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

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                             105
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                   105
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               3,001,225
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          187,583
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                      1,500
<COMMON>                                        14,241
<OTHER-SE>                                   2,797,931
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 3,001,225
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               189,401
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (189,401)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (189,401)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (189,401)
<EPS-BASIC>                                  $(0.01)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  $(0.01)


</TABLE>
" MlUU'Ill\ (;l\PIT1\L I.:\'vEST:HE.:\'T~ I~T. 

2101 4TH AVENUE, SUITE 1700 

SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98121 

TEL: 206-382-0640 FAX: 206-625-0089 


The Honorable Ray LaHood 

United States Department ofTransportation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE 

Washington, DC 20590 

Dear Secretary LaHood: 

" , ~ OJ! behalfof Maruha Capital Investment, Inc., I am writing to express our strong 

sUpport for the application of Delta Air Lines for new nonstop service between Seattle 

and Haneda, Tokyo International Airport. 

Approval ofDelta's new service would be a major benefit for our region, where 

many corporations have strong trade and market presence with Japan. There are many 

Japanese companies located in Washington, and hundreds more whose business models 

rely on access to Japan and it's market. The growth of our business ties with Japan has 

created demand (or increased capacity to Tokyo. Our business travelers look to the 

convenience of flying into Tokyo's downtown Haneda airport. 

Seattle is proven and successfUf gatc;rway to Asia, and as airports that can support 

trans-pacific routes. The addition ofHaneda as a destination is a natural fit that would 

clearly bene~t,O\lr:travelers. . . .< 

, , ' ','~ " . 

; ; > 1~ •
The HONORABLE WILLIAM R. WILSO N, JR., United States District Court 1 Judge for the Western District of Arkansas. United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 97-3982

___________ Carroll Jackson; Nadine Jackson, * * Appellants, * * v. * Appeal from the United States * District Court for the Jon Sanford, Attorney; Henry * Eastern District of Arkansas. Wilkerson, Judge; William Bullock, * Judge, * [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellees. *

___________ Submitted: March 6, 1998 Filed: March 18, 1998

___________ Before McMILLIAN, LOKEN, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. Carroll Jackson and his wife, Nadine Jackson, appeal the district court & s 1 dismis sal of their complaint which alleged defendants conspired to predetermine th e outcome in tw o previous cases. After careful review of the record and the parties & br iefs we conclude the district court properly dismissed the claims against the judges becau se they are entitled to absolute judicial immunity. See Ashelman v. Pope , 79 3 F.2d 1072, 1075-78 (9th Cir. 1986) (en banc), cited with approval by , Moses v.-2-

Parwatikar , 813 F.2d 891, 893 (8th Cir.), cert. denied , 484 U.S. 832 (1987). We also conclu de the district court properly dismissed the Jacksons & civil rights conspirac y claims because t

hey were barred by the applicable statutes of limitations. See Guy v. Swift & Co. , 612 F.2d 383, 385 (8th Cir. 1 980) (per curiam) (where it appears on face of complaint that statute of limitations has run, action properly dismissed under Fed
. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6))

. Accordingly, we affirm the dismissal with prejudice of the federal claims
. As to the Jacksons & state law claims, we modify the dismissal to be withou t pre judice. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1367(c)(3), 1367(d); Labickas v. Arkansas State Univ. , 78 F.3d 333, 334-35 (8th Cir.) (per curiam), cert. denied , 117 S. Ct. 395 (1996). A true copy. Attest: CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
**Exhibit 12.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION**

 

I, Andrea Pfeifer, certify that:

 

1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 20-F/A of AC ImmuneSA;

 

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untruestatement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstancesunder which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

 

3. [Omitted]

 

4. The company’s other certifying officer(s) and I areresponsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for the companyand have:

 

(a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or causedsuch disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to thecompany, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during theperiod in which this report is being prepared;

 

(b) Designed such internal control over financial reporting,or caused such internal control over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to provide reasonable assuranceregarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordancewith generally accepted accounting principles;

 

(c) Evaluated the effectiveness of the company’s disclosurecontrols 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

 

(d) Disclosed in this report any change in the company’sinternal control over financial reporting that occurred during the period covered by the annual report that has materially affected,or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the company’s internal control over financial reporting; and

 

5. The company’s other certifying officer(s) and I havedisclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the company’s auditors andthe audit committee of the company’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

 

(a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses inthe design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the company’sability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and

 

(b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves managementor other employees who have a significant role in the company’s internal control over financial reporting.

 

Date: April 19, 2019
§ 1.475(b)-2 Exemptions—identification requirements. ( a ) *Identification of the basis for exemption.* An identification of a security as exempt from mark to market does not satisfy section 475(b)(2) if it fails to state whether the security is described in— ( 1 ) Either of the first two subparagraphs of section 475(b)(1) (identifying a security as held for investment or not held for sale); or
( 2 ) The third subparagraph thereof (identifying a security as a hedge).
( b ) *Time for identifying a security with a substituted basis.* For purposes of determining the timeliness of an identification under section 475(b)(2), the date that a dealer acquires a security is not affected by whether the dealer's basis in the security is determined, in whole or in part, either by reference to the basis of the security in the hands of the person from whom the security was acquired or by reference to other property held at any time by the dealer. See § 1.475(a)-3 for rules governing how the dealer accounts for such a security if this identification is not made.
( c ) *Integrated transactions under § 1.1275-6* — ( 1 ) *Definitions.* The following terms are used in this paragraph (c) with the meanings that are given to them by § 1.1275-6: integrated transaction, legging into, legging out, qualifying debt instrument, § 1.1275-6 hedge, and synthetic debt instrument.
( 2 ) *Synthetic debt held by a taxpayer as a result of legging in.* If a taxpayer is treated as the holder of a synthetic debt instrument as the result of legging into an integrated transaction, then, for purposes of the timeliness of an identification under section 475(b)(2), the synthetic debt instrument is treated as having the same acquisition date as the qualifying debt instrument. A pre-leg-in identification of the qualifying debt instrument under section 475(b)(2) applies to the integrated transaction as well.
( 3 ) *Securities held after legging out.* If a taxpayer legs out of an integrated transaction, then, for purposes of the timeliness of an identification under section 475(b)(2), the qualifying debt instrument, or the § 1.1275-6 hedge, that remains in the taxpayer's hands is generally treated as having been acquired, originated, or entered into, as the case may be, immediately after the leg-out. If any loss or deduction determined under § 1.1275-6(d)(2)(ii)(B) is disallowed by § 1.1275-6(d)(2)(ii)(D) (which disallows deductions when a taxpayer legs out of an integrated transaction within 30 days of legging in), then, for purposes of this section and section 475(b)(2), the qualifying debt instrument that remains in the taxpayer's hands is treated as having been acquired on the same date that the synthetic debt instrument was treated as having been acquired.
[T.D. 8700, 61 FR 67722, Dec. 24, 1996]
Order entered October 31, 2022

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-22-00429-CR

KAILLE WRIGHT, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 291st Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. F18-30193-U

ORDER

Before the Court is the October 27, 2022 request of court reporter Sasha S. 

Brooks for a second extension of time to file the reporter’s record. We GRANT 

the request and ORDER the reporter’s record filed by November 28, 2022. We 

caution Ms. Brooks that further extensions are disfavored.

/s/ ROBERT D. BURNS, III

CHIEF JUSTICE
# C_2015205EN.01004202.xml

| 22.6.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 205/42 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.6.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 205/42

---

Order of the General Court of 23 April 2015 — Marzocchi Pompe v OHIM — Settima Meccanica (ELIKA)

(Case T-182/14) (1)

1

(2015/C 205/57)

Language of the case: Italian

The President of the Second Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 159, 26.5.2014.

1

---
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential. 

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

JUNIPER NETWORKS, INC.,

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

v. 

SSL SERVICES, LLC, 

Defendant-Appellee. 

____________________ 

2010-1107 

______________________

 

 Appeal from the United States District Court for the 

Northern District of California Georgia in No. 08-CV5758, Judge Saundra Brown Armstrong. 

______________________ 

JUDGMENT 

______________________ 

JONATHAN S. KAGAN, Irell & Manella LLP, of Los 

Angeles, California, argued for plaintiff-appellant. With 

him on the brief were MORGAN CHU and DAVID C. MCPHIE. 

PAUL K. VICKREY, Niro, Haller & Niro, of Chicago, 

Illinois, argued for defendant-appellee. With him on the 

brief were DINA M. HAYES and FREDERICK C. LANEY. 

______________________ 
THIS CAUSE having been heard and considered, it is 

ORDERED and ADJUDGED: 

 PER CURIAM (LINN, PLAGER, and PROST, Circuit 

Judges). 

AFFIRMED. See Fed. Cir. R. 36. 

 ENTERED BY ORDER OF THE COURT

December 13, 2010 /s/ Jan Horbaly

 Date Jan Horbaly 

 Clerk
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Res. 196 Reported in Senate (RS)]

                                                       Calendar No. 463
103d CONGRESS
  2d Session
S. RES. 196

   To authorize the printing of additional copies of a Senate report 
               entitled ``Developments in Aging: 1993''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

             March 25 (legislative day, February 22), 1994

Mr. Pryor submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the 
                 Committee on Rules and Administration

                June 15 (legislative day, June 7), 1994

                Reported by Mr. Ford, without amendment

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
   To authorize the printing of additional copies of a Senate report 
               entitled ``Developments in Aging: 1993''.

    Resolved, That there shall be printed for the use of the Special 
Committee on Aging, in addition to the usual number of copies, the 
maximum number of copies of volumes 1 and 2 of the annual report of the 
committee to the Senate, entitled ``Developments in Aging: 1993'', 
which additional copies may be printed at a cost not to exceed $1,200.

                                                       Calendar No. 463

103d CONGRESS

  2d Session

                              S. RES. 196

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

   To authorize the printing of additional copies of a Senate report 
               entitled ``Developments in Aging: 1993''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                June 15 (legislative day, June 7), 1994

                       Reported without amendment
```
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Res. 242 Agreed to Senate (ATS)]

103d CONGRESS
  2d Session
S. RES. 242

Honoring the 14 Federal firefighters who died while fighting a wildfire 
                    near Glenwood Springs, Colorado.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                July 13 (legislative day, July 11), 1994

  Mr. Campbell (for himself, Mr. Baucus, Mr. Johnston, Mr. Reid, Mr. 
   Bryan, Mr. Bingaman, Mr. DeConcini, Mr. Burns, Mr. Packwood, Ms. 
Mikulski, Mr. Bumpers, Mr. Daschle, Mr. Craig, Mr. Mathews, Mr. Brown, 
Mr. Dorgan, Mr. Biden, Mr. Hatfield, Mr. Kempthorne, Mr. Dole, and Mr. 
Stevens) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the 
                       Committee on the Judiciary

                             July 20, 1994

             Committee discharged; considered and agreed to

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
Honoring the 14 Federal firefighters who died while fighting a wildfire 
                    near Glenwood Springs, Colorado.

Whereas on July 6, 1994, 14 Federal firefighters from the United States Forest 
        Service and the Bureau of Land Management perished while heroically 
        fighting a raging wildfire on Storm King Mountain near Glenwood Springs, 
        Colorado;
Whereas the firefighters died when they were overswept by a wildfire whipped by 
        high and erratic winds;
Whereas the 14 firefighters who gave their lives were Kathi J. Beck, hot shot 
        crewmember, Prineville, Oregon, Tamara J. Bickett, hot shot crewmember, 
        Prineville, Oregon, Scott A. Blecha, hot shot crewmember, Prineville, 
        Oregon, Levi Brinkley, hot shot crewmember, Prineville, Oregon, Robert 
        Browning, helitack, Grand Junction, Colorado, Douglas Dunbar, hot shot 
        crewmember, Prineville, Oregon, Terri A. Hagen, hot shot crewmember, 
        Prineville, Oregon, Bonnie J. Holtby, hot shot crewmember, Prineville, 
        Oregon, Robert A. Johnson, hot shot crewmember, Prineville, Oregon, Jon 
        R. Kelso, hot shot squad leader, Prineville, Oregon, Donald Mackey, 
        smokejumper, Missoula, Montana, Roger Roth, smokejumper, McCall, Idaho, 
        James Thrash, smokejumper, McCall, Idaho, and Richard Tyler, helitack, 
        Grand Junction, Colorado; and
Whereas these brave men and women gave their lives in an attempt to protect 
        American lives, property, and natural resources: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved, That the Senate honors, and will always remember, the 14 
Federal firefighters who died on July 6, 1994, for their heroic efforts 
in trying to contain a fire on Storm King Mountain near Glenwood 
Springs, Colorado, in order to protect American lives, property, and 
natural resources.
                                 <all>
```
<page> EXHIBIT 32.02



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 Dean Witter Principal
Plus Fund L.P. (the ?Partnership?) on Form 10-Q for the period
ended March 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the ?Report?), I, Kevin Perry,
Chief Financial Officer, Demeter Management Corporation, the
general partner of the Partnership, certify, 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 my 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 operations of the Partnership.









By:  	/s/Kevin Perry

Name:		  Kevin Perry
Title:	  Chief Financial Officer

Date:		  May 15, 2006
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                                          <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                      6-MOS
<PERIOD-START>                               JAN-01-1997
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                            DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                 JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                            22,200
<SECURITIES>                                           0
<RECEIVABLES>                                     30,500
<ALLOWANCES>                                           0
<INVENTORY>                                       60,400
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 132,800
<PP&E>                                         1,117,000
<DEPRECIATION>                                   359,100
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   920,100
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            221,000
<BONDS>                                          383,400
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                  0
<PREFERRED>                                        1,800
<COMMON>                                           1,100
<OTHER-SE>                                       296,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     920,100
<SALES>                                          111,700
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 111,700
<CGS>                                             68,400
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    111,100
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   1,200
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                14,600<F1>
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 (15,200)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         100
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             (15,300)
<DISCONTINUED>                                         0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                        0
<CHANGES>                                          4,500
<NET-INCOME>                                    (10,800)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      (.14)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      (.14)
<FN>
<F1>Net of interest income of $0.9 million and capitalized interest of $4.2
million.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>