-14-00556-CR

JASON ALLEN SKINNER, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 194th Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. F12-00955-M

ORDER

The Court ORDERS the trial court to conduct a hearing to determine why appellant’s 

brief has not been filed. In this regard, the trial court shall make appropriate findings and 

recommendations and determine whether appellant desires to prosecute the appeal, whether 

appellant is indigent, or if not indigent, whether retained counsel has abandoned the appeal. See

TEX. R. APP. P. 38.8(b). If the trial court cannot obtain appellant’s presence at the hearing, the 

trial court shall conduct the hearing in appellant’s absence. See Meza v. State, 742 S.W.2d 708 

(Tex. App.–Corpus Christi 1987, no pet.) (per curiam). If appellant is indigent, the trial court is 

ORDERED to take such measures as may be necessary to assure effective representation, which 

may include appointment of new counsel.
We ORDER the trial court to transmit a record of the proceedings, which shall include 

written findings and recommendations, to this Court within THIRTY DAYS of the date of this 

order.

This appeal is ABATED to allow the trial court to comply with the above order. The 

appeal shall be reinstated thirty days from the date of this order or when the findings are 

received, whichever is earlier.

/s/ LANA MYERS 

JUSTICE