alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Farm Credit System Insurance Corporation

Statement of Financial Condition

March 31, 2009 and December 31, 2008

(unaudited)

March 31

2009

December 31

2008

Assets

 Cash and Cash Equivalents $ 126,680,750 $ 61,991,616

Investments in U.S. Treasury Obligations 2,765,745,259 2,588,889,577

 Accrued Interest Receivable 25,397,324 21,061,643

 Premiums Receivable 86,391,000 242,970,000

Total Assets $ 3,004,214,333 $ 2,914,912,836

Liabilities and Insurance Fund

 Accounts Payable and Accrued Expenses $ 766,074 $ 289,863

 Farm Credit Insurance Fund

 Allocated Insurance Reserve Accounts 39,888,431 39,888,431

 Unallocated Insurance Fund Balance 2,963,559,828 2,874,734,542

 Total Insurance Fund 3,003,448,259 2,914,622,973

Total Liabilities and Insurance Fund $ 3,004,214,333 $ 2,914,912,836
Farm Credit System Insurance Corporation

Statement of Revenue and Expense

For the Period Ended March 31, 2009

(unaudited)

Calendar Year To Date

March 31, 2009

Income

 Premiums $ 86,391,000

 Interest Income on Investments 2,993,253

Total Income $ 89,384,253

Expenses

 Administrative Operating Expenses $ 558,967

Total Expenses $ 558,967

Net Income $ 88,825,286
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent

except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 02-31000

Summary Calendar

 

ERIC SIMMONS,

Petitioner-Appellant,

versus

CARL CASTERLINE; UNITED STATES PAROLE COMMISSION,

Respondents-Appellees.

--------------------

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Louisiana

USDC No. 02-CV-105

--------------------

January 28, 2003

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

PER CURIAM:*

Eric Simmons, federal prisoner # 36382-118, appeals the

district court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition. In

that petition, he challenged the United States Parole

Commission’s (USPC) determination denying him reparole. He

argues that it is inappropriate for the USPC to apply the federal

regulations to determine a District of Columbia Code offender’s

suitability for reparole and, further, that the application of

the federal regulations violates the Ex Post Facto Clause. 
No. 02-31000

-2-

We review the district court’s determinations of law de novo

and its findings of fact for clear error. Venegas v. Henman, 126

F.3d 760, 761 (5th Cir. 1997). The USPC exercises authority over

District of Columbia Code offenders, having sole authority to

grant them parole, and the federal regulations constitute the

parole rules of the District of Columbia. 28 C.F.R. § 2.70(a).

Consequently, the USPC’s decision to grant or deny reparole is

made by reference to the reparole guidelines found in the Code of

Federal Regulations, and all reparole hearings are to be

conducted according to the procedures set forth therein. Id. at

§ 2.81(a), (d). Therefore, application of the federal

regulations to determine Simmons’s suitability for reparole was

correct. We reject Simmons’s argument that application of the

federal regulations changed his reparole hearing date and thus

increased the punishment attached to his crimes in violation of

the Ex Post Facto Clause. See California Dep’t of Corrections v.

Morales, 514 U.S. 499, 508-10 (1995). 

AFFIRMED.
<PAGE>

                                                                   Exhibit 11.01

                        TSI INTERNATIONAL SOFTWARE LTD.
                       COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER SHARE


                                              Years Ended December 31,
                                         1995           1996          1997
                                       --------------------------------------
Basic:

Weighted average common shares
 outstanding                           2,845,630      2,886,822     5,916,993

Net Income                             $ 822,800     $1,227,900    $2,479,600

Per Share Amount                       $.29          $.43          $.42


Diluted:

Weighted average common shares
 outstanding                           2,845,630     2,886,822     5,916,993
Common shares issued for conversion
 of preferred stock                    2,609,415     2,609,415     1,304,632
Dilutive effect of stock options
 and warrants                            -0-           314,973     1,345,136
                                      ----------    ----------    ----------
Weighted average common and common
 equivalent shares outstanding         5,455,045     5,811,210     8,566,761
                                      ----------    ----------    ----------

Net Income                            $  822,800    $1,227,900    $2,479,600
                                      ----------    ----------    ----------

Per Share Amount                      $.15          $.21          $.29
# C_2017213EN.01001902.xml

| 3.7.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 213/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.7.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 213/19

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy) lodged on 24 March 2017 — Consorzio Italian Management and Catania Multiservizi SpA v Rete Ferroviaria Italiana SpA

(Case C-152/17)

(2017/C 213/25)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Referring court

Consiglio di Stato

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Consorzio Italian Management and Catania Multiservizi SpA

Applicant:

Defendant: Rete Ferroviaria Italiana SpA

Defendant:

Questions referred

Questions referred

| (1) | Is the interpretation of national law that excludes review of prices in contracts relating to ‘special sectors’, particularly as regards those with a different object from those to which the Directive 2004/17 (1) refers, but that are connected with those sectors by an instrumental link, compatible with EU law (in particular, Article 3(3) TEU, Articles 26, 56 to 58 and 101 TFEU, and Article 16 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union) and Directive 2004/17? |
| --- | --- |

(1)

Is the interpretation of national law that excludes review of prices in contracts relating to ‘special sectors’, particularly as regards those with a different object from those to which the Directive 2004/17 (1) refers, but that are connected with those sectors by an instrumental link, compatible with EU law (in particular, Article 3(3) TEU, Articles 26, 56 to 58 and 101 TFEU, and Article 16 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union) and Directive 2004/17?

1

| (2) | Is Directive 2004/17 (if it should be considered that exclusion of revision of prices in all contracts concluded and applied within ‘special sectors’ arises directly therefrom) compatible with the principles of the European Union (in particular Articles 3(1) TEU, 26, 56 to 58 and 101 TFEU, and Article 16 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union), ‘in the light of the unfairness, disproportionality, and distortion of contractual balance and, therefore, of the rules governing an efficient market’? |
| --- | --- |

(2)

Is Directive 2004/17 (if it should be considered that exclusion of revision of prices in all contracts concluded and applied within ‘special sectors’ arises directly therefrom) compatible with the principles of the European Union (in particular Articles 3(1) TEU, 26, 56 to 58 and 101 TFEU, and Article 16 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union), ‘in the light of the unfairness, disproportionality, and distortion of contractual balance and, therefore, of the rules governing an efficient market’?

---

(1)  Directive 2004/17/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 coordinating the procurement procedures of entities operating in the water, energy, transport and postal services sectors (OJ 2004 L 134, p. 1).

1

---
Order – Page 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

DALLAS DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, §

 §

 §

v. § Criminal Case No. 3:05-CR-113-L (03)

 §

CLYDE DALE EVANS, §

 §

ORDER 

On June 28, 2016, Magistrate Judge Paul D. Stickney entered the Findings, Conclusions 

and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge (“Report”) (Doc. 261) 

recommending that Defendant’s Motion to Reduce Sentence Under Johnson v. United States

(Doc. 260) be construed as a successive habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. ' 2255 and transferred 

to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. No objections to the Report were 

received as of the date of this order.

When a petition is deemed successive, the district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction 

unless a panel of the Fifth Circuit allows the successive petition to proceed. After reviewing the 

motion, record in this case, and Report, the court determines that the findings and conclusions of 

the magistrate judge are correct, and accepts them as those of the court. Accordingly, the court

directs the clerk of the court to transfer the habeas petition in this case (Doc. 260) to the Fifth 

Circuit for determination, and dismisses this action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. 1

 

1 An order transferring a successive application to the court of appeals is not a final order requiring a certificate of 

appealability. See United States v. Fulton, 780 F.3d 683, 688 (5th Cir. 2015).

 

 Case 3:05-cr-00113-L Document 262 Filed 07/28/16 Page 1 of 2 PageID 1263
Order – Page 2

It is so ordered this 28th day of July, 2016.

_________________________________

Sam A. Lindsay

United States District Judge

 

 Case 3:05-cr-00113-L Document 262 Filed 07/28/16 Page 2 of 2 PageID 1264
DISMISS; Opinion Filed April 11 , 2014. 

# S

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05

- 13

- 00935

- CV

MICHAEL HALLER , HHT LIMITED LLC, AND NRG & ASSOCIATES, LLC Appellant s V. MIDWAY COLLECTIONS/N ATIONWIDE RECOVERY S YSTEMS , Appellee

On Appeal from the 219th Judicial District Court Collin County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 219

- 05267

- 2011



### MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices FitzGerald, Fillmore, and Evans Opinion b y Justice Evans The clerk’s record in this case is overdue. Our records show that by letter dated August

16, 2013, we notified appellant s that the Court had received notice the clerk’s record had not

been filed because appellant s had not paid or made arra ngements to pay for the clerk’s record.

We directed appellant s to file written verification of payment or arrangements to pay for the

clerk’s record within ten days. Thereafter, we received two letters from appellant s regarding

payment for the clerk’s reco rd. The latter of these letters, dated October 8, 2013 indicated the

record had been paid for, but the District Clerk was not able to verify the payment and that

appellant s needed “to run a report to find the check.” By letter dated March 21, 2014, we aga in

notified appellant s regarding the past due clerk’s record. We again cautioned appellant s that if

we did not receive written verification of payment for the clerk’s record within ten days, we– 2

– would dismiss the case without further notice. To date, the clerk’s record has not been filed and

appellant s ha ve not provided the required documentation regarding the clerk’s record.

Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 37.3(b); 42.3(b), (c).

130935F.P05 /David Evans/ DAVID EVANS JUSTICE– 3

– 

# S

Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

JUDGMENT

MICHAEL HALLER, ET AL., Appellants

No. 05

- 13

- 00935

- CV V.

MIDWAY COLLECTIONS/NATIONWIDE RECOVERY SYSTEMS, Appellee On Appeal from the 219th Judicial District Court, Collin County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 219

- 05267

- 2011. Opinion delivered by Justice Evans. Justices FitzGerald and Fillmore participating.

In accordance with this Court’s opinion of this date, this appeal is DISMISSED

. It is ORDERED that appellee MIDWAY COLLECTIONS/NATIONWIDE RECOVERY SYSTEMS recover its costs of this appeal from appellants MICHAEL HALLER

, HHT LIMITED LLC, AND NRG & ASSOCIATES, LLC.

Judgment entered this 11 th day of April, 2014.

/ David Evans/ DAVID EVANS JUSTICE
# C_2017168EN.01001902.xml

| 29.5.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 168/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.5.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 168/19

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italia) lodged on 11 January 2017 — VAR Srl v Iveco Orecchia SpA

(Case C-14/17)

(2017/C 168/25)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Referring court

Consiglio di Stato

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: VAR Srl

Applicant:

Defendant: Iveco Orecchia SpA

Defendant:

Questions referred

Questions referred

| 1 | Must Article 34(8) of Directive 2004/17/EC (1) be interpreted as meaning that it requires that proof that the products to be supplied are equivalent to the original products be presented at the stage of submission of the tender? |
| --- | --- |

1

Must Article 34(8) of Directive 2004/17/EC (1) be interpreted as meaning that it requires that proof that the products to be supplied are equivalent to the original products be presented at the stage of submission of the tender?

1

| 2 | In the alternative, in the event that Question (a) on interpretation is to be answered in the negative: which steps are required to ensure that there is respect for the principles of equal treatment and impartiality, of open competition and sound administration, and for other tenderers’ rights of defence and right to be heard? |
| --- | --- |

2

In the alternative, in the event that Question (a) on interpretation is to be answered in the negative: which steps are required to ensure that there is respect for the principles of equal treatment and impartiality, of open competition and sound administration, and for other tenderers’ rights of defence and right to be heard?

---

(1)  Directive 2004/17/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 coordinating the procurement procedures of entities operating in the water, energy, transport and postal services sectors (OJ 2004 L 134, p. 1).

1

---
Order – Page 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

DALLAS DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, §

§

Plaintiff, §

§

v. § Civil Action No. 3:06-CV-0184-L

§

ONE 2002 DODGE RAM 1500 §

QUAD-CAB TRUCK §

VIN: 3D7HU18ZX2G145745, §

§

Defendant in rem. §

ORDER

This is a civil forfeiture case, brought under 21 U.S.C. § 881(a)(6). Before the court is

Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike the Verified Claim of Mary Cipriani Hernandez and Brief in Support,

filed September 22, 2006. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and an order of the court in

implementation thereof, this case was referred to the United States magistrate judge for proposed

findings and recommendation. On October 24, 2006, the Findings, Conclusions and

Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge (“Report”) were filed, to which no

objections were filed. After making an independent review of the pleadings, file and record in this

case, and the magistrate judge’s Report, the court determines that the magistrate judge’s findings

are correct. Accordingly, the magistrate judge’s findings and conclusions are accepted as those of

 

 Case 3:06-cv-00184-L Document 14 Filed 06/25/07 Page 1 of 2 PageID 49
Order – Page 2

the court. Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike the Verified Claim of Mary Cipriani Hernandez is granted,

and the court strikes the Verified Claim of Mary Cipriani Hernandez, filed April 20, 2006.

It is so ordered this 25th day of June, 2007.

_________________________________

Sam A. Lindsay

United States District Judge

 

 Case 3:06-cv-00184-L Document 14 Filed 06/25/07 Page 2 of 2 PageID 50
```

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S.J. Res. 25 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

117th CONGRESS
  1st Session
S. J. RES. 25

    Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States 
     relating to contributions and expenditures intended to affect 
                               elections.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           September 20, 2021

  Mrs. Shaheen (for herself, Mr. Lujan, Mr. Schumer, Mr. Bennet, Ms. 
 Baldwin, Mr. Blumenthal, Mr. Booker, Mr. Casey, Ms. Cortez Masto, Mr. 
    Durbin, Mrs. Gillibrand, Ms. Hirono, Mr. Kaine, Mr. Markey, Mr. 
 Padilla, Mr. Reed, Ms. Rosen, Mr. Sanders, Ms. Smith, Mr. Tester, Mr. 
  Van Hollen, Mr. Whitehouse, and Mr. Wyden) introduced the following 
joint resolution; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on 
                             the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                            JOINT RESOLUTION

 
    Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States 
     relating to contributions and expenditures intended to affect 
                               elections.

    Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled   (two-thirds of each House 
concurring therein), That the following article is proposed as an 
amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which shall be 
valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when 
ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States:

                              ``Article--

    ``Section 1. To advance democratic self-government and political 
equality, and to protect the integrity of government and the electoral 
process, Congress and the States may regulate and set reasonable limits 
on the raising and spending of money by candidates and others to 
influence elections.
    ``Section 2. Congress and the States shall have power to implement 
and enforce this article by appropriate legislation, and may 
distinguish between natural persons and corporations or other 
artificial entities created by law, including by prohibiting such 
entities from spending money to influence elections.
    ``Section 3. Nothing in this article shall be construed to grant 
Congress or the States the power to abridge the freedom of the 
press.''.
                                 <all>
```
Ronald Clark BALL, Appellant, v. Rhea KESSLER and Noka World Energy (USA) LLC, Appellees.

No. 1D18-1653

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

March 15, 2019 Rehearing Denied May 13, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
IIA 

117TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. J. RES. 44 

Relating to the disapproval of the proposed sale to the Government of Bahrain 

of certain defense articles and services. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MARCH 30, 2022 

Mr. PAUL introduced the following joint resolution; which was read twice and 

referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations 

JOINT RESOLUTION 

Relating to the disapproval of the proposed sale to the Government of Bahrain of certain defense articles and services. 

1 Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives

2 of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 That the following proposed foreign military sale to the 

4 Government of Bahrain is prohibited: 

5 (1) The sale of the following defense articles 

6 and services, described in the certification Trans7 mittal No. 22–04, submitted to Congress and pub8 lished in the Congressional Record on March 24, 

9 2022: upgrades to nine (9) M270 Multiple Launch 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•SJ 44 IS 

1 Rocket Systems (MLRS) to a M270 A1 minimum 

2 configuration, including— 

3 (A) the Common Fire Control System 

4 (CFCS); Improved Launcher Mechanical Sys5 tem (ILMS); 600h Engine and associated en6 gine compartment modifications; Improved 

7 Electronics Distribution Box (IEDB); fan speed 

8 control valve; cables and mounting hardware, 

9 Power Take Off (PTO) and BOO series trans10 mission; the Digital Communication Systems 

11 (DCOMMS); and Vehicular Intercom System 

12 (AN/VIC–3); and 

13 (B) two (2) years spare parts; Operator 

14 and Maintenance Training Course Contractor 

15 Logistics Support; U.S. Government engineer16 ing support; support and test equipment; inte17 gration and test support, software delivery and 

18 support; publications and technical documenta19 tion; technical and logistics support services; 

20 storage; and other related elements of logistical 

21 and program support. 

Æ 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
----

**EXHIBIT      32.0 **

**SECTION      1350 CERTIFICATIONS**

|                              | By:    | /s/                Thomas A. Vento                                                                                |
|-----------------------------------|--------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                              |   | Name:                  Thomas A. Vento                                                                  |
|                              |   | Title:                    President and Chief Executive                Officer                |
|                              |   |                                                                                                              |
|                              |   |                                                                                                              |
| Date:                May 15, 2007 |   |                                                                                                              |
|                              |   |                                                                                                              |
|                              |   |                                                                                                              |
|                              |   |                                                                                                              |
|                              | By:    | /s/                  Joseph R. Corrato                                                                            |
|                              |   | Name:                  Joseph R. Corrato                                                                |
|                              |   | Title:                    Executive Vice President and Chief                Financial Officer |
|                              |   |                                                                                                              |
|                              |   |                                                                                                              |
|                              |   |                                                                                                              |
| Date:                May 15, 2007 |   |                                                                                                              |
|                              |   |                                                                                                              |
EXHIBIT 32.2
 
 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
 18 U.S.C. 1350,
 AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
 SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
 
 
 In connection with the Quarterly Report of Two Rivers Water Company on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2011, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Wayne Harding, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:
 
 The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange 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.
 
 
 
 Dated:  May 10, 2011
By: /s/ Wayne HardingChief Financial Officer & Principal Accounting Officer