alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
WARNING: THE EDGAR SYSTEM ENCOUNTERED ERROR(S) WHILE PROCESSING THIS SCHEDULE.

<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM
STATEMENTS OF FINANCIAL CONDITION, OPERATIONS, AND CHANGES IN TRUST
CAPITAL AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             Jul-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               Sep-30-1999
<CASH>                                       4,406,834
<SECURITIES>                                57,706,570
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            64,143,047
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              64,143,047
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        2,547,009
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                  61,596,038
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                64,143,047
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               -66,053
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                4,353,416
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               289,532
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                688,262
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   688,262
<EPS-BASIC>                                     3.69
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     3.69


</TABLE>
#### HOWELL v. STATE.

No. 22048.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

April 1, 1942.

Rehearing Denied April 22, 1942.

R. M. Carter, of Sherman, for appellant.

Spurgeon E. Bell, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

*944GRAVES, Judge.

Conviction is for driving an automobile upon a public highway while appellant was intoxicated. Punishment assessed is a fine of fifty dollars.

The record is before this court without statement of facts or bills of exceptions. The appellant entered a plea of guilty to the offense charged and waived a jury upon the trial.

No error having been shown by the record before us, the judgment is affirmed.

On Motion for Rehearing

BEAUCHAMP, Judge.

The motion for rehearing presents nothing for our consideration and it is accordingly overruled.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH DIVISION

JACQUETTA L CLAYTON,

Plaintiff,

v. No. 4:22-cv-00984-P-BJ

AMAZON.COM SERVICES LLC,

Defendant.

ORDER

The United States Magistrate Judge made Findings, Conclusions, 

and a Recommendation in this case. ECF No. 82. No timely objections 

were filed, and the Magistrate Judge’s Recommendation is ripe for 

review. The District Judge reviewed the proposed Findings, 

Conclusions, and Recommendation for plain error. Finding none, the 

undersigned District Judge believes that the Findings and Conclusions 

of the Magistrate Judge are correct, and they are accepted as the 

Findings and Conclusions of the Court. 

The Court therefore ORDERS that Defendant Amazon.com Services 

LLC’s Motion to Dismiss is DENIED.

SO ORDERED on this 24th day of June 2024.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH DIVISION

REGINALEA KEMP,

Plaintiff,

v. No. 4:23-cv-00841-P

REGIONS BANK ET AL.,

Defendants.

ORDER

Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Unopposed Motion for Leave to File 

Second Amended Complaint. ECF No. 18. Having considered the Motion 

and applicable docket entries, the Court GRANTS the Motion.

SO ORDERED on this 18th day of September 2023.

______________________________________________

Mark T. Pittman

UNITED STATED DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 4:22-cv-00984-P-BJ Document 85 Filed 06/24/24 Page 1 of 1 PageID 527
1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH DIVISION

JENNIFER VANDERSTOK, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

MERRICK GARLAND, in his official

capacity as Attorney General of the United States;

et al.,

Defendants.

Civil Action No. 4:22-cv-00691-O

[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ OPPOSED

MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

Before the Court is a Motion for Preliminary Injunction filed by Plaintiffs Jennifer

VanDerStok; Michael G. Andren; Tactical Machining, LLC; and Firearms Policy Coalition, Inc.

(“Plaintiffs”). Defendants oppose the Motion.

Upon consideration of Plaintiffs’ opposed Motion for Preliminary Injunction, it is hereby

ORDERED that the Motion is GRANTED.

It is further ORDERED that Defendants and their officers, agents, servants, and employees

are enjoined from implementing and enforcing the provisions established and amended by the

Department of Justice and Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives’ Final Rule

entitled Definition of “Frame or Receiver” and Identification of Firearms (“Final Rule”), 87 Fed.

Reg. 24,652 (Apr. 26, 2022).

//

//

Case 4:22-cv-00691-O Document 16-4 Filed 08/17/22 Page 1 of 2 PageID 197
2

Signed this _______________, 2022.

_____

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE REED O’CONNOR

Case 4:22-cv-00691-O Document 16-4 Filed 08/17/22 Page 2 of 2 PageID 198
[Cite as State v. Neal , 2014-Ohio-1478.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO

BUTLER COUNTY

STATE OF OHIO, : Plaintiff-Appellee, : CASE NO. CA2013-10-184

: D E C I S I O N - vs - 4/7/2014 : NICHOLAS WILLIAM NEAL, : Defendant-Appellant. :

CRIMINAL APPEAL FROM BUTLER COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Case No. CR2011-10-1660

Michael T. Gmoser, Butler County Prosecuting Attorney, Lina N. Alkamhawi, Government Services Center, 315 High Street, 11th Floor, Hamilton, OH 45011-6057, for plaintiff-appellee Neal D. Schuett, 121 West High Street, Oxford, Ohio 45056, for defendant-appellant

Per Curiam

. {¶ 1} This cause came on to be considered upon a notice of appeal, the transcript of the docket and journal entries, the transcript of proceedings and original papers from the Butler County Court of Common Pleas, and upon the brief filed by appellant's counsel. {¶ 2} Counsel for defendant-appellan t, Nicholas William Neal, has filed a brief with this court pursuant to Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396 (1967), which (1)Butler CA2013-10-184

- 2 - indicates that a careful review of the record from the proceedings below fails to disclose any errors by the trial court prejudicial to the rights of appellant upon which an assignment of error may be predicated; (2) lists four potential errors "that might arguably support the appeal," Anders , at 744, 87 S.Ct. at 1400; (3) requests that this court review the record independently to determine whether the proceedings are free from prejudicial error and without infringement of appellant's constitutional rights; (4) requests permission to withdraw as counsel for appellant on the basis that the appeal is wholly frivolous; and (5) certifies that a copy of both the brief and motion to withdraw have been served upon appellant. {¶ 3} Having allowed appellant sufficient time to respond, and no response having been received, we have accordingly examined the record and find no error prejudicial to appellant's rights in the proceedings in the tr ial court. The motion of counsel for appellant requesting to wit hdraw as counsel is grant ed, and this a ppeal is dismissed for the reason that it is wholly frivolous.

RINGLAND, P.J., S. POWELL and M. POWELL, 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.                  

###### Northeast Dairy Compact Commission

# AGENCY:

Northeast Dairy Compact Commission. 

# ACTION:

Notice of Meeting. 

# SUMMARY:

The Compact Commission will hold its regular monthly meeting to consider matters relating to administration and enforcement of the price regulation, the budget for year 2001, and the election of officers. 

# DATES:

The meeting will begin at 10:00 a.m. on Wednesday, December 6, 2000. 

# ADDRESSES:

The meeting will be held at the Centennial Inn, Armenia White Room, 96 Pleasant Street, Concord, New Hampshire. 

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Daniel Smith, Executive Director, Northeast Dairy Compact Commission, 34 Barre Street, Suite 2, Montpelier, VT 05602. Telephone (802) 229-1941. 

Authority:7 U.S.C. 7256. 

Dated: November 20, 2000.

Daniel Smith, 

Executive Director. 

[FR Doc. 00-30118 Filed 11-24-00; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 1650-01-P
<partyblock><br><br><div align="center"><b><font size="+1">GL Acupuncture, P.C. as Assignee of John Skelton, Appellant, -<br><br>against<br><br>Maya Assurance Company, Respondent.</font></b></div><br><br><p>Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Reginald A. Boddie, J.), entered March 22, 2013. The order granted defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.</p><p>ORDERED that the order is reversed, with $30 costs, and defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint is denied.</p><p>In this action by a provider to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, plaintiff appeals from an order of the Civil Court which granted defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.</p><p>Plaintiff correctly argues on appeal that the affidavit submitted by defendant in suuport of its motion did not sufficiently set forth a standard office practice or procedure that would ensure that the letters scheduling independent medical examinations (IMEs) had been properly addressed and mailed (<a href="../2008/2008_04072.htm" target="_blank"><i>see St. Vincent's Hosp. of Richmond v Government Empls. Ins. Co.</i>, 50 AD3d 1123</a> [2008]). As a result, defendant failed to demonstrate that the IMEs had been properly scheduled and, thus, that plaintiff's assignor had failed to appear at duly scheduled IMEs (<a href="../2006/2006_09604.htm" target="_blank"><i>see Stephen Fogel Psychological, P.C. v Progressive Cas. Ins. Co.</i>, 35 AD3d 720</a>, 722 [2006]; <a href="../2015/2015_50786.htm" target="_blank"><i>see also Delta Diagnostic Radiology, P.C. v Maya Assur. Co.</i>, 47 Misc 3d 151</a>[A], 2015 NY Slip Op 50786[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th &amp; 13th Jud Dists 2015]). Consequently, defendant is not entitled to summary judgment dismissing the complaint.</p><p>Accordingly, the order is reversed and defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint is denied.</p><p>Pesce, P.J., Aliotta and Elliot, JJ., concur.</p><br>Decision Date: March 11, 2016<br><br><div align="center"><form method="LINK" action="../../slipidx/at_2_idxtable.shtml"><input type="submit" value="Return to Decision List"></form></div></partyblock>
EXHIBIT 32
                                                                   ----------





               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 Integrated Data Corp (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the fiscal quarter ended September 30, 2004, as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), I, David C. Bryan, President and Chief Executive Officer
(principal executive officer) and principal financial 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, that:

     (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 Company.


Date:  November 12, 2004      By:  /s/ David C. Bryan
                                    ------------------
                                    David C. Bryan
                                    President and Chief Executive Officer
                                    (Principal executive officer and
                                     principal financial officer)


A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 has been provided to Integrated Data Corp. and
will be retained by Integrated Data Corp. and furnished to the Securities and
Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
Exhibit 99.4

                Written Statement of the Chief Executive Officer
                         Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350

Solely for the purposes of complying with 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, I, the undersigned
Chief Executive Officer of SBM Certificate Company (the "Company"), hereby
certify, based on my knowledge, that the Annual Report on Form 10-K of the
Company for the year ended December 31, 2002 (the "Annual Report") fully
complies with the requirements of Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 and that information contained in the Annual Report fairly presents, in
all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.


/s/ Trey Stafford
------------------------------------------
    Trey Stafford
    Chief Financial and Accounting Officer

Date: April 18, 2003
**Exhibit 32.1**

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

In connection with theQuarterly Report of SITEL Corporation (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q/A for theperiod ending March 31, 2005 as filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, James F. Lynch, ChiefExecutive 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, that tomy knowledge:

(1)          The Report fullycomplies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934; and

(2)          The informationcontained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| /s/ James F. Lynch      |   |   |   |
|-------------------------|--------|--------|--------|
| **James  F. Lynch**     |   |   |
| Chief Executive Officer |   |   |

 

September 13,2006

----
Hardesty 

Parraguirre 

Cherry 

J. 

J. 

appellant was determined to be competent during the trial proceedings 

and appellant failed to demonstrate that a change occurred in his mental 

status that would explain his delay in filing the petition. Accordingly, we 

ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED. 3 

cc: Hon. Lidia Stiglich, District Judge 

Donald Ray McCune 

Attorney General/Carson City 

Washoe County District Attorney 

Washoe District Court Clerk 

...continued 

defective petition. Phelps v. Director, Prisons, 104 Nev. 656, 764 P.2d 

1303 (1988). 

3We have reviewed all documents that appellant has submitted in 

proper person to the clerk of this court in this matter, and we conclude 

that no relief based upon those submissions is warranted. To the extent 

that appellant has attempted to present claims or facts in those 

submissions which were not previously presented in the proceedings 

below, we have declined to consider them in the first instance. 

2 

I
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 GFSB Bancorp, Inc. (the "Company") on
Form  10-QSB  for the  quarter  ended  September  30,  2003 as  filed  with  the
Securities  and  Exchange  Commission  on the date  hereof (the  "Report"),  we,
Richard C. Kauzlaric,  President, and Jerry R. Spurlin, Chief Financial Officer,
certify,  pursuant to 18 U.S.C.  ss.1350,  as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

     (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
Company.




/s/Richard C. Kauzlaric                     /s/Jerry R. Spurlin
--------------------------                  ------------------------------------
Richard C. Kauzlaric                        Jerry R. Spurlin
President                                   Chief Financial Officer




November 7, 2003


A signed  original of this  written  statement  required by Section 906 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.
June 5, 2015

Exemption No. 11659 A

Regulatory Docket No. FAA

- 2015

- 0545

Mr. Jeffrey Sassinsky

President

Fovea Aero Systems LLC

60 Fostertown Road

Medford, NJ 08055

Dear Mr. Sassinsky :

This letter is to inform you that we have granted your petition for an amendment. It explains

the basis for our decision, describes its effect, and lists any changes to the original conditions

and limitations.

By letter dated May 20 , 2015

, you petitioned the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) on

behalf of Fovea Aero Systems LLC (hereinafter petitioner or operator) for an amendment to

your current exemption . That exemption from §§ 6 1.23(a) and (c ), 61.101(e)(4) and (5),

61.113(a), 61.315(a), 91.7(a), 91.119(c), 91.121, 91.151(a)(1), 91.405(a), 91.407(a)(1),

91.409(a)(1) and (2), and 91.417(a) and (b) of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR)

allows the petitioner to perform a erial data collection

. You requested an amendment

to conduct closed

- set motion picture and television filming and production operations

.

In your petition, you indicate that there has been no change in the conditions and reasons

relative to public interest and safety that were the basis for granting the original exemption.

The FAA has determined that good cause exists for not publishing a summary of the petition

in the Federal Register because the requested amendment to the exemption would not set a

precedent, and any delay in acting on this pe tition would be detrimental to the petitioner

. T he

unmanned aircraft (s) authorized in the original grant are comparable in type, size, weight,

speed and operating capabilities to those in this petition

.

Our De cision

The FAA has determined that the justification for the issuance of Exemption No. 11659

remains valid and is in the public interest. Therefore, under the authority contained2

in 49 U.S.C

. 106(f), 40113, and 44701, delegated to me by the Administrator, the operator is

granted an amendment to permit closed

- set motion picture and television filming

.

The operator shall add this amendment to its original exemption.

Conditions an d Limitations

All conditions and limitations within Grant of Exemption No. 11659 remain in effect except

as follows. Condition No. 2 has been updated to reflect operations for closed

- set motion

picture and television filming.

Failure to comply with any of the conditions and limitations of this grant of exemption will be

grounds for the immediate suspension or rescission of this exemption.

2. Operations for the purpose of closed

- set motion picture and television filming are

permitted.

T his exemption terminates on May 31, 2017 , unless sooner superseded or rescinded.

Sincerely,

John S . Duncan

Director, Flight Standards Service
----

Action brought on 2 September 2004 by FG Marine S.A. against the Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-360/04)

(2004/C 262/108)

Language of the case: French

An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 2 September 2004 by FG Marine S.A., established in Roissy (France), represented by Marie-Aline Michel, lawyer, with an address for service in Luxembourg.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

Pleas in law and main arguments:

The applicant company in the present case, a majority partner in Stardust Marine, submits that the Community incurred non-contractual liability arising from the losses it claims to have suffered as a result of the Commission's decision of 8 September 1999, which declared incompatible with the common market the capital increases, advances on current account and recapitalisations effected within Stardust Marine by Consortium de Réalisation (CDR) as part of Crédit Lyonnais' restructuring plans, and ordered recovery thereof.

The recovery order contained in the aforementioned decision is the reason for Stardust Marine's having tabled its balance sheet, which deprived the applicant of the benefits of the restructuring it effected.

FG Marine states in support of its contentions that the decision contested in the present case disregarded the private investor criterion and was annulled by the Court in its judgment of 16 May 2002 in Case C-482/99 French Republic v Commission. (1) In addition, in adopting the decision, the Commission did not place itself in the context as it existed at the time and did not view Crédit Lyonnais and its subsidiaries as shareholders in Stardust Marine, but rather as its bankers. Lastly, the decision at issue here disregarded completely any prospects for recovery which Stardust Marine might have.

----

(1)  [2002] ECR I-4397.

----