alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Three Months Ended
    
    
    Nine Months EndedSeptember 30,
    
    
    September 30,2008
    
    
    2007
    
    
    2008
    
    
    2007Basic Earnings Per ShareNet income
    
    $
    890,564
    
    
    $
    863,090
    
    
    $
    2,770,086
    
    
    $
    2,634,068Weighted average
common shares
    
    
    2,422,014
    
    
    
    2,462,885
    
    
    
    2,433,094
    
    
    
    2,470,875Basic Earnings
Per Share
    
    $
    0.37
    
    
    $
    0.35
    
    
    $
    1.14
    
    
    $
    1.07Diluted Earnings Per ShareNet income
    
    $
    890,564
    
    
    $
    863,090
    
    
    $
    2,770,086
    
    
    $
    2,634,068Weighted average
common shares
    
    
    2,422,014
    
    
    
    2,462,885
    
    
    
    2,433,094
    
    
    
    2,470,875Weighted average effect of
assumed stock options
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    Total
    
    
    2,422,014
    
    
    
    2,462,885
    
    
    
    2,433,094
    
    
    
    2,475,000Diluted Earnings
Per Share
    
    $
    0.37
    
    
    $
    0.35
    
    
    $
    1.14
    
    
    $
    1.07
 23.
# C_2019328EN.01004901.xml

| 30.9.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 328/49 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.9.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 328/49

---

Judgment of the General Court of 11 July 2019 — Pshonka v Council

(Case T-289/18) (1)

(Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures adopted with regard to the situation in Ukraine - Freezing of funds - List of persons, entities and bodies subject to the freezing of funds and economic resources - Maintenance of the applicant’s name on the list - Obligation on the Council to check that the decision of an authority of a third State was taken in observance of the rights of the defence and of the right to effective judicial protection)

(2019/C 328/54)

Language of the case: Czech

Parties

Applicant: Artem Viktorovych Pshonka (Kramatorsk, Ukraine) (represented by: M. Mleziva, lawyer)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: V. Piessevaux and R. Pekař, Agents)

Re:

Application based on Article 263 TFEU and seeking annulment of Council Decision (CFSP) 2018/333 of 5 March 2018 amending Decision 2014/119/CFSP concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine (OJ 2018 L 63, p. 48), and of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/326 of 5 March 2018 implementing Regulation (EU) No 208/2014 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine (OJ 2018 L 63, p. 5), in so far as the applicant’s name was maintained on the list of persons, entities and bodies subject to those restrictive measures.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls Council Decision (CFSP) 2018/333 of 5 March 2018 amending Decision 2014/119/CFSP concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/326 of 5 March 2018 implementing Regulation (EU) No 208/2014 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine in so far Artem Viktorovych Pshonka’s name was maintained on the list of person, entities and bodies subject to those restrictive measures; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls Council Decision (CFSP) 2018/333 of 5 March 2018 amending Decision 2014/119/CFSP concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/326 of 5 March 2018 implementing Regulation (EU) No 208/2014 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine in so far Artem Viktorovych Pshonka’s name was maintained on the list of person, entities and bodies subject to those restrictive measures;

| 2. | Orders the Council of the European Union to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the Council of the European Union to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 249, 16.7.2018.

---
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 04-40119 Conference Calendar

NATHANIEL KEITH SINGLETON, Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus NFN SANDERS, Commissary Manager, Defendant-Appellee.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. G-02-CV-839

-------------------- Before BARKSDALE, DeMOSS, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Nathaniel Keith Singleton, Texas prisoner # 716045, has filed a motion captioned "Motion to reply with brief in support" following the district court's order dismissing as frivolous Singleton's 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil rights action. Singleton's motion is construed as a motion for leave to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis ("IFP"). By moving for IFP, Singleton is challenging the district court's certification that IFP status should not be granted because the appeal is not taken in good United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

## F I L E D June 22, 2004 Charles R. Fulbruge III ClerkNo. 04-40119 -2- faith. See Baugh v. Taylor , 117 F.3d 197, 202 (5th Cir. 1997). Singleton's IFP "motion must be directed solely to the trial court's reasons for the certification decision." Id. Singleton asserts only that the district court was wrong for denying him IFP. Although this court liberally construes pro se briefs, see Haines v. Kerner , 404 U.S. 519, 520-21 (1972), the court requires arguments to be briefed in order to be preserved. Yohey v. Collins , 985 F.2d 222, 225 (5th Cir. 1993). Because Singleton does not provide any analysis of the reasons for the district court's certification decision, he has abandoned the issue on appeal. See id. Singleton has not shown that the district court erred in certifying that an appeal would not be taken in good faith. Accordingly, we uphold the district court's order certifying that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issues. Singleton's request for IFP status is DENIED, and his appeal is DISMISSED as frivolous. See Baugh , 117 F.3d at 202 n.24; 5 TH C IR . R. 42.2. Singleton is cautioned that the district court's dismissal of his complaint as frivolous and this court's dismissal of his appeal count as two strikes under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). See Adepegba v. Hammons , 103 F.3d 383, 385-87 (5th Cir. 1996). If Singleton accrues three strikes, he will not be able to proceed IFP in any civil action or appeal filed while he is incarcerated or detained in any facility unless he is under imminent danger of serious physical injury. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).No. 04-40119 -3-
IFP MOTION DENIED; APPEAL DISMISSED; SANCTIONS WARNING
ISSUED.
Opinion filed September 27 , 201 8



### In The 

# Eleventh Court of Appeals

_____ _

_____


### No. 11

- 1 8

- 00 212

- CR

____ _ ______


### GERALD DON GATEWOOD , Appellant

V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 106 th District Court
Gaines County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. 06

- 3674

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N
Appellant, Gerald Don Gatewood, has filed a pro se notice of appeal in this

cause

. We dismiss the appeal

. In 2007, Appellant was convicted of felony driving while intoxicated and
sentenced to confinement for a term of fifty years

. Appellant has recently filed a
notice of appeal that relate s to an application for writ of habeas corpus and a motion2 to set aside the indictment and vacate the judgment. 1 See T EX

. C ODE C RIM

. P ROC

. A NN

. art. 11.07 (West 201 5 ). We notified Appellant by letter that it did not appear
to this court that we had jurisdiction over this appeal. We requested that Appellant
respond and show grounds to continue the appeal. Appellant has filed a response
but has not shown grounds upon which this appeal may be continued.

T he substance of the relief sought by Appellant in this appeal is postconviction

relief from a final felony conviction

— relief for which t he habeas corpus procedure
set out in Article 11.07 of the Code of Criminal Procedure provides the exclusive
remedy

. See id. Article 11.07 vests complete jurisdiction for such relief in the Texas
Court of Criminal Appeals. I d. art. 11.07, §§ 3, 5; Bd. of Pardons & Paroles ex rel.
Keene v. Court of Appeals for Eighth Dist. , 910 S.W.2d 481, 484 (Tex. Crim. App.
1995); Hoang v. State , 872 S.W.2d 694, 697 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993) ; Ater v. Eighth
Court of Appeals , 802 S.W.2d 241, 243 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991)

. We have no
jurisdiction to en tertain t his appeal.
Accordingly, w e dismiss th is appeal for want of jurisdiction

.

PER CURIAM

September 27 , 2018
Do not publish. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 47.2(b).

Panel consists of: Bailey, C.J., Willson , J., and Wright, S.C.J. 2

Willson, J., not participating.

1 We note that the Court of Criminal Appeals dismissed Appellant’s application for writ of habeas corpus, without a written order , on September 5, 2018

.

2 Jim R. Wright, Senior Chief Justice (Retired), Court of Appeals, 11th District of Texas at Eastland, sitting by assignment.
[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 238 (Wednesday, December 13, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Page 86332]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-27428]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION


Sunshine Act Meetings

TIME AND DATE: 4:01 p.m. on Friday, December 8, 2023.

PLACE: The meeting was held via video conference on the internet.

STATUS: Closed.

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: The Special Review Committee of the Federal 
Deposit Insurance Corporation met to consider matters related to the 
Corporation's corporate activities within its authority to act on 
behalf of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. In calling the 
meeting, the Special Review Committee determined, by the unanimous vote 
of Director Jonathan P. McKernan and Director Michael J. Hsu (Acting 
Comptroller of the Currency), that Corporation business required its 
consideration of the matters which were to be the subject of this 
meeting on less than seven days' notice to the public; that no earlier 
notice of the meeting was practicable; that the public interest did not 
require consideration of the matters in a meeting open to public 
observation; and that the matters could be considered in a closed 
meeting by authority of subsections (c)(2) and (c)(4) of the 
``Government in the Sunshine Act'' (5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(2) and (c)(4)).

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: Requests for further information 
concerning the meeting may be directed to Debra A. Decker, Executive 
Secretary of the Corporation, at 202-898-8748.

    Dated: December 8, 2023.

Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation.
James P. Sheesley,
Assistant Executive Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2023-27428 Filed 12-11-23; 11:15 am]
BILLING CODE 6714-01-P
# C_2018427EN.01003001.xml

| 26.11.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 427/30 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.11.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 427/30

---

Appeal brought on 24 September 2018 by NKT Verwaltungs GmbH, formerly nkt cables GmbH, NKT A/S, formerly NKT Holding A/S against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 12 July 2018 in Case T-447/14: NKT Verwaltungs and NKT v Commission

(Case C-607/18 P)

(2018/C 427/38)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellants: NKT Verwaltungs GmbH, formerly nkt cables GmbH, NKT A/S, formerly NKT Holding A/S (represented by: B. Creve, advocaat, M. Kofmann, advokat)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Form of order sought

The appellants claim that the Court should:

| — | set aside the judgment under appeal in whole or in part; |
| --- | --- |

—

set aside the judgment under appeal in whole or in part;

| — | annul the decision at issue (1) in whole or in part; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision at issue (1) in whole or in part;

| — | in the alternative, refer the case back to the General Court for determination in accordance with the judgment of the Court of Justice; |
| --- | --- |

—

in the alternative, refer the case back to the General Court for determination in accordance with the judgment of the Court of Justice;

| — | order a measure of organisation; and |
| --- | --- |

—

order a measure of organisation; and

| — | order the Commission to pay the costs of both the appeal proceedings and the proceedings before the General Court. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission to pay the costs of both the appeal proceedings and the proceedings before the General Court.

Pleas in law and main arguments

First plea: The General Court erroneously determined the territorial scope of the infringement.

Second plea: The General Court committed errors in law when assessing the scope of the SCI (2) and the scope of NKT’s participation in and awareness of the SCI.

Third plea: The General Court committed errors in law when holding that the appellants’ rights of defence had not been infringed.

Fourth plea: The General Court committed errors in law when rejecting the appellants’ plea for an annulment or reduction of the fine.

---

(1)  Commission Decision C(2014) 2139 final of 2 April 2014 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement.

(2)  Single and continuous infringement.

---
-80 -78 -76 -74

 36

 38

 40

★

▲

▲

▲ ▲

★

▲

▲

▲

▲

 500

 1000

 1500

 500

18 12 06 00

05/29

NOAA HYSPLIT MODEL

 Backward trajectory ending at 2300 UTC 29 May 06

 EDAS Meteorological Data

Source

★ at 38.86 N 77.06 W Meters AGL
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except

under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

October 5, 2006

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-40558

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

JOSE ANGEL ESQUIVEL-CANTERA,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas 

USDC No. 7:05-CR-1005-ALL

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

Before JONES, Chief Judge, and SMITH and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Appealing the Judgment in a Criminal Case, Jose Angel

Esquivel-Cantera raises arguments that are foreclosed by United

States v. Valdez-Maltos, 443 F.3d 910, 911 (5th Cir.), cert.

denied, 2006 U.S. LEXIS 6189 (U.S. Oct. 2, 2006)(No. 06-5473),

and United States v. Garcia-Mendez, 420 F.3d 454 (5th Cir. 2005),

cert. denied, 126 S. Ct. 1398 (2006), which held that a Texas

conviction for burglary of a habitation was equivalent to

burglary of a dwelling, and by Almendarez-Torres v. United

States, 523 U.S. 224, 235 (1998), which held that 8 U.S.C.
No. 06-40558

-2-

§ 1326(b)(2) is a penalty provision and not a separate criminal

offense. The Government’s motion for summary affirmance is

GRANTED, and the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
# C_2021072EN.01001802.xml

| 1.3.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 72/18 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.3.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 72/18

---

Judgment of the General Court of 13 January 2021 — Helbert v EUIPO

(Case T-548/18) (1)

(Civil service - Recruitment - Notice of competition - Open Competition EUIPO/AD/01/17 - Decision not to place the applicant’s name on the reserve list for the competition - Composition of the selection board - Stability - Liability)

(2021/C 72/27)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Lars Helbert (Alicante, Spain) (represented by: H. Tettenborn, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: A. Lukošiūtė and K. Tóth, acting as Agents, assisted by B. Wägenbaur, lawyer)

Re:

Action pursuant to Article 270 TFEU seeking, on the one hand, annulment, first, of the decision of 1 December 2017 of the selection board for Competition EUIPO/AD/01/17 — Administrators (AD 6) in the field of intellectual property not to place the applicant’s name on the reserve list drawn up with a view to the recruitment of administrators by EUIPO and, second, of the decision of that selection board of 7 March 2018 rejecting the applicant’s request for review in its final form following EUIPO’s decision of 8 June 2018 rejecting his complaint, and, on the other hand, compensation for the damage that the applicant claims to have suffered as a result.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls the decision of 7 March 2018, by which the selection board for Open Competition EUIPO/AD/01/17 refused, after review, to place Mr Lars Helbert on the reserve list for the recruitment of grade AD 6 administrators in the field of intellectual property; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decision of 7 March 2018, by which the selection board for Open Competition EUIPO/AD/01/17 refused, after review, to place Mr Lars Helbert on the reserve list for the recruitment of grade AD 6 administrators in the field of intellectual property;

| 2. | Dismisses the action as to the remainder; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

| 3. | Orders the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 427, 26.11.2018.

---
```

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 7 Engrossed in House (EH)]

H. Res. 7

                In the House of Representatives, U. S.,

                                                       January 6, 2015.
    Resolved, That the following named Members be, and are hereby, elected to 
the following standing committees of the House of Representatives:
    Committee on Agriculture: Mr. Peterson.
    Committee on Appropriations: Mrs. Lowey (when sworn); Ms. Kaptur; Mr. 
Visclosky; Mr. Serrano; Ms. DeLauro; Mr. Price of North Carolina; Ms. Roybal-
Allard; Mr. Farr; Mr. Fattah; Mr. Bishop of Georgia; Ms. Lee of California; Mr. 
Schiff; Mr. Honda; Ms. McCollum; Mr. Israel; Mr. Ryan of Ohio; Mr. 
Ruppersberger; Ms. Wasserman Schultz; Mr. Cuellar; Ms. Pingree of Maine; and Mr. 
Quigley.
    Committee on Armed Services: Mr. Smith of Washington.
    Committee on the Budget: Mr. Van Hollen.
    Committee on Education and the Workforce: Mr. Scott of Virginia.
    Committee on Energy and Commerce: Mr. Pallone; Mr. Rush; Ms. Eshoo; Mr. 
Engel; Mr. Gene Green of Texas; Ms. DeGette; Mrs. Capps; Mr. Doyle; Ms. 
Schakowsky; Mr. Butterfield; Ms. Matsui; Ms. Castor of Florida; Mr. Sarbanes; 
Mr. McNerney; Mr. Welch; Mr. Ben Ray Lujaan of New Mexico; Mr. Tonko (when 
sworn); Mr. Yarmuth; Ms. Clarke of New York; Mr. Loebsack; Mr. Schrader; Mr. 
Kennedy; and Mr. Caardenas.
    Committee on Financial Services: Ms. Waters (when sworn); Mrs. Carolyn B. 
Maloney of New York (when sworn); Ms. Velaazquez (when sworn); Mr. Sherman; Mr. 
Meeks (when sworn); Mr. Capuano; Mr. Hinojosa; Mr. Clay; Mr. Lynch; Mr. David 
Scott of Georgia; Mr. Al Green of Texas; Mr. Cleaver; Ms. Moore; Mr. Ellison; 
Mr. Perlmutter; Mr. Himes; Mr. Carney; Ms. Sewell of Alabama; Mr. Foster; Mr. 
Kildee; Mr. Murphy of Florida; Mr. Delaney; Ms. Sinema; Mrs. Beatty; Mr. Heck of 
Washington; and Mr. Vargas.
    Committee on Foreign Affairs: Mr. Engel (when sworn).
    Committee on Homeland Security: Mr. Thompson of Mississippi.
    Committee on House Administration: Mr. Brady of Pennsylvania.
    Committee on the Judiciary: Mr. Conyers.
    Committee on Natural Resources: Mr. Grijalva.
    Committee on Oversight and Government Reform: Mr. Cummings.
    Committee on Rules: Ms. Slaughter; Mr. McGovern; Mr. Hastings of Florida; 
and Mr. Polis.
    Committee on Science, Space, and Technology: Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson of 
Texas.
    Committee on Small Business: Ms. Velaazquez (when sworn).
    Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure: Mr. DeFazio.
    Committee on Veterans' Affairs: Ms. Brown of Florida.
    Committee on Ways and Means: Mr. Levin; Mr. Rangel (when sworn); Mr. 
McDermott; Mr. Lewis; Mr. Neal; Mr. Becerra; Mr. Doggett; Mr. Thompson of 
California; Mr. Larson of Connecticut; Mr. Blumenauer; Mr. Kind; Mr. Pascrell; 
Mr. Crowley (when sworn); Mr. Danny K. Davis of Illinois; and Ms. Linda T. 
Saanchez of California.
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```
Exhibit 32.1


            CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER 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 Edd Helms Group, Inc.(the "Company"), on
Form 10-KSB for the year ending May 31, 2004, as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereon (the "Report"), I, , W. Edd Helms, Chief
Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350 as
adopted pursuant to ss. 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 result of operations of the
Company.



Date:   March 25, 2005

/s/_W. Edd Helms__________
W. Edd Helms
Chief Financial Officer
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                     151,246,159
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                               29,716,528
<ALLOWANCES>                               (1,369,147)
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                           187,835,271
<PP&E>                                       6,986,214
<DEPRECIATION>                             (1,218,576)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             249,563,919
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       19,853,419
<BONDS>                                    115,000,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                     73,000
<COMMON>                                       883,273
<OTHER-SE>                                 111,964,740
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               249,563,919
<SALES>                                     63,812,349
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            63,812,349
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               40,735,799
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            11,152,284
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               703,133
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           3,666,710
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             12,748,902
<INCOME-TAX>                                 5,226,777
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          7,515,725
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 7,515,725
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.43
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.42
        

</TABLE>