alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Case 1:07-cv-05898-RJS Document 7-3 Filed 01/25/2008 Page 1 of 31
Case 1:07-cv-05898-RJS Document 7-3 Filed 01/25/2008 Page 2 of 31
Case 1:07-cv-05898-RJS Document 7-3 Filed 01/25/2008 Page 3 of 31
Case 1:07-cv-05898-RJS Document 7-3 Filed 01/25/2008 Page 4 of 31
Case 1:07-cv-05898-RJS Document 7-3 Filed 01/25/2008 Page 5 of 31
Case 1:07-cv-05898-RJS Document 7-3 Filed 01/25/2008 Page 6 of 31
Case 1:07-cv-05898-RJS Document 7-3 Filed 01/25/2008 Page 7 of 31
Case 1:07-cv-05898-RJS Document 7-3 Filed 01/25/2008 Page 8 of 31
Case 1:07-cv-05898-RJS Document 7-3 Filed 01/25/2008 Page 9 of 31
Case 1:07-cv-05898-RJS Document 7-3 Filed 01/25/2008 Page 10 of 31
Case 1:07-cv-05898-RJS Document 7-3 Filed 01/25/2008 Page 11 of 31
Case 1:07-cv-05898-RJS Document 7-3 Filed 01/25/2008 Page 12 of 31
Case 1:07-cv-05898-RJS Document 7-3 Filed 01/25/2008 Page 13 of 31
Case 1:07-cv-05898-RJS Document 7-3 Filed 01/25/2008 Page 14 of 31
Case 1:07-cv-05898-RJS Document 7-3 Filed 01/25/2008 Page 15 of 31
Case 1:07-cv-05898-RJS Document 7-3 Filed 01/25/2008 Page 16 of 31
Case 1:07-cv-05898-RJS Document 7-3 Filed 01/25/2008 Page 17 of 31
Case 1:07-cv-05898-RJS Document 7-3 Filed 01/25/2008 Page 18 of 31
Case 1:07-cv-05898-RJS Document 7-3 Filed 01/25/2008 Page 19 of 31
Case 1:07-cv-05898-RJS Document 7-3 Filed 01/25/2008 Page 20 of 31
Case 1:07-cv-05898-RJS Document 7-3 Filed 01/25/2008 Page 21 of 31
Case 1:07-cv-05898-RJS Document 7-3 Filed 01/25/2008 Page 22 of 31
Case 1:07-cv-05898-RJS Document 7-3 Filed 01/25/2008 Page 23 of 31
Case 1:07-cv-05898-RJS Document 7-3 Filed 01/25/2008 Page 24 of 31
Case 1:07-cv-05898-RJS Document 7-3 Filed 01/25/2008 Page 25 of 31
Case 1:07-cv-05898-RJS Document 7-3 Filed 01/25/2008 Page 26 of 31
Case 1:07-cv-05898-RJS Document 7-3 Filed 01/25/2008 Page 27 of 31
Case 1:07-cv-05898-RJS Document 7-3 Filed 01/25/2008 Page 28 of 31
Case 1:07-cv-05898-RJS Document 7-3 Filed 01/25/2008 Page 29 of 31
Case 1:07-cv-05898-RJS Document 7-3 Filed 01/25/2008 Page 30 of 31
Case 1:07-cv-05898-RJS Document 7-3 Filed 01/25/2008 Page 31 of 31
June 28, 2006
Via E-Mail

Office of the Acting Secretary
Commodity Futures Trading Commission
Three Lafayette Centre

1155 21st Street, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20581

Re: Rule Certification. NYMEX Submission 06.80: Notification
of Housekeeping Changes to Chapter 9, Appendix A.

Dear Ms. Eileen Donovan:

The New York Mercantile Exchange ("NY MEX" or the "Exchange") is notifying the
Commodity Futures Trading Commission (“CFTC” or “Commission”) of housekeeping changes
to Chapter 9, Appendix A.

The housekeeping pertains to a name change for the Brent Bullet Swap Contract (“BB”)
to the “Brent Financial Contract,” effective July 9, 2006. Pursuant to Section 5c(c) of the
Commodity Exchange Act (“Act”) and CFTC Rule 40.6, the Exchange hereby certifies that the
attached notification complies with the Act, including regulations under the Act.

Should you have any questions concerning the above, please contact Nancy Minett, Vice

President, Compliance, at (212) 299-2940, or the undersigned at (212) 299-2897.

Very truly yours,

Thomas LaSala
Senior Vice President
Compliance and Risk Management

ce: Thomas LaSala
Brian Regan


(Strikethrough in bold indicates deletion; underlining in bold indicates addition.)

ContractName | Rule | Commodity | Al/AnyOneMonth | Expiration | Reporting
Chapter Code Accountability Month Level Aggregate | Aggregate
Level Limit Into (4) Into(2) |

Rule 9.26 Rule 9.27 Rule 9.34

Petroleum

Northwest

Europe

Brent Bullet

‘Swap Financial

Contract 692 BB 20,000 2,000 25 BB
Exhibit 23.1

Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement (Form S-3 No. 333-152833) of Synta
Pharmaceuticals Corp. and in the related Prospectus, Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-141903) pertaining to the 2001 Stock Plan, the 2006 Stock Plan and the Non-qualified Stock
Option Agreement dated May 27, 2004, and Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-152824) pertaining to the Amended and Restated 2006 Stock Plan of Synta Pharmaceuticals Corp. of
our reports dated March 11, 2011, with respect to the consolidated financial statements of Synta Pharmaceuticals Corp. and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting of
Synta Pharmaceuticals Corp. included in this Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31, 2010.

/s/
Ernst & Young LLP

Boston,
Massachusetts
March 11, 2011

---



QuickLinks
[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 101 (Thursday, May 24, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Page 28770]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-13151]


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

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

[Public Notice 3676]


Culturally Significant Objects Imported for Exhibition 
Determinations: ``Eternal Egypt: Masterworks of Ancient Art From the 
British Museum''

AGENCY: Department of State.

ACTION: Notice; correction.

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

SUMMARY: On August 24, 2000, Notice was published on page 52804 of the 
Federal Register (Volume 65, Number 169) by the Department of State 
pursuant to Pub. L 89-259 relating to the exhibit ``Eternal Egypt: 
Masterworks of Ancient Art from the British Museum.'' The referenced 
Notice is corrected as follows. In the SUMMARY after ``July 7, 2002,'' 
add the following additional venue: ``The Fine Arts Museums of San 
Francisco, CA, California Palace of the Legion of Honor, from on or 
about August 10, 2002, to on or about November 3, 2002,''

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For further information, including a 
list of exhibit objects, contact Jacqueline Caldwell, Attorney-Adviser, 
Office of the Legal Adviser, U.S. Department of State (telephone: 202/
619-6982). The address is U.S. Department of State, SA-44, 301 4th 
Street, SW., Room 700, Washington, DC 20547-0001.

    Dated: May 16, 2001.
Helena Kane Finn,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Educational and Cultural Affairs, 
Department of State.
[FR Doc. 01-13151 Filed 5-23-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4710-08-P
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2179 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2179

    To amend chapter 44 of title 18, United States Code, to enhance 
penalties for certain thefts of a firearm from certain Federal firearms 
 licensees, and to criminalize the theft of a firearm from a gun range 
                that rents firearms or a shooting club.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 9, 2019

Mr. Lamb (for himself, Mr. Rutherford, Mr. Van Drew, and Mr. Crenshaw) 
 introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on 
                             the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
    To amend chapter 44 of title 18, United States Code, to enhance 
penalties for certain thefts of a firearm from certain Federal firearms 
 licensees, and to criminalize the theft of a firearm from a gun range 
                that rents firearms or a shooting club.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Federal Firearms Licensee Protection 
Act''.

SEC. 2. AMENDMENTS TO ENHANCE PENALTIES FOR CERTAIN THEFTS OF A FIREARM 
              FROM CERTAIN FEDERAL FIREARMS LICENSEES.

    Section 924 of title 18, United States Code, is amended--
            (1) by striking subsection (i) and inserting the following:
    ``(i) A person who knowingly violates section 922(u), or attempts 
to do so, shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 20 
years, or both.''; and
            (2) in subsection (m), by inserting ``, or attempts to do 
        so,'' after ``or licensed collector''.

SEC. 3. PROHIBITION ON THEFT OF FIREARM FROM GUN RANGE THAT RENTS 
              FIREARMS OR SHOOTING CLUB.

    Section 922(u) of title 18, United States Code, is amended--
            (1) by inserting ``(1)'' after ``(u)''; and
            (2) by adding after and below the end the following:
    ``(2) It shall be unlawful for a person to steal or unlawfully take 
or carry away from the premises of a gun range at which a firearm may 
be rented or of a shooting club, any firearm that has been shipped or 
transported in interstate or foreign commerce.''.
                                 <all>
```
Exhibit 23.1

Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the following Registration Statements of ourreports dated January 9, 2007, with respect to the consolidated financial statements and schedule of The Valspar Corporationand subsidiaries, The Valspar Corporation management’s assessment of the effectiveness of internal control over financialreporting, and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting of The Valspar Corporation and subsidiaries,included in this Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended October 27, 2006.

Registration Statement Form S-3 No. 333–56658; Form S-8 Nos. 33-51224 and 33-51226 pertainingto The Valspar Stock Ownership Trusts; Form S-8 Nos. 333–133388, 33-39258, 333-29979, 333-87385, 333-46865, 333-67668,and 333-105971 pertaining to The Valspar Corporation 1991 Stock Option Plan; Form S-8 Nos. 33-51222 and 333-46865 pertainingto The Valspar Profit Sharing Retirement Plan; Form S-8 Nos. 33-53824 and 333-01319 pertaining to The Valspar Corporation KeyEmployee Annual Bonus Plan; Form S-8 Nos. 333-129135 and 333-46865 pertaining to The Valspar Corporation Stock Option Planfor Non-Employee Directors; and Form S-8 No. 333-67668 pertaining to The Valspar Corporation 2001 Stock Incentive Plan.

/s/ Ernst & Young LLP

Minneapolis, Minnesota
Exhibit 31.1
 CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER PURSUANT TO
SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT RULES 13a-14(a) AND 15d-14(a), AS ADOPTED PURSUANT
TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
      (a)
    
    Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and
procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information
relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by
others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being
prepared;(b)
    
    Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and procedures and
presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls
and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation;
and(c)
    
    Disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control over financial
reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter (the registrants
fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is
reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants internal control over financial
reporting; and
  (a)
    
    All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of
internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect
the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and(b)
    
    Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have
a significant role in the registrants internal control over financial reporting.
 Date:  August 12, 2008
    /s/ Gail F. GoodmanGail F. GoodmanPresident and Chief Executive Officer
#### In re Kermit Douglas BROOMS, Debtor, Brian M. Carter, dba Discovery Judgment Recovery, Appellant, v. Kermit Douglas Brooms, Appellee.

No. 11-60015.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted May 14, 2013.*

Filed May 23, 2013.

Brian M. Carter, pro se.

Kermit Douglas Brooms, pro se.

Before: LEAVY, THOMAS, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Brian M. Carter appeals pro se from the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel’s (“BAP”) judgment affirming the bankruptcy court’s judgment ordering that a prepetition debt arising from a state court judgment owed by Chapter 7 debtor Kermit Douglas Brooms was discharged due to Carter’s willful failure to comply with two bankruptcy court orders. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 158(d). We review de novo BAP decisions, and apply the same standard of review that the BAP applied to the bankruptcy court’s ruling. *Boyajian v. New Falls Corp. (In re Boyajian),*564 F.3d 1088, 1090 (9th Cir.2009). We affirm.

The bankruptcy court did not abuse its discretion in entering judgment against Carter based on his willful failure to comply with court orders, after giving Carter several opportunities to comply and warning him multiple times that his failure to comply may result in judgment being entered against him. *See Malone v. United States Postal Serv.,*833 F.2d 128, 130-33 (9th Cir.1987) (discussing dismissal for failure to comply with court orders, and setting forth five factors court must weigh to determine whether dismissal sanction is appropriate). Contrary to Carter’s contention, the bankruptcy court’s orders requesting information regarding the terms of the assignment were not unreasonable. *See C.E. Pope Equity Trust v. United States,*818 F.2d 696, 697 (9th Cir.1987) (“Although a non-attorney may appear in propria persona in his own behalf, that privilege is personal to him. He has no authority to appear as an attorney for others than himself.” (citation omitted)).

Carter’s reliance on *Sprint Communications Co., L.P. v. APCC Services., Inc.,*554 U.S. 269, 128 S.Ct. 2531, 171 L.Ed.2d 424 (2008), is misplaced because that case addressed whether an assignee has standing, not whether a pro se litigant could appear on behalf of someone else’s interest. *See, e.g., id.*at 271.

We deny Brooms’s request for attorney’s fees, costs, and sanctions on appeal, set forth in the answering brief, as proee-durally improper.

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Exhibit 23.2

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement (Form S-3
No. 333-152833) of Synta Pharmaceuticals Corp. and in the related Prospectus, Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-141903) pertaining to
the 2001 Stock Plan, the 2006 Stock Plan and the Non-qualified Stock Option Agreement dated May 27, 2004, and Registration Statement (Form S-8
No. 333-152824) pertaining to the Amended and Restated 2006 Stock Plan of Synta Pharmaceuticals Corp., of our reports dated March 24, 2009, with respect to the consolidated
financial statements of Synta Pharmaceuticals Corp. and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting of Synta Pharmaceuticals Corp. included in this Annual Report
(Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31, 2008.

/s/ Ernst & Young LLP


Boston,
Massachusetts
March 24, 2009

---



QuickLinks
```

[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 102 (Friday, May 25, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Pages 28930-28931]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-13223]

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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

[NAFTA-04779]

Mar-Bax Shirt Co., Capital Mercury Apparel Ltd., Gassville, AR; 
Notice of Termination of Investigation

    Pursuant to Section 221 of the Trade Act of 1974, an investigation 
was initiated on March 16, 2001 in response to a worker petition which 
was filed on behalf of workers at Mar-Bax Shirt Co., Capital Mercury 
Apparel Ltd., Gassville, Arkansas.

[[Page 28931]]

    The petitioning group of workers is subject to an ongoing 
investigation for which a determination has not yet been issued NAFTA-
04752. Consequently, further investigation in this case would serve no 
purpose, and the investigation has been terminated.

    Signed at Washington, DC this 17th day of May 2001.
Linda G. Poole,
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. 01-13223 Filed 5-24-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-30-M
```
MANDATE

Court of Appeals 

First District of Texas 

NO. 01-14-00863-CV

WEATHERFORD ARTIFICAL LIFT SYSTEMS, INC., Appellant

V.

A& E SYSTEMS SDN BHD, Appellee

Appeal from the 295th District Court of Harris County. (Tr. Ct. No. 2012-62091).

TO THE 295TH DISTRICT COURT OF HARRIS COUNTY, GREETINGS:

Before this Court, on the 14th day of July 2015, the case upon appeal to revise or 

to reverse your judgment was determined. This Court made its order in these words:

This case is an appeal from the interlocutory order 

signed by the trial court on October 3, 2014. After submitting 

the case on the appellate record and the arguments properly 

raised by the parties, the Court holds that the trial court’s 

order contains no reversible error. Accordingly, the Court 

affirms the trial court’s order.

The Court further orders that the appellant, 

Weatherford Artificial Lift Systems, Inc., pay all costs 

incurred by reason of this appeal.

The Court orders that this decision be certified below 

for observance.
Judgment rendered July 14, 2015.

Panel consists of Chief Justice Radack and Justices Higley 

and Massengale. Opinion delivered by Chief Justice Radack.

WHEREFORE, WE COMMAND YOU to observe the order of our said Court 

in this behalf and in all things to have it duly recognized, obeyed, and executed.

WHEREFORE, WE COMMAND YOU to observe the order of our said Court 

in this behalf and in all things to have it duly recognized, obeyed, and executed.

September 25, 2015

Date CHRISTOPHER A. PRINE

CLERK OF THE COURT
152 So. 262

#### INTERNATIONAL SHOE CO. v. L. L. DODD.

6 Div. 512.

Supreme Court of Alabama.

Jan. 18, 1934.

Davis & Curtis, of Jasper, for petitioner.

Monette & Taylor, of Birmingham, for respondent.

THOMAS, Justice.

Petition of L. L. Dodd for certiorari to the Court of Appeals to review and revise the judgment and decision of that court in International Shoe Co. v. Dodd, 152 So. 260.

Writ denied.

ANDERSON, C. X, and BROWN and KNIGHT, JJ., concur.
# C_2017347EN.01004101.xml

| 16.10.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 347/41 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.10.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 347/41

---

Action brought on 16 August 2017 — VF International v EUIPO — Virmani (ANOKHI)

(Case T-548/17)

(2017/C 347/54)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: VF International Sagl (Stabio, Switzerland) (represented by: T. van Innis, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Ken Virmani (Munich, Germany)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal:

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Applicant of the trade mark at issue:

Trade mark at issue: EU figurative mark containing the word element ‘ANOKHI’ — Application for registration No 13 025 382

Trade mark at issue:

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Procedure before EUIPO

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 26 May 2017 in Case R 2307/2015-4

Contested decision

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | order the Office to bear its own costs and to pay those of the applicant. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Office to bear its own costs and to pay those of the applicant.

Pleas in law

Pleas in law

| — | Infringement of Articles 8(1)(b) and 8(5) Regulation No 207/2009; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Articles 8(1)(b) and 8(5) Regulation No 207/2009;

| — | Infringement of Articles 85 Regulation No 207/2009 and 94 of Regulation No 2868/95. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Articles 85 Regulation No 207/2009 and 94 of Regulation No 2868/95.

---
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-2352

EL HADJI SALL; ANTA MBAYE DIAGNE, Petitioners, versus JOHN ASHCROFT, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. (A95-226-098) Submitted: August 6, 2004 Decided: August 23, 2004 Before MICHAEL and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Petition dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Bokwe G. Mofor, Silver Spring, Maryland, for Petitioners. Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney General, Linda S. Wendtland, Assistant Director, Luis E. Perez, Office of Immigration Litigation, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).- 2 - PER CURIAM: El Hadji Sall and his wife, Anta Mbaye Diagne, natives and citizens of Se negal, petition for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals denying their motion to reconsider its denial of their application for asylum. We dismiss the petition for lack of jurisdiction. Petitioners first challenge the Immigration Judge’s (IJ) finding that their asylum application is untimely. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(2)(B) (2000); 8 C.F.R. § 1208.4(a) (2004). We conclude we lack jurisdiction to review this claim. See8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(3) (2000). Petitioners next dispute the IJ’s finding that they failed to qualify for withholding of removal and protection under the Convention Against Torture. We have reviewed the administrative record and conclude that petitioners did not properly exhaust this claim because they failed to raise it in their motion for reconsideration. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1) (2000); Asika v. Ashcroft , 362 F.3d 264, 267 n.3 (4th Cir. 2004). We accordingly dismiss the petition for review. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. PETITION DISMISSED