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

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                           11677
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                     8111
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 20790
<PP&E>                                          119233
<DEPRECIATION>                                   46543
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  125828
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            26203
<BONDS>                                          74756
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                            16197
<PREFERRED>                                        396
<COMMON>                                           120
<OTHER-SE>                                        6331
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    125828
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 49097
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    23549
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 15358
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                4184
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   6006
<INCOME-TAX>                                       955
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                               5051
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                      5051
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .38
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .38
        

</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
<LEGEND>
THE SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE QUARTERLY
REPORT ON FORM 10-QSB FOR THE FISCAL QUARTER ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1996 AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                          49,423
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                       1,479,437
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                               325,000
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                  1,108,851
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                               0
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                         1,027,595
<LOANS>                                     12,986,541
<ALLOWANCE>                                  (123,417)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              17,226,670
<DEPOSITS>                                   8,774,359
<SHORT-TERM>                                         0
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                            236,598
<LONG-TERM>                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         4,933
<OTHER-SE>                                   8,210,780
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>              17,226,670
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                281,185
<INTEREST-INVEST>                               94,833
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                     0
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                               376,018
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                             115,522
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             115,522
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                          260,496
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                    5,000
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                146,593
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                110,627
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                     110,627
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                       48,450
<NET-INCOME>                                    62,177
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .13
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                       0
<LOANS-NON>                                          0
<LOANS-PAST>                                         0
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                             (118,417)
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                  (5,000)
<RECOVERIES>                                         0
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                            (123,417)
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                         (123,417)
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0
        


</TABLE>
^ is? -/S

JULY II. 3.013T * fr)el&via.^ez 14&rteLr>JejL

*COLfflT £>F £flimr/itLt JPPe«JS" HPCESVED 1

£/£/?/< ofAPPelia.it %'i^/s/ayh G0URT OFCRMNAL APPEAL!

P*6* JSa/ 11 1 a 8 jyL g3 201S

AbelAeosta,Cf@rk

1 include Hits hfiet seni at He £/\ma titn.e

1 £e>ni You. mY Pet/iter? foh %*scr£ti*6nnkY JQevIe*/

ie> Ji£k %u, \a/j ^A Ss (^y)2Jd-/i AesPecT //* LuApnevefr

mY Peiftfsrj /s ^Sn&L/zeA, if Ygll caulA heiuf-n mY

JlPPevltX, i*/y)emG/umJv>y\ gPsTiwy? /u>A LTudge/nfni*'

iLze Me-Pke 6wJY &*/>/** YAj?/ I've $£>T and I w//V/

meed H?TM % Ms £2/Jute* (it is lotted. <l? pa&e /z)

And *6oti' Bless Yeu..

^/) Me.lahfa Je.<; U* ^nn-Jr*

2061 S. tryi'ttf to/Live,
# C_2022191EN.01001201.xml

| 10.5.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 191/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.5.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 191/12

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d’appel de Paris (France) lodged on 25 January 2022 — SOGEFINANCEMENT v RW, UV

(Case C-50/22)

(2022/C 191/16)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour d’appel de Paris

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: SOGEFINANCEMENT

Defendants: RW, UV

Questions referred

| 1. | Does the principle that penalties must be effective, deriving from Article 23 of Directive 2008/48/EC, (1) in the light of the principles of legal certainty and of States’ procedural autonomy, preclude a situation whereby a court may not raise of its own motion a national legal provision, resulting from Article 14 of that directive and penalised under national law by the nullity of the agreement, beyond the five-year limitation period within which the consumer may seek the annulment of the credit agreement by bringing legal proceedings or by raising an objection? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Does the principle that penalties must be effective, deriving from Article 23 of Directive 2008/48/EC, (1) in the light of the principles of legal certainty and of States’ procedural autonomy, preclude a situation whereby a court may not raise of its own motion a national legal provision, resulting from Article 14 of that directive and penalised under national law by the nullity of the agreement, beyond the five-year limitation period within which the consumer may seek the annulment of the credit agreement by bringing legal proceedings or by raising an objection?

| 2. | Does the principle that penalties must be effective, deriving from Article 23 of Directive 2008/48/EC, in the light of the principles of legal certainty and of States’ procedural autonomy and the principle that the subject matter of an action is delimited by the parties, preclude a situation whereby a court may not declare a credit agreement null and void after raising of its own motion a provision of national law, resulting from Article 14 of that directive, where the consumer has not applied for or at least acquiesced in such annulment? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Does the principle that penalties must be effective, deriving from Article 23 of Directive 2008/48/EC, in the light of the principles of legal certainty and of States’ procedural autonomy and the principle that the subject matter of an action is delimited by the parties, preclude a situation whereby a court may not declare a credit agreement null and void after raising of its own motion a provision of national law, resulting from Article 14 of that directive, where the consumer has not applied for or at least acquiesced in such annulment?

---

(1)  Directive 2008/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2008 on credit agreements for consumers and repealing Council Directive 87/102/EEC (OJ 2008 L 133, p. 66).

---
No. 11-117.

#### Thomas More Law Center et al. *v.*Obama, President of the United States, et al.

C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>           5
<MULTIPLIER>        1,000
       
<S>                                        <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                              3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-28-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-30-1995
<CASH>                                             602
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   10,320
<ALLOWANCES>                                       833
<INVENTORY>                                     15,057
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                26,346
<PP&E>                                          35,152
<DEPRECIATION>                                  10,505
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  66,705
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            9,745
<BONDS>                                         14,397
<COMMON>                                             9
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                      40,554
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    66,705
<SALES>                                         18,148
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                18,148
<CGS>                                           12,571
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   12,571
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 2,806
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 330
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  2,217
<INCOME-TAX>                                       887
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              1,330
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,330
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .16
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .16
        

</TABLE>
#### IN RE: Allana BARONI, Debtor, *771Allana Baroni, Appellant, v. The Bank of New York Mellon, FKA The Bank of New York, As Successor Trustee of JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. as Trustee for the Holders of Sami II Trust 2006-AR6 Mortgage Pass through Certificates, Series 2006-AR6, Appellee.

No. 16-56617

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted February 6, 2018 * San Francisco, California

Filed February 08, 2018

Richard Lawrence Antognini, Law Office of Richard L. Antognini, Grass Valley, CA, for Appellant

Justin Donald Balser, Melissa L. Ciz-morris, Attorney, Akerman LLP, Denver, CO, for Appellee

Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, and D.W. NELSON and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Allana Baroni (“Baroni”) appeals the district court’s order affirming the bankruptcy court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of The Bank of New York Mellon (formerly known as “The Bank of New York”) (“BNYM”). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

1. Baroni’s note secured by a deed of trust is a “negotiable instrument” under Cal. Com. Code § 3104(a), *Yvanova v. New Century Mortg. Corp.,*62 Cal. 4th 919, 927, 199 Cal.Rptr.3d 66, 365 P.3d 845 (2016) (citing *Creative Ventures, LLC v. Jim Ward &*Assocs., 195 Cal. App. 4th 1430, 1445-46, 126 Cal.Rptr.3d 564 (2011) (applying Commercial Code to promissory note) ). That the principal on her note may increase if she fails to pay interest does not render the note non-negotiable. Regardless of any “interest” or additional “charges,” Baroni agreed to pay' at the very least $1.248 million — a “fixed amount of money” pursuant § 3104(a).

2. The undisputed evidence establishes BNYM possesses Baroni’s promissory note indorsed in blank. As the “holder of the instrument,” BNYM may “enforce” it in this bankruptcy action. §§ 1201(b)(21)(A), 3301 (internal quotation marks omitted); *see also In re Veal,*450 B.R. 897, 910-11, 917 (B.A.P. 9th Cir. 2011) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted); *In re Smith,*509 B.R. 260, 266-67 (Bankr. N.D. Cal. 2014) (citations omitted).

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
##### 



Exhibit 32.1 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 thirteen weeks ended September 25, 2004 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
Report), I, Thomas A. Andruskevich, Chairman of the Board, President and
Chief Executive 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: January 7, 2005 /s/ Thomas A. Andruskevich

Thomas A. AndruskevichChairman of the Board, President and Chief Executive Officer
# C_2022359EN.01004401.xml

| 19.9.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 359/44 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.9.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 359/44

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Corte suprema di cassazione (Italy) lodged on 28 June 2022 — Scuola europea di Varese v PD and LC, as persons exercising parental responsibility over the minor NG

(Case C-431/22)

(2022/C 359/52)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Corte suprema di cassazione

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Scuola europea di Varese

Defendants: PD and LC, as persons exercising parental responsibility over the minor NG

Question referred

Is the first sentence of the first subparagraph of Article 27(2) of the Convention defining the Statute of the European Schools, done in Luxembourg on 21 June 1994, to be interpreted as meaning that the Complaints Board referred to therein is to have sole jurisdiction in the first and final instance, once all administrative channels provided for in the General Rules have been exhausted, in any dispute concerning a decision on repeating a year adopted in relation to a secondary-school pupil by the Class Council?

---
# C_2021182EN.01005801.xml

| 10.5.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 182/58 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.5.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 182/58

---

Action brought on 18 February 2021 — Bastion Holding and Others v Commission

(Case T-102/21)

(2021/C 182/78)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Bastion Holding BV (Amsterdam, Netherlands) and 35 other applicants (represented by: B. Braeken and X.Y.G. Versteeg, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

| — | principally, annul the contested decision C(2020) 8286 final of 20 November 2020 concerning the amendment of the scheme SA.57712 — COVID-19: direct grant scheme to support the fixed costs for small and medium-sized enterprises affected by the COVID-19 outbreak (SA.59535 (2020/N)), both in so far as it relates to (a) the distinction between SMEs and other undertakings, and (b) the maximum amount of EUR 90 000; |
| --- | --- |

—

principally, annul the contested decision C(2020) 8286 final of 20 November 2020 concerning the amendment of the scheme SA.57712 — COVID-19: direct grant scheme to support the fixed costs for small and medium-sized enterprises affected by the COVID-19 outbreak (SA.59535 (2020/N)), both in so far as it relates to (a) the distinction between SMEs and other undertakings, and (b) the maximum amount of EUR 90 000;

| — | in the alternative, annul the contested decision in so far as it relates to either (a) the distinction between SMEs and other undertakings, or (b) the maximum amount of EUR 90 000; |
| --- | --- |

—

in the alternative, annul the contested decision in so far as it relates to either (a) the distinction between SMEs and other undertakings, or (b) the maximum amount of EUR 90 000;

| — | in the further alternative, annul the contested decision in its entirety; |
| --- | --- |

—

in the further alternative, annul the contested decision in its entirety;

| — | additionally, order the Commission to bear the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

additionally, order the Commission to bear the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicants rely on two pleas in law.

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging the failure of the Commission to open a formal investigation procedure by wrongly deciding that the contested State aid measure raises no doubts as to its compatibility with the internal market. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging the failure of the Commission to open a formal investigation procedure by wrongly deciding that the contested State aid measure raises no doubts as to its compatibility with the internal market.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging procedural shortcomings by the Commission, as the contested decision contains an inadequate statement of reasons. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging procedural shortcomings by the Commission, as the contested decision contains an inadequate statement of reasons.

---
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> US DOLLAR
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-30-1997
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                          10,611
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   10,443
<ALLOWANCES>                                       853
<INVENTORY>                                      8,554
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                32,180
<PP&E>                                           8,947
<DEPRECIATION>                                   5,769
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  35,562
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            9,678
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         6,257
<OTHER-SE>                                      19,627
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    35,562
<SALES>                                         44,374
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                48,306
<CGS>                                           30,855
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   32,701
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                18,354
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   2
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (2,377)
<INCOME-TAX>                                        86
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (2,463)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (2,463)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.16)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.16)
        

</TABLE>
# C_2021242EN.01005601.xml

| 21.6.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 242/56 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.6.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 242/56

---

Action brought on 3 May 2021 — FJ and Others v EEAS

(Case T-246/21)

(2021/C 242/79)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicants: FJ and six other applicants (represented by: J.-N. Louis, lawyer)

Defendant: European External Action Service

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

| — | annul the Commission’s decision establishing the applicants’ pay slip for the month of July 2020 in so far as it applies, for the first time, the new correction coefficients applicable to their salary, with retroactive effect from 1 October 2019 and 1 January 2020; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the Commission’s decision establishing the applicants’ pay slip for the month of July 2020 in so far as it applies, for the first time, the new correction coefficients applicable to their salary, with retroactive effect from 1 October 2019 and 1 January 2020;

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

—

order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of their action, the applicants allege infringement of Articles 64 and 65 of the Staff Regulations and of the principle of equal treatment in terms of equivalence of purchasing power, manifest error of assessment and infringement of the principle of legal certainty and of the duty of care.

In order to set the correction coefficient applicable to the salary of the applicants who are posted outside the European Union, Eurostat should collect data specific to their place of employment, in accordance with the rules for the application of Articles 64 and 65 of the Staff Regulations, set out in Annex XI thereto. The collection of the data used to set the correction coefficient is carried out under an international cooperation agreement between Eurostat, the OECD and the UN.

The coefficients set on the basis of those data fell from January 2018 to January 2019 from 239,7 to 94,0 whereas, for that same period, the coefficients applied to the salaries of UN personnel were increased to take account of inflation.

In 2017, the Congolese franc (CDF) underwent a sharp devaluation as against the dollar (USD) and the euro, which, coupled with substantial inflation, resulted in a significant increase in prices in USD, according to the analysis of the IMF. Furthermore, the statistical data of both the Central Bank of Congo and the UN and the IMF, show a parallel trend of the USD and the CDF in relation to the euro.

---