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

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF ESI AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO
SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                      27,198,404
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            27,361,371
<PP&E>                                       2,079,967
<DEPRECIATION>                               (861,139)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              28,703,201
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,121,160
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        88,148
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                28,703,201
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             2,447,446
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              22,280
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (2,082,568)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (2,082,568)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.24)
        

</TABLE>
#### Harold G. Hilderbrand, Judgment Creditor, *v.*Anthony Von Stetina et al., Judgment Debtors.

County Court, Schenectady County,

March 28, 1958.

*Maurice E. La Fleche*for judgment creditor.

*Philip M. Stark*for Alfred Stark, third party.

*Jacob M. Frankel*and *Vito F. Longo*for judgment debtors.

Archibald C. Wemple, J.

It appears from the testimony elicited at the hearing held on February 3, 1958 that Alfred Stark, the third party, and Anthony Von Stetina and Mary Von Stetina, the judgment debtors, entered into an “ employment contract ” dated September 9, 1957 in and by which the Von Stetinas sold their fuel and kerosene oil business to the third party. Under the agreement, the third party employed the second parties (judgment debtors herein) to maintain and operate under the control and supervision of the third party *488the business “ formerly owned ” by the debtors. All deliveries of fuel oil were to be made by the debtors upon merchandise purchased on the credit of the third party and in vehicles owned by the third party, but lettered under the name of *“ yon*stetina”, the debtors. The customers were to be considered customers of the third party. The debtors were to receive a certain percentage of all sales for delivering to, serving and maintaining records pertaining to the business done under the contract. In addition, 10% of such income was to be paid to one Nicholas J. Grasso for the benefit of creditors of the debtors. The agreement was to be perpetual, subject to certain rights of cancellation. There were restraint clauses in the agreement imposing restrictions upon the debtors as to their business activities. The debtors also retained, under the contract, a limited right to repurchase the business under certain circumstances.

It appears that the contract in question in reality provided for the continuation of the business of the debtors under a sort of “protectorate ” of the third party.

The essence of this agreement provided that the net benefits from the operation of the business, while it continued under the protectorate plan, would inure to the benefit of the debtors. It is to be assumed, then, that the business was operated essentially on an independent contractor basis rather than an employment basis. Under the circumstances, it would furthermore appear that moneys due the judgment debtors in the hands of the creditor were reachable in this proceeding.

Motion of judgment creditor for application of part or all of the said funds on deposit toward the satisfaction of the judgment above named is hereby granted. Allowance is to be made for reasonable support of the family as hereinbefore provided.

Submit order.
UNITED STATES CO URT OF APPEALS

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

CHARLES LEONHARDT HAUPT,

Defendant - Appellant. No. 17-3056 (D.C. No. 2:15-CR-20019-JAR-1) (D. Kan.)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT *

Before MORITZ

, EBEL , and O’BRIEN , Circuit Judges.

The government has filed a motion to dism iss this appeal pursuant to an appeal

waiver included in defendant-appellant Char les Haupt’s plea agreement. Mr. Haupt,

through counsel, “agrees that his appeal waiver is enforceable under . . . United

States v. Hahn , 359 F.3d 1315 (10th Cir. 2004) (en banc)” and “does not oppose the

dismissal of this appeal.” Resp. to Mot. for En forcement of Appeal Waiver at 1.

* This panel has determined that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The
case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctr ines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It ma y be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32. 1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1. FILED United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit



### May 26, 2017

Elisabeth A. Shumaker
Clerk of Court- 2 - Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.

Entered for the Court
Per Curiam
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-40813

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

IGNACIO ESTEBAN CONTRERAS-MEZA, also known as Tito ContrerasMeza, also known as Tito Romero, also known as Ignacio Tito Contreras-Meza,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 5:12-CR-110-1

Before DAVIS, SOUTHWICK and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

*

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Ignacio Esteban

Contreras-Meza has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in

accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States

v. Flores, 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Contreras-Meza has filed a response.

We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

July 24, 2013

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

* 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.

 Case: 12-40813 Document: 00512319590 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/24/2013
No. 12-40813

reflected therein, as well as Contreras-Meza’s response. We concur with

counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for

appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is

GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the

APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.

2

 Case: 12-40813 Document: 00512319590 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/24/2013
Case 3:22-cr-00232-S Document 53 Filed 10/20/22 Page 1 of 1 PageID 126
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH DIVISION

ROBERT “BOB” ROSS AND 

EUGENIO VARGAS,

Plaintiffs/Counterclaim Defendants,

v.

ASSOCIATION OF PROFESSIONAL 

FLIGHT ATTENDANTS, MCGAUGHEY, 

REBER AND ASSOCIATES, INC., 

JULIE HEDRICK, and ERIK HARRIS,

Defendants/Counterclaim Plaintiffs.

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

No. 4:22-CV-343-Y

Consolidated with

No. 4:22-CV-430-Y

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

AND DISMISSING DEFENDANTS’ COUNTERCLAIMS WITH PREJUDICE

Before the Court is Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment on all Claims and 

Counterclaims (“Motion”) [Doc. 234]. Having considered the Motion, and all briefing on and in 

response to the Motion, the Court is of the opinion that the Motion should be, and hereby is,

DENIED. 

Furthermore, the Court DISMISSES WITH PREJUDICE both of Defendant Association 

of Professional Flight Attendants’ two counterclaims based on 29 U.S.C. § 501, one asserted 

against each of the Plaintiffs, Robert “Bob” Ross and Eugenio Vargas, for failure to state a claim 

upon which relief may be granted.

SO ORDERED.

SIGNED this _____ day of _____________, 2024.

THE HONORABLE TERRY R. MEANS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 4:22-cv-00343-Y Document 258-1 Filed 11/12/24 Page 1 of 1 PageID 8600
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v George Overton, Appellant.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (O’Dwyer, J.), rendered March 7, 1988, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, criminal possession of a controlled substance in the seventh degree and criminally possessing a hypodermic instrument, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant’s contention that the People failed to disprove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was acting as an agent of the undercover officer in the narcotics transaction is not preserved for appellate review *(see, People v Bynum,*70 NY2d 858). In any event, it is clear from the *576evidence that the defendant was not acting as the agent or mere extension of the buyer *(see, People v Lam Lek Chong,*45 NY2d 64, 73, *cert denied*439 US 935). Rather, the defendant was acting out of an independent desire to promote the transaction, "furthering his own interests by serving both buyer and seller” *(People v Scott,*134 AD2d 379, 380). Although the undercover officer initiated contact with the defendant, and asked, "who was working”, the jury could reasonably conclude from the defendant’s response, "what are you looking for?”, that he was a "streetwise peddler” ready to enter into a drug sale *(see, People v Scott, supra,*at 380). Additionally, the defendant’s intent to profit was evidenced by his statement "I could get it for you but it will cost you five”. That the defendant was able to complete the drug transaction within several minutes indicated that he was familiar with the methods used and was, at the very least, a middleman if not an independent seller *(see, People v Argibay,*45 NY2d 45, 53-54, *cert denied sub nom. Hahn-DiGuiseppe v New York,*439 US 930). In addition, we are satisfied that the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence (CPL 470.15 [5]). Thompson, J. P., Lawrence, Kunzeman and Rosenblatt, JJ., concur.
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.                  

###### Department of Health and Human Services

###### National Institutes of Health

Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.

The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy. 

*Name of Committee:*                        National Institute of General Medical Sciences Special Emphasis Panel.                    

*Date:*                        November 17, 2000.                    

*Time:*                        9 am to 1 pm.                    

*Agenda:*                        To review and evaluate grant applications.                    

*Place:*                        Holiday Inn Bethesda, 8120 Wisconsin Ave, Bethesda, MD 20814.                    

*Contact Person:*                        Rebecca H. Hackett, PhD, Office of Scientific Review, National Institute of General Medical Sciences, National Institutes of Health, Natcher Building, Room 1AS19J, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 594-2771, hackettr@nigms.nih.gov.                    

This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and funding cycle. 

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.375, Minority Biomedical Research Support; 93.821, Cell Biology and Biophysics Research; 93.859, Pharmacology, Physiology, and Biological Chemistry Research; 92.862, Genetics and Developmental Biology Research; 93.88, Minority Access to Research Careers; 93.96, Special Minority Initiatives, National Institutes of Health, HHS) 

Dated: November 7, 2000.

LaVerne Y. Stringfield,

Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. 00-29436  Filed 11-16-00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-M
{"agency":"Treasury","generated":"2014-09-03 10:36:38","items":[{"id":"1","parent":null,"text":"Reporting Quarter","due":null,"due_date":"2012\/10\/15","fields":[{"type":"select","name":"2-1-year","label":"Reporting Year","options":[{"label":"2011","value":"2011"},{"label":"2012","value":"2012"},{"label":"2013","value":"2013"},{"label":"2014","value":"2014"}],"value":"2014"},{"type":"select","name":"2-1-quarter","label":"Reporting Quarter","options":[{"label":"Q1","value":"Q1"},{"label":"Q2","value":"Q2"},{"label":"Q3","value":"Q3"},{"label":"Q4","value":"Q4"}],"value":"Q3"}],"multiple":false},{"id":"1-1","parent":"1","text":"Ten Oldest Requests","due":null,"due_date":"2012\/10\/15","fields":[{"type":"select","name":"2-1-1-oldest","label":"Ten Oldest","options":[{"label":"0","value":"0"},{"label":"1","value":"1"},{"label":"2","value":"2"},{"label":"3","value":"3"},{"label":"4","value":"4"},{"label":"5","value":"5"},{"label":"6","value":"6"},{"label":"7","value":"7"},{"label":"8","value":"8"},{"label":"9","value":"9"},{"label":"10","value":"10"}],"value":"10"}],"multiple":false},{"id":"1-3","parent":"1","text":"","due":null,"due_date":"2012\/10\/15","fields":[{"type":"select","name":"2-1-3-closed","label":"Ten Oldest Closed","options":[{"label":"0","value":"0"},{"label":"1","value":"1"},{"label":"2","value":"2"},{"label":"3","value":"3"},{"label":"4","value":"4"},{"label":"5","value":"5"},{"label":"6","value":"6"},{"label":"7","value":"7"},{"label":"8","value":"8"},{"label":"9","value":"9"},{"label":"10","value":"10"}],"value":"4"}],"multiple":false},{"id":"1-2","parent":"1","text":"FOIA Requests Information","due":null,"due_date":"2012\/08\/21","fields":[{"type":"text","name":"2-1-2-component","label":"Component","options":[],"value":["BEP","BPD","DO","FinCEN","FMS","IRS","MINT","OCC","TIGTA","TTB"]},{"type":"text","name":"2-1-2-received","label":"Received","options":[],"value":["21"," ","169","72","70","2366","31","466","70","23"]},{"type":"text","name":"2-1-2-processed","label":"Processed","options":[],"value":["17"," ","204","74","66","2427","31","380","86","23"]},{"type":"text","name":"2-1-2-backlog","label":"Backlog","options":[],"value":[" 2"," ","278"," "," 3","266"," 3","12","1"," "]}],"multiple":true}],"year":"2014","quarter":"Q3"}
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

DALLAS DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, §

 Plaintiff, §

§ CRIMINAL ACTION NO:

v. § 3:22-CR-136-B

§

MARTIN TALAVERA-SANCHEZ (01),

STEPHEN ALLEN SCRIBNER (02),

LEVI CHAMBERLYN HARDCASTLE

(03),

ALEXIS NICOLE PACHECO (04),

SANDRA MARIE HERNANDEZPACHECO (06),

ROBERT JAMES MCKNIGHT (07),

DAVID MICHAEL FORD, JR (08),

MAYO MENA (09),

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

 Defendants. §

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR CONTINUANCE

Defendant ALEXIS NICOLE PACHECO, through counsel, has filed an Agreed Motion 

for Continuance. Doc. 92. Said motion, in accordance with the findings set forth below, on this 

June 17, 2022, is GRANTED.

In accordance with 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(A) and (B)(iv), the Court finds that the ends 

of justice served by granting this motion for continuance outweigh the best interest of the public 

and the defendant in a speedy trial. In this regard, the Court has considered factors which indicate 

that its failure to grant this motion would deny counsel for defendant reasonable time necessary 

for effective preparation, taking into account the exercise of due diligence. Therefore, any period 

of delay resulting from this Court's granting the motion for continuance shall be excluded in 

computing the time within which the trial of this cause must commence under 18 U.S.C. § 3161. 

Case 3:22-cr-00136-B Document 96 Filed 06/17/22 Page 1 of 2 PageID 179
Further, the Court finds that in the interest of justice, this case shall be tried together with all codefendants, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(6).

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the captioned case is set for trial on October 11, 2022 at 

9:00 a.m. Pretrial motions, if any, are due August 22, 2022, and the responses thereto due within 

14 days from the date the motion is filed. Pretrial materials are due September 26, 2022. The 

pretrial conference will be set for October 7, 2022 at 10:00 a.m. 

SO ORDERED.

SIGNED: June 17, 2022.

JANE J. BOYLE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:22-cr-00136-B Document 96 Filed 06/17/22 Page 2 of 2 PageID 180
# C_2021338EN.01003502.xml

| 23.8.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 338/35 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.8.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 338/35

---

Action brought on 7 July 2021 — BNP Paribas v SRB

(Case T-397/21)

(2021/C 338/45)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: BNP Paribas (Paris, France) (represented by: A. Gosset-Grainville, M. Trabucchi and M. Dalon, lawyers)

Defendant: Single Resolution Board

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | pursuant to Article 263 TFEU, annul Decision SRB/ES/2021/22 of 14 April 2021 on the calculation of the 2021 ex-ante contributions to the SRF in so far as it concerns the applicant; |
| --- | --- |

—

pursuant to Article 263 TFEU, annul Decision SRB/ES/2021/22 of 14 April 2021 on the calculation of the 2021 ex-ante contributions to the SRF in so far as it concerns the applicant;

| — | pursuant to Article 277 TFEU, declare the following provisions of the SRM Regulation, the Implementing Regulation and the Delegated Regulation inapplicable:






  — | Articles 69(1), 69(2), 70(1) and 70(2)(a) and (b) of the SRM Regulation; |
| --- | --- | --- |

—

pursuant to Article 277 TFEU, declare the following provisions of the SRM Regulation, the Implementing Regulation and the Delegated Regulation inapplicable:

—

Articles 69(1), 69(2), 70(1) and 70(2)(a) and (b) of the SRM Regulation;

| — | Article 4(2) and Articles 6 and 7 of the Delegated Regulation, and Annex I thereto; |
| --- | --- |

—

Article 4(2) and Articles 6 and 7 of the Delegated Regulation, and Annex I thereto;

| — | Article 4 of the Implementing Regulation; |
| --- | --- |

—

Article 4 of the Implementing Regulation;

| — | order the defendant to pay all the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to pay all the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on eight pleas in law which are, in essence, identical or similar to those put forward in Case T-383/21, Banque postale v SRB.

---
Exhibit 34.3



LOGO

Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm



| |  |  |  |                                                                                     
| |  |  |  | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| |  |  |  | AuditTaxAdvisory
Grant Thornton LLP                                               
| |  |  |  | 1201 Walnut St, Suite 2200 Kansas City,
Missouri 64106 T 816.412.2400 F 816.412.2404

Board of Directors

Situs
Holdings, LLC

We have examined managements assertion, included in the accompanying Certification Regarding Compliance with Applicable Servicing
Criteria (Managements Assertion), that Situs Holdings, LLC (the Company) complied with servicing criteria set forth in Items 1117, 1119, 1122(d)(3)(i), 1122(d)(4)(i) and 1122(d)(4)(vii) of the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commissions Regulation AB included in Appendix A as of and for the year ended December 31, 2015, with respect to the Companys Operating or Trust Advisor Services performed over the deals listed in Appendix B (the
Platform). Management is responsible for the Companys compliance with the applicable servicing criteria. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on managements assertion about the Companys compliance with the
applicable servicing criteria for the Platform based on our examination.

Our examination was conducted in accordance with the standards of the Public
Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States) and, accordingly, included examining, on a test basis, evidence about the Companys compliance with the applicable servicing criteria for the Services and performing such other procedures as we
considered necessary in the circumstances. Our examination was not designed to detect material noncompliance that may have occurred prior to the period covered by this report and that may have affected the Companys activities with respect to
the Platform during the period covered by this report. We believe that our examination provides a reasonable basis for our opinion. Our examination does not provide a legal determination on the Companys compliance with the applicable servicing
criteria.

In our opinion, managements assertion that Situs Holdings, LLC complied with the aforementioned minimum servicing standards as of and for
the year ended December 31, 2015, for the Platform is fairly stated, in all material respects.



LOGO

Kansas City, Missouri

February 18, 2016