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

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                              JUL-1-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                       8,012,394
<SECURITIES>                                28,483,876
<RECEIVABLES>                                  848,547
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            37,344,817
<PP&E>                                       4,866,445
<DEPRECIATION>                                  49,016
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              42,260,278
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,961,772
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        43,479
<OTHER-SE>                                  40,255,027
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                40,298,506
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             7,584,695
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                7,718,670
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (133,975)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (133,975)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (133,975)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.01)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
# C_2021490EN.01005001.xml

| 6.12.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 490/50 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.12.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 490/50

---

Action brought on 7 October 2021 — Casa International v EUIPO — Interstyle (casa)

(Case T-650/21)

(2021/C 490/60)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Casa International (Olen, Belgium) (represented by: F. Cornette and T. Poels-Ryckeboer, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Interstyle BV (Utrecht, Netherlands)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant before the General Court

Trade mark at issue: European Union figurative mark casa in green and white — European Union trade mark No 3 017 662

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 13 July 2021 in Case R 1280/2020-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | declare the present application admissible and well-founded; and therefore, to annul the contested decision in its entirety; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare the present application admissible and well-founded; and therefore, to annul the contested decision in its entirety;

| — | order EUIPO as well as the other party, should the other party intervene in the proceedings, to bear the costs of the proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO as well as the other party, should the other party intervene in the proceedings, to bear the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law

| — | Infringement of Article 51(1)(a) in conjunction with Article 7(1)(c) of Council Regulation (EC) 207/2009; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 51(1)(a) in conjunction with Article 7(1)(c) of Council Regulation (EC) 207/2009;

| — | Infringement of Article 51(1)(a) in conjunction with Article 7(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) 207/2009; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 51(1)(a) in conjunction with Article 7(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) 207/2009;

| — | Infringement of Article 51(2) in conjunction with Article 7(3) of Council Regulation (EC) 207/2009. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 51(2) in conjunction with Article 7(3) of Council Regulation (EC) 207/2009.

---
## IN THE SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA

July 12, 2024 SC-2024-0309 Ex parte C.C. PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS (In re: C.C. v J.B. and M.B.) (Limestone Juvenile Court: JU-20-189.02; Civil Appeals: CL-2023-0770).

CERTIFICATE OF JUDGMENT WHEREAS, the petition for writ of certiorari in the above referenced cause has been duly submitted and considered by the Supreme Court of Alabama and the judgment indicated below was entered in this cause on July 12, 2024: Writ Denied. No Opinion. Cook, J. -- Parker, C.J., and Wise, Sellers, and Stewart, JJ., concur. NOW, THEREFORE, pursuant to Rule 41, Ala. R. App. P., IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this Court's judgment in this cause is certified on this date. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, unless otherwise ordered by this Court or agreed upon by the parties, the costs of this cause are hereby taxed as provided by Rule 35, Ala. R. App. P.

I, Megan B. Rhodebeck, certify that this is the record of the judgment of the Court, witness my hand and seal.

Clerk, Supreme Court of Alabama
#### John E. HILL, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Gene M. JOHNSON, Director of the Virginia Department of Corrections, Respondent-Appellee. John E. Hill, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Gene M. Johnson, Director of the Virginia Department of Corrections, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 17-7370, No. 17-7371

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: February 26, 2018

Decided: March 2, 2018

Amended: March 6, 2018

John E. Hill, Appellant Pro Se.

Before WILKINSON, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

John E. Hill appeals the district court’s orders construing his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motions as unauthorized successive 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petitions, and denying them on that basis. We have reviewed the record and conclude that the district court correctly determined that Hill’s motions were, in substance, successive § 2254 petitions. *See United States v. McRae,*793 F.3d 392, 397-400 (4th Cir. 2015).. We note that Hill is not required to obtain a certificate of appealability to appeal the district court’s orders, *see McRae,*793 F.3d at 400, and we conclude that the district court correctly determined that, in the absence of prefiling authorization, it lacked jurisdiction to consider the successive § 2254 petitions, *see*28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3) (2012). Accordingly, we deny Hill’s motion for transcripts and affirm the district court’s judgments.

Consistent with our decision in *United States v. Winestock,*340 F.3d 200, 208 (4th Cir. 2003), we construe Hill’s notices of appeal and informal brief as applications to file second or successive § 2254 petitions. In order to obtain authorization to file successive § 2254 petitions, a prisoner must assert claims based on either: (1) a new, previously unavailable rule of constitutional law made retroactive by the Supreme Court to cases on collateral review; or (2) newly discovered evidence, not previously discoverable by due diligence, that would establish by clear and convincing evidence that, but for constitutional error, no reasonable factfinder would have found the petitioner guilty of the offense. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(2) (2012). Hill’s claims fail to satisfy either of these criteria. We therefore deny authorization to file successive § 2254 petitions.

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*AFFIRMED*
#### Terrick Terrell NOONER *v.*STATE of Arkansas

CR 98-577

991 S.W.2d 535

Supreme Court of Arkansas

Opinion delivered May 20, 1999

*Appellant,*pro se.

*Mark Pryor,*Att’y Gen., by: *Kelly K. Hill,*Deputy Att’y Gen., for appellee.

*539Per Curiam.

Appellant was denied postconviction relief under Ark. R. Crim. P. 37. At the hearing, appellant proceeded *pro se*with the assistance of standby counsel and, after-wards, appellant filed a timely *pro se*notice of appeal. Our court remanded the case to the circuit court for appointment of counsel, and upon remand, attorney Jeff Rosenzweig was appointed. Nooner’s appellate brief was due on May 1, 1999.

In April 1999, appellant filed *pro se*motions to relieve and waive representation by Rosenzweig, stating he is prepared to be executed and asks “the State to enter its execution.” However, appellant further states that he is not waiving executive clemency and that he will file a further appeal “if any pleadings exist.”

The State moves that it is in no position to gauge appellant’s capacity or sincerity in seeking waiver of counsel or further appeal in this case. The State requests appellant be directed to make an unequivocal request regarding such waivers or that the case be remanded to circuit court for a determination of the *bonafides*of appellant’s waivers. On May 11, 1999, appellant filed a *pro se*motion and labeled it a “Petition of Unequivocal Statement Regarding Waiver of Jeff Rosenzweig.”

We deny appellant’s *pro se*petition and instead direct Mr. Rosenzweig to proceed as appellant’s counsel, which he has already done on April 28, 1999, by filing a motion to incorporate the record of appellant’s trial record into the Rule 37 record. We grant counsel’s motion to incorporate the trial record, *see Drymon v. State,*327 Ark. 375, 938 S.W.2d 825 (1997), and further direct counsel to move with dispatch in pursuing appellant’s appeal to conclusion. Accordingly, this court’s clerk shall promptly issue a new briefing schedule in this matter.
#### COM. v. CARTER, K.

1436 WDA 2016

Superior Court of Pennsylvania.

09/21/2017

CP-25-CR-0002434-2015 (Erie)

Affirmed — Application to Withdraw as Counsel Granted
#### THOMAS NICOULIN *v.*JEANNE GARDNER ET AL.

(AC 20895)

Lavery, C. J., and Spear and Dranginis, Js.

Submitted on briefs April 6

officially released May 8, 2001

Per Curiam.

The judgment is affirmed.
# C_2022171EN.01001702.xml

| 25.4.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 171/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.4.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 171/17

---

Action brought on 2 February 2022 — European Commission v Romania

(Case C-69/22)

(2022/C 171/22)

Language of the case: Romanian

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: M. Noll-Ehlers and M. Ioan, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Romania

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | declare that, by failing to adopt and notify to the European Commission a National Air Pollution Control Programme, Romania has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 6(1) and Article 10(1) of Directive (EU) 2016/2284 of the European Parliament and of the Council [of 14 December 2016] on the reduction of national emissions of certain atmospheric pollutants, amending Directive 2003/35/EC and repealing Directive 2001/81/EC; (1) |
| --- | --- |

—

declare that, by failing to adopt and notify to the European Commission a National Air Pollution Control Programme, Romania has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 6(1) and Article 10(1) of Directive (EU) 2016/2284 of the European Parliament and of the Council [of 14 December 2016] on the reduction of national emissions of certain atmospheric pollutants, amending Directive 2003/35/EC and repealing Directive 2001/81/EC; (1)

| — | order Romania to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order Romania to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The Commission submits that, by Directive (EU) 2016/2284 on the reduction of national emissions of certain atmospheric pollutants, commitments have been made to reduce emissions of five key atmospheric pollutants for the period 2020-2029, beginning in 2030. With a view to honouring those commitments to reduce emissions and in order to contribute to the achievement of the Union’s air quality objectives, Member States are requested, by Article 6(1) of that directive, to adopt a National Air Pollution Control Programme (NAPCP).

Under Article 10(1) of Directive (EU) 2016/2284, Romania was required to notify the Commission of its NAPCP by 1 April 2019 at the latest, and any planned actions by the Romanian authorities should have been commenced before that date.

Therefore, the Commission submits that, by failing to adopt and notify the Commission of its NAPCP before the date of the present application, Romania has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 6(1) and Article 10(1) of Directive (EU) 2016/2284.

---

(1)  OJ 2016 L 344, p. 1.

---
### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED JA NUARY 14, 2016

NO. 03

- 15

- 00008

- CV

Paul D. Simmons, Appellant

v.

Teresa A. Simmons, Appellee

APPEAL FROM 119TH DISTRICT COURT OF TOM GREEN COUNTY

BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE ROSE, JU STICES PEMBERTON AND FIELD

AFFIRMED

-- OPINION BY JUSTICE FIELD

This is an appeal from the judgment signed by the tr i a l court on September 15, 2014. Having

reviewed the record an d the parties’ arguments, the C ourt holds that there was no reversible error

in the judgment . Therefore, the C ourt affirms the trial court’s judgment

. A ppellant shall pay all

costs relating to this appeal, both in this Court and the court below.
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460 

C. Max Zygmont 

Kazmarek Mowrey Cloud Laseter LLP 

1180 Peachtree Street N.E. 

Atlanta, GA 30309 

Dear Mr. Zygmont: 

NOV- 5 2014 

OFFICE OF 

SOLID WASTE AND 

EMERGENCY RESPONSE 

I am writing in response to your October 29, 2014 letter requesting an extension of the comment 

period for the 35th Avenue site in Birmingham, AL. This site was proposed for listing on the 

National Priorities List (NPL) on September 22, 2014 with a 60-day comment period that was 

scheduled to end on November 21,2014. Your letter indicated that a 60-day extension of the 

comment period is needed so that EPA can receive diverse public comment from all affected 

parties based on a full opportunity to develop evidence in record. In addition you have identified 

a number of challenges encountered with EPA's site data and references. 

EPA is giving you, and all other interested parties, an additional 60 days to submit comments 

related to the 35th A venue site. All commenters have until January 20, 2015 to submit comments. 

EPA will consider all comments received by January 20,2015. Please use Docket ID Number 

EPA-HQ-SFUND-2014-0623 for submittal of your comments via http://www.regulations.gov. 

You may verify receipt of comments by checking back on www.regulations.gov (please allow a 

day or two for web posting). 

Sincerely, 

8:E Afi r Office of Superfund Remediation and Technology hmovation 

Internet Address (URL) • hnp://www.epa.gov 

Recycled/Recyclable • Printed with Vegetable Oil Based Inks on 100% Postconsumer, Process Chlorine Free Recycled Paper
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 858 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 858

  To make continuing appropriations for salaries and expenses of air 
               traffic controllers for fiscal year 2019.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 29, 2019

  Mr. Young introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Appropriations

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To make continuing appropriations for salaries and expenses of air 
               traffic controllers for fiscal year 2019.

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

SECTION 1. CONTINUING APPROPRIATIONS FOR THE FEDERAL AVIATION 
              ADMINISTRATION.

    If interim or full-year appropriations are not in effect for the 
Federal Aviation Administration during any period in fiscal year 2019, 
there is hereby appropriated for that period, out of any money in the 
Treasury not otherwise appropriated, such sums as may be necessary (as 
determined by the Secretary of Transportation), at the rate for 
operations as provided in the Transportation, Housing and Urban 
Development, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2018 (division L 
of Public Law 115-141) and under the authority and conditions provided 
in such Act, for paying the salaries and expenses of any air traffic 
controller that were conducted in fiscal year 2018 and for which 
appropriations, funds, or other authority were made available under any 
account relating to the Federal Aviation Administration.

SEC. 2. TERMINATION.

    Appropriations and funds made available and authority granted 
pursuant to this Act shall be available until the earliest of the 
following:
            (1) the enactment into law of an appropriation (including a 
        continuing appropriation) for any purpose for which amounts are 
        made available in section 1;
            (2) the enactment into law of the applicable regular or 
        continuing appropriations resolution or other Act without any 
        appropriation for such purpose; or
            (3) September 30, 2019.
                                 <all>
```
#### IN RE: ADOPTION OF: O.R.L., a Minor

844 EDA 2017

Superior Court of Pennsylvania.

09/20/2017

2016-A0185 (Montgomery)

Affirmed
### Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,
Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h

Elizabeth A. Weave r

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

J ustices

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

_______________________________________ __ Clerk May 27, 2009

0518 

# Order

May 27, 2009

138289

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 138289 COA: 278467 Muskegon CC: 02-047580-FC RICARDO BLACKSHIRE, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the January 15, 2009 judgment of the Court of Appeals is consid ered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
##### 



Exhibit 99.2

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 Mayors Jewelers, Inc. (the
Company) on Form 10-Q for the transition period from
February 3, 2002 to March 30, 2002 and November 3,
2002 to January 4, 2003 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, John
Ball, Chief 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: February 27, 2003

/s/ John Ball




John Ball
Chief Financial Officer


30
#### Luscious GRAHAM, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ANTERO RESOURCES CORPORATION, a Delaware Corporation, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 17-1580

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: February 20, 2018

Decided: March 8, 2018

Luscious Graham, Appellant Pro Se. W. Henry Lawrence, IV, Justin Aaron Ruben-stein, Amy Marie Smith, STEPTOE & *258JOHNSON PLLC, Bridgeport, West Virginia, for Appellee.

Before WILKINSON and DIAZ, Circuit Judges, and SHEDD, Senior Circuit Judge.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Luscious Graham filed a civil action in West Virginia state court, which the Defendant removed to federal district court based on diversity jurisdiction. The district court denied Graham’s subsequent motion to remand to state court and ultimately granted summary judgment to the Defendant. Graham’s sole challenge on appeal is to the district court’s order finding diversity jurisdiction and denying her motion to remand. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis and affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. *Graham v. Antero Res. Corp.,*No. 1:16-cv-00026-FPS-MJA, 2017 WL 1345038 (N.D.W. Va. July 26, 2016; Apr. 7, 2017). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*AFFIRMED*
2018 EAVS Data Brief: District of 

 Columbia 

EAVS Jurisdictions 

1 

 

 

 Voter Registration 

Total Registered Voters, 

Nov. 20181 

617,046 

1 A1a of EAVS 

Registration Forms Received, 

E-Day 2016 – E-Day 20182 

120,149 

2 A3a of EAVS 

New Voters Registered, 

E-Day 2016 – E-Day 20183 

58,684 

3 A3b of EAVS 

Sources of Registration Forms4 

4 A4a-l of EAVS 

Mail/Fax/Email 3,021 

In-Person 17,530 

Online 15,113 

Motor Vehicle Office 68,157 

Public Assistance

Office 250 

Disability Office 339 

Military Recruitment 

Office 102 

Other Non-NVRA 

Office 231 

Registration Drives 2,554 

Other Sources or Not 

Categorized 12,852 

 Voter Turnout 

Voters Participating by Mode5 

By Mail 

9,019 

4% 

In-Person Early 

52,512 

22% 

1% 

In-Person E-Day 

168,546 

73% 

Other Mode 

1,623 

5 In-person Election Day 

voters is F1b. By-mail voters 

is F1d+F1g. In-person early 

voters is F1f. Other mode is 

F1c+F1e+F1h. 

Total Turnout:6 231,700 

6 F1a of EAVS 

Provisional Voters:7 975 

7 F1e of EAVS 

UOCAVA Voters:8 648 



8 F1c of EAVS 

Election Technology 

Technology Used by Jurisdictions9 

1 1

DRE w/o DRE with Ballot Scanner Hand Electronic 

0 0 0 

VVPAT VVPAT Marking Count Poll Book 

Device 

1 

9 F3a-d, F5a-F8a, and 

F11a of EAVS 

Election Policies 

✔ Has online voter registration10 

10 Q6 of Policy Survey 

✔ Has a form of same-day voter registration (SDR)11 

11 Q7 of Policy Survey 

Has all-mail elections statewide12 

Has all-mail elections in certain jurisdictions12 

12 Q9a of Policy Survey 

✔ Allows voters to register as permanent absentee 

voters13 

13 Q10 of Policy Survey Requires excuse for by-mail voting14 

Requires excuse for in-person early or in-person 14 Q8 of Policy Survey 

absentee voting15 15 Q12a of Policy Survey 

Uses vote centers16 16 Q13 of Policy Survey 

Notes 

EAVS data and reports may be downloaded at 

www.eac.gov. 

Responses of “Does not apply” and “Data not available”

are shown as zeroes.