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

<ARTICLE> 9
<MULTIPLIER>  1

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                       2,618,343
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                         163,142
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                               920,889
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                 37,595,302
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                       4,373,881
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                         4,334,531
<LOANS>                                     44,006,386
<ALLOWANCE>                                    318,536
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              95,321,491
<DEPOSITS>                                  74,596,773
<SHORT-TERM>                                         0
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                            932,898
<LONG-TERM>                                 11,950,000
<COMMON>                                     1,312,608
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                   6,529,212
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>              95,321,491
<INTEREST-LOAN>                              1,912,101
<INTEREST-INVEST>                            1,192,425
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                97,703
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                             3,202,229
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                           1,328,747
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           1,649,008
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                        1,649,008
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                 (100,000)
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                              (6,125)
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                              1,472,690
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                411,234
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                     257,375
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   257,375
<EPS-BASIC>                                     2.03
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.96
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    7.59
<LOANS-NON>                                    850,569
<LOANS-PAST>                                         0
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                112,075
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                               310,157
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                   63,594
<RECOVERIES>                                    21,973
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                              318,536
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                           318,536
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0


</TABLE>
No. 10-726.

#### Joseph P. Ganim, Petitioner v. United States.

562 U.S. 1140, 131 S. Ct. 967,

178 L. Ed. 2d 757,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 559.

January 10, 2011.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit denied.
# C_2015354EN.01000702.xml

| 26.10.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 354/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.10.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 354/7

---

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 2 September 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Augstākā Tiesa — Latvia) — Andrejs Surmačs v Finanšu un kapitāla tirgus komisija

(Case C-127/14) (1)

1

((Request for a preliminary ruling - Directive 94/19/EC - Point 7 of Annex I - Deposit-guarantee scheme - Exclusion of certain depositors from the deposit-guarantee scheme - Exclusion of a ‘manager’))

(2015/C 354/08)

Language of the case: Latvian

Referring court

Referring court

Augstākā Tiesa

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Andrejs Surmačs

Applicant:

Defendant: Finanšu un kapitāla tirgus komisija

Defendant:

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

| 1) | The deposits excluded under point 7 of Annex I to Directive 94/19/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 1994 on deposit-guarantee schemes, as amended by Directive 2009/14/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 March 2009, are listed exhaustively in that provision, so that the Member States cannot provide, in their national law, for other categories of depositors who are not covered, in terms of the functions carried out, by the concepts listed in that point, in order for the exclusion from the deposit-guarantee to be applied to them. |
| --- | --- |

1)

The deposits excluded under point 7 of Annex I to Directive 94/19/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 1994 on deposit-guarantee schemes, as amended by Directive 2009/14/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 March 2009, are listed exhaustively in that provision, so that the Member States cannot provide, in their national law, for other categories of depositors who are not covered, in terms of the functions carried out, by the concepts listed in that point, in order for the exclusion from the deposit-guarantee to be applied to them.

| 2) | Point 7 of Annex I to Directive 94/19, as amended by Directive 2009/14, must be interpreted as meaning that the Member States may exclude from the guarantee laid down by that directive, as a manager, persons who, because of the function exercised within the credit institution, have, irrespective of the title of that function, a level of information and expertise which enables them to assess the actual financial situation and the risks associated with the activity of the credit institution. |
| --- | --- |

2)

Point 7 of Annex I to Directive 94/19, as amended by Directive 2009/14, must be interpreted as meaning that the Member States may exclude from the guarantee laid down by that directive, as a manager, persons who, because of the function exercised within the credit institution, have, irrespective of the title of that function, a level of information and expertise which enables them to assess the actual financial situation and the risks associated with the activity of the credit institution.

---

(1)  OJ C 159, 26.5.2014.

1

---
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Joseph Giacchi, Appellant.

[61 NYS3d 895]

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Bonnie G. Wittner, J.), rendered April 2, 2015, convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of grand larceny in the fourth degree (three counts) and criminal possession of stolen property in the fourth degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to an aggregate term of 3 to 6 years, unanimously affirmed.

*545Defendant did not preserve his claim that the court failed to apprehend and exercise its discretion to depart from a promised sentence *(see People v McHale,*165 AD2d 800 [1st Dept 1990], *lv denied*76 NY2d 1023 [1990]). While defendant characterizes his claim as one of unlawful sentencing, he is essentially arguing that a substantively lawful sentence was imposed by way of a defective procedure, and such claims require preservation *(People v Samms,*95 NY2d 52, 58 [2000]). As a result of the lack of preservation, the court was never called upon to clarify its statement as to sentence, which is subject to several interpretations. We decline to review this argument in the interest of justice.

As an alternative holding, we find that to the extent the court may be viewed as expressing an erroneous belief that it lacked sentencing discretion after defendant’s negotiated plea, remand for resentencing is unwarranted because the record fails to indicate any possible harm flowing from the court’s alleged error, such as an indication of reservation about the fairness of the sentence to be imposed *(see People v Farrar, 52*NY2d 302, 305 [1981]; *People v Diaz,*304 AD2d 468 [1st Dept 2003], *lv denied*100 NY2d 561 [2003]).

We do not find that defendant made a valid waiver of his right to appeal. In any event, we perceive no basis for reducing his sentence.

Concur — Acosta, P.J., Friedman, Webber, Oing and Moulton, JJ.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Andrew James, Appellant.

[64 NYS3d 919]

Application by the appellant for a writ of error coram nobis to vacate, on the ground of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel, a decision *725and order of this Court dated June 20, 2005 *(People v James,*19 AD3d 616 [2005]), affirming a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, rendered February 25, 2003.

Ordered that the application is denied.

The appellant has failed to establish that he was denied the effective assistance of appellate counsel *(see Jones v Barnes,*463 US 745 [1983]; *People v Stultz,*2 NY3d 277 [2004]).

Mastro, J.P., Chambers, Austin and Duffy, JJ., concur.
# C_2014045EN.01003702.xml

| 15.2.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 45/37 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.2.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 45/37

---

Action brought on 25 November 2013 — The Tea Board v OHIM — Delta Lingerie (Darjeeling collection de lingerie)

(Case T-625/13)

2014/C 45/65

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: The Tea Board (Calcutta, India) (represented by: A. Nordemann, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Delta Lingerie (Cachan, France)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 17 September 2013 given in Case R 1502/2012-2; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 17 September 2013 given in Case R 1502/2012-2;

| — | Order the defendant to pay the costs of proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the defendant to pay the costs of proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Applicant for a Community trade mark:

Community trade mark concerned: The figurative mark claiming the colour green containing the verbal element ‘Darjeeling collection de lingerie’ for Classes 25, 35 and 38 — the Community trade mark application No 9 466 228

Community trade mark concerned:

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The applicant

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings:

Mark or sign cited in opposition: Community collective trade mark registration No 4 325 718 of the word mark ‘DARJEELING’ for goods in Class 30; Community collective trade mark registration No 8 674 327 of the figurative mark containing the verbal element ‘DARJEELING’

Mark or sign cited in opposition:

Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejected the opposition

Decision of the Opposition Division:

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

Decision of the Board of Appeal:

Pleas in law: Infringement of Articles 8(1)(b) and 8(5) CTMR.

Pleas in law:

---
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 124 (Monday, June 29, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Page 35306]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-17255]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION


Notice of Applications for Certificates of Public Convenience and 
Necessity and Foreign Air Carrier Permits Filed Under Subpart Q During 
the Week Ending June 19, 1998

    The following Applications for Certificates of Public Convenience 
and Necessity and Foreign Air Carrier Permits were filed under Subpart 
Q of the Department of Transportation's Procedural Regulations (See 14 
CFR 302.1701 et seq.). The due date for Answers, Conforming 
Applications, or Motions to Modify Scope are set forth below for each 
application. Following the Answer period DOT may process the 
application by expedited procedures. Such procedures may consist of the 
adoption of a show-cause order, a tentative order, or in appropriate 
cases a final order without further proceedings.
    Docket Number: OST-98-3964.
    Date Filed: June 17, 1998.
    Due Date for Answers, Conforming Applications, or Motions to Modify 
Scope: July 15, 1998.
    Description: Application of American Airlines, Inc. pursuant to 49 
U.S.C. Section 41102, and Subpart Q of the Department's Regulations, 
applies for renewal of segment 1 of its Certificate of Public 
Convenience and Necessity for Route 648 (Raleigh/Durham-London), issued 
by Order 93-12-27, December 17, 1994.
Dorothy W. Walker,
Federal Register Liaison.
[FR Doc. 98-17255 Filed 6-26-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-62-P
Panangeksamen ken Panangagas iti Saan nga Aktibo a Sarut (TB)

Agpatingga iti 13 a milion a tattao iti Estados Unidos ti mabalin nga addaan iti 

saan nga aktibo a TB (maawagan met kas latent nga impeksion ti TB). No awan ti 

panagagas, 1 kadagiti 10 a tattao nga addaan iti saan nga aktibo a TB ti agsakitto 

iti aktibo a sakit a TB, ken maiwarasda ti TB iti dadduma babaen iti angin. 

Makatulongka a manglapped iti panagwaras ti TB.

Ti panangagas iti saan nga aktibo a TB ti 

kasayaatan a wagas tapno masaluadanka 

manipud iti aktibo a sakit a TB. No mabalin, 

irekomendar ti CDC ti panagusar iti apagbiit ken 

nanam-ay a 3 wenno 4 a bulan a panagagas 

iti rifamycin para iti saan nga aktibo a TB.

Eksamenen Agasan

Ania dagiti pagpiliak 

a panagagas?

Ania nga eksamen iti 

TB ti masapulko?

Adda dua a kita dagiti eksamen para iti impeksion ti 

TB: ti eksamen ti dara para iti TB ken ti 

eksamen ti kudil para iti TB. Ad-adu ti mayat 

kadagiti eksamen ti dara para iti TB kas wagas a 

pangeksamen iti TB para kadagiti tattao a nakaawat 

iti bakuna iti TB (BCG). Nasken a pagpatangan dagiti 

mangipapaay ti pannaripato ti salun-at ken dagiti 

pasiente no ania nga eksamen ti kasayaatan.

2 3

Uray dagiti tattao a nakaawat iti bakuna iti TB, a 

maaw-awagan met kas bacille Calmette-Guérin (BCG) 

a bakuna, ket nasken a maeksamen gapu ta 

kumapsut ti bakuna iti panaglabas ti tiempo.

Kapatangmo ti mangipapaay ti pannaripato ti salun-atmo maipanggep iti 

panagpaeksamen no sika ket:

agtrab-trabaho kadagiti luglugar nga addaan iti 

nangato a panagiinnakar ti TB, kas kadagiti ospital, 

pagdagusan dagiti awan pagtaenganna, pasilidad 

ti pagbaludan, ken dagiti balay ti taripato

agnanaed wenno nagnaed idi kadagiti 

situasion a pakasarakan ti dadakkel a grupo 

no sadino a kadawyan ti kaso ti TB, kas 

kadagiti pagdagusan dagiti awan 

pagtaenganna, preso, wenno karsel

nakapsut ti resistensia ti bagi 

gapu iti sumagmamano nga 

ag-agas wenno kondision ti 

salun-at kas iti diabetes, kanser, 

ken HIV

nakilangen iti nabiit pay 

a tiempo iti maysa a tao 

nga addaan iti sakit nga 

aktibo a TB

naiyanak kadagiti wenno 

masansan a mapan kadagiti 

pagilian no sadino a kadawyan 

ti kaso ti TB, agraman dagiti 

adda iti Asia, Africa ken 

Latin America

1 Panunoten Addanak kadi ti peggad para iti impeksion ti TB?

Tapno maammuan ti ad-adu pay maipapan iti TB ken no kasanom a saluadan 

ta bagim ken ti dadduma, bisitaen ti www.cdc.gov/thinktesttreattb
EXHIBIT 32.1
                                                                    ------------

                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 (18 U.S.C. SS. 1350)

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. ss. 1350),
the undersigned, Corey M. Horowitz, Chief Executive Officer and Chairman of
Network-1 Security Solutions, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the "Company"), does
hereby certify to his knowledge, that:

The Quarterly Report of Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended March 31, 2006 of the
Company (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Act of 1934, and the information contained in the Report
fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results
of operations of the Company.





                                       /S/ COREY M. HOROWITZ
                                       ------------------------------------
                                       CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHAIRMAN
                                       MAY 12, 2006
Electronically Filed

Intermediate Court of Appeals

CAAP-11-0000763

30-DEC-2014

08:29 AM
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 21.1

                 SUBSIDIARIES OF GREATE BAY CASINO CORPORATION

                                                                        State
        Name                             Address                      Organized

PPI Corporation            200 Decadon Drive, Suite 100               New Jersey
                           Egg Harbor Township, New Jersey 08234

PPI Funding Corp.          200 Decadon Drive, Suite 100               Delaware
                           Egg Harbor Township, New Jersey 08234

PCPI Funding Corp.         200 Decadon Drive, Suite 100               Delaware
                           Egg Harbor Township, New Jersey 08234

Pratt-Hollywood, Inc.      200 Decadon Drive, Suite 100               Delaware
                           Egg Harbor Township, New Jersey 08234

BPHC Acquisition, Inc.     136 S. Kentucky Avenue                     New Jersey
                           Atlantic City, New Jersey  08401

Advanced Casino Systems    200 Decadon Drive, Suite 100               Delaware
 Corporation               Egg Harbor Township, New Jersey 08234

BPHC Parking Corp.         136 S. Kentucky Avenue                     New Jersey
                           Atlantic City, New Jersey  08401
# C_2014052EN.01004402.xml

| 22.2.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 52/44 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.2.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 52/44

---

Action brought on 30 December 2013 — Meta Group v European Commission

(Case T-696/13)

2014/C 52/84

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Meta Group Srl (Rome, Italy) (represented by: A. Bartolini, V. Colcelli and A. Formica, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | Declare that the reductions made by the European Commission on the subsidies granted to META S.r.l are unlawful; |
| --- | --- |

—

Declare that the reductions made by the European Commission on the subsidies granted to META S.r.l are unlawful;

| — | And, consequently, order the Commission to pay the applicant the additional amount of EUR 129 153,11, together with default interest; |
| --- | --- |

—

And, consequently, order the Commission to pay the applicant the additional amount of EUR 129 153,11, together with default interest;

| — | Order the administration to compensate the applicant for the consequential loss suffered by it. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the administration to compensate the applicant for the consequential loss suffered by it.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

This action is brought against the decisions of the Commission which reduced the grant initially provided for the projects ‘Bcreative’, ‘Take-It-Up’ and ‘Ecolink +’, which grant agreements were concluded between the applicant and the defendant in the context of the ‘Competitiveness and Innovation Framework Programme (CIP) (2007 — 2013)’.

Several decisions concerning those projects were also contested in Cases T — 471/12, T — 34/13 and T — 35/13, Meta Group v Commission.

Meta Group

Commission

The pleas in law and main arguments set out are identical to those raised in those cases.

---
2016-0750.

#### Perry v. Sloan.

Ashtabula App. No. 2015-A-0064, 2016-Ohio-1605. Reported at 149 Ohio St.3d 690, 2017-Ohio-1404, 77 N.E.3d 942. On motion for reconsideration. Motion denied.
* Pursuant to Local Rule 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 Local Rule

47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 96-50498

Summary Calendar

 

RICHARD CONNER; CHRIS CONNER,

Plaintiffs-Appellees,

versus

TRAVIS COUNTY TEXAS, ET AL.,

 Defendants,

TRAVIS COUNTY TEXAS; JOHN DOES 1 TO 10;

FRED MCAFEE, Travis County Sheriff’s Deputy,

Defendants-Appellants.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 95-CV-648

- - - - - - - - - -

June 16, 1997

Before DAVIS, EMILIO M. GARZA and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

As an initial matter, this court must address the basis of

its jurisdiction over this appeal. Cantu v. Rocha, 77 F.3d 795,

802 (5th Cir. 1996). With respect to the portion of the appeal

challenging the denial of summary judgment based on McAFee and
No. 96-50498

- 2 -

Keel’s qualified and official immunity, the order is immediately

appealable as based on an issue of law despite the district

court’s determination that disputes of fact remain. Id. at 804;

Behrens v. Pelletier, 116 S. Ct. 834, 840 (1996); Johnson v.

Jones, 115 S. Ct. 2151, 2159 (1996). 

The district court did not err by denying summary judgment

on the issues of qualified immunity. Viewing the evidence in the

light most favorable to Conner, there is a genuine issue of

material fact whether McAfee and Keel’s conduct was objectively

reasonable or in good faith. See Nerren v. Livingston Police

Dept., 86 F.3d 469, 472-74(5th Cir. 1996); Baker v. Putnal, 75

F.3d 190, 199 (5th Cir. 1996); City of Lancaster v. Chambers, 883

S.W.2d, 650, 656 (Tex. 1994).

APPEAL DISMISSED IN PART, AFFIRMED IN PART.
No. 10-628.

#### Kevin J. O’Connor, Petitioner v. Colorado College, et al.

562 U.S. 1139, 131 S. Ct. 943,

178 L. Ed. 2d 755,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 575,

January 10, 2011.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals of Colorado denied.