alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Page 1 

Commodity Futures Trading Commission 

CEA CASES 

NAME: JULIAN M. MARKS, STUART A. NEWMAN, MARSHALL K. SMITH, IRWIN M. EISEN, AND 

JAMES S. SCHONBERG 

CITATION: 22 Agric. Dec. 1068 

DOCKET NUMBER: 98 

DATE: OCTOBER 4, 1963 

DOCUMENT TYPE: ORDER DISMISSING PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION 

(No. 8686) 

In re JULIAN M. MARKS, STUART A. NEWMAN, MARSHALL K. SMITH, IRWIN M. EISEN, AND 

JAMES S. SCHONBERG. CEA Docket No. 98. Decided October 4, 1963. 

Petition for Reconsideration -- Dismissal

The order of July 16, 1963, is supported by the evidence and the law 

applicable thereto and the petition of respondent Marshall K. Smith is 

dismissed. 

Decision by Thomas J. Flavin, Judicial Officer

ORDER DISMISSING PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION

In this proceeding under the Commodity Exchange Act (7 U.S.C. Chapter I), 

respondent Marshall K. Smith filed a petition for reconsideration of the 

decision and order entered July 16, 1963 (22 Agric. Dec. 761 (22 A.D. 761)), 

insofar as they affected respondent Smith. Complainant filed a reply to the 

petition for reconsideration. An order was entered August 6, 1963, staying the 

order of July 16, 1963, in its application to respondent Smith. 

We found in the decision of July 16, 1963, that respondent Smith in trading 

May 19, 1960, on the close of trading in the May 1960 wheat future on the 

Chicago Board of Trade by direct and noncompetitive negotiation with respondent 

Eisen, bought 25,000 bushels of May 1960 wheat futures from Eisen at $ 1.98-1/2 

a bushel and sold Eisen 25,000 bushels at $ 1.98 a bushel, that these were 

reciprocal transactions and that Smith "gave a half" to Eisen on the purchase in 

order to get off his selling orders for 25,000 bushels. We concluded that Smith 

thereby violated section 4c(A) of the act, section 1.38 of the regulations under 

the act (17 CFR 1.38) and section 4b(A) of the act. 

Respondent Smith does not convince us that we were wrong in the decision and 

order of July 16, 1963. We believe that the evidence amply supports the charge 

in the complaint and the findings and conclusions in the decision. Accordingly 

the petition for reconsideration is dismissed and the stay order of August 6, 

1963, is vacated. 

Effective November 1, 1963, the registration of Marshall K. Smith as a floor 

broker under the Commodity Exchange Act is suspended for a period of 20 days and 

during such period all contract markets shall refuse all trading privileges to 

Marshall K. Smith, such refusal to apply to all trading done and positions held 

by said Smith directly or indirectly. 

LOAD-DATE: June 8, 2008 
Page 2
#### Sherwood A. ADAMS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Gregory KNOWLIN, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 11-7124.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Feb. 9, 2012.

Decided: Feb. 13, 2012.

Sherwood A. Adams, Appellant Pro Se. Melody Jane Brown, Assistant Attorney General, Donald John Zelenka, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Before WILKINSON, AGEE, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Sherwood A. Adams seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the notice of appeal was not timely filed.

Parties are accorded thirty days after the entry of the district court’s final judgment or order to note an appeal, Fed. R.App. P. 4(a)(1)(A), unless the district court extends the appeal period under Fed. R.App. P. 4(a)(5), or reopens the appeal period under Fed. R.App. P. 4(a)(6). “[T]he timely filing of a notice of appeal in a civil case is a jurisdictional requirement.” *Bowles v. Russell,*551 U.S. 205, 214, 127 S.Ct. 2360, 168 L.Ed.2d 96 (2007).

The district court’s order was entered on the docket on July 13, 2011. The notice *235of appeal was filed on August 17, 2011.* Because Adams failed to file a timely notice of appeal or to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we dismiss the appeal and deny Adams’s motion for sanctions. 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.

*DISMISSED.*

*

 For the purpose of this appeal, we assume that the date appearing on the notice of appeal is the earliest date it could have been properly delivered to prison officials for mailing to the court. See Fed. R.App. P. 4(c); *Houston v. Lack,*487 U.S. 266, 108 S.Ct. 2379, 101 L.Ed.2d 245 (1988).
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

July 31, 2006 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice

130871 Michael F. Cavanagh
Elizabeth A. Weaver Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan Robert P. Young, Jr. DONNA JOSEPH, a/k/a DONNA Stephen J. Markman, YOUNG-JOSEPH, Justices Plaintiff-Appellant,

v SC: 130871 COA: 257651 Kent CC: 03-005528-NO DENNY'S, INC., and CRYSTAL CARPET CARE, INC., Defendants-Appellees.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application fo r leave to appeal th e February 23, 2006 judgment of the Court of Appeals is consid ered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the question presented s hould be reviewed by this Court.

l0724 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

July 31, 2006

Clerk
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM CONSOLIDATED
STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS FOR THE YEAR ENDED AUGUST 31, 2000 AND IS QUALIFIED IN
ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FILING.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          AUG-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             SEP-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               AUG-31-2000
<CASH>                                          12,147
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  653,728
<ALLOWANCES>                                  (322,585)
<INVENTORY>                                    173,693
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               696,676
<PP&E>                                       1,339,047
<DEPRECIATION>                                (782,051)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,397,138
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,254,216
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                 11,806,426
<COMMON>                                    12,633,220
<OTHER-SE>                                 (24,315,092)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,397,138
<SALES>                                        879,158
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               895,969
<CGS>                                          336,939
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                7,173,562
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             3,981,979
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             380,562
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (10,434,854)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (10,434,854)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (10,434,854)
<EPS-BASIC>                                       (.38)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     (.38)


</TABLE>
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
Annual Report of PowerVerde, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, George Konrad, Chief
Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §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.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                                                   
|---------------------------------------------------
|/s/ George Konrad                                  
|George Konrad Chief Executive
Officer April 7, 2011
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Victor Ruiz HERNANDEZ, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 09-10334

Conference Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

June 22, 2010.

Susan B. Cowger, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Dallas, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

*434Denver Gray McCarty, Denton, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before JOLLY, STEWART, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

The attorney appointed to represent Victor Ruiz Hernandez has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). Hernandez has filed a response. The record is insufficiently developed to allow consideration at this time of Hernandez’s claim of ineffective assistance of counsel; such a claim generally “cannot be resolved on direct appeal when the claim has not been raised before the district court since no opportunity existed to develop the record on the merits of the allegations.” *United States v. Cantwell,*470 F.3d 1087, 1091 (5th Cir.2006) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Our independent review of the record, counsel’s brief, and Hernandez’s response discloses no nonfrivolous issue for appeal. Accordingly, the motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. *See*5th Cir. R. 42.2.

Hernandez’s motion for appointment of substitute counsel is DENIED.

*

 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.
```

[Federal Register: October 17, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 200)]
[Notices]
[Page 61031]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr17oc06-65]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION


Sunshine Act Meetings

Time and Date: 11 a.m., Friday, November 17, 2006.

Place: 1155 21st St., NW., Washington, DC, 9th Floor Commission
Conference Room.

Status: Closed.

Matters to be Considered: Enforcement matters.

Contact Person for More Information:  Eileen A. Donovan, 202-418-5100.

Eileen A. Donovan,
Acting Secretary of the Commission.
[FR Doc. 06-8754 Filed 10-13-06; 2:04 pm]

BILLING CODE 6351-01-M
```
Adam ROBLEDO, petitioner, v. Connie GIPSON, Warden.

No. 16-5911.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 31, 2016.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.
Jonathan Andrew ARIAS, petitioner, v. ARIZONA.

No. 15-9044.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 31, 2016.

On petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals of Arizona, Division One. Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed *in forma pauperis* and petition for writ of certiorari granted. Judgment vacated, and case remanded to the Court of Appeals of Arizona, Division One for further consideration in light of *Montgomery v. Louisiana,* 577 U.S. ----, 136 S.Ct. 718, 193 L.Ed.2d 599 (2016).

Justice SOTOMAYOR concurs in the decision to grant, vacate, and remand. See *Tatum v. Arizona,* 580 U.S. ----, 137 S.Ct. 11, --- L.E.2d ---- (2016) ( Sotomayor, J., concurring). Justice ALITO, with whom Justice THOMAS joins, dissents from the decision to grant, vacate, and remand. See *Tatum v. Arizona,* 580 U.S. ----, 137 S.Ct. 11, --- L.E.2d ---- (2016) (Alito, J., dissenting).
| 1. | the      Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of      the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended;  and |
|----|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| 2. | the      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material      respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company      as of the dates and for the periods presented in the financial statements      included in the Report. |
|----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| /s/Len      E. Williams       | /s/Eric      S. Nadeau                  |
|------------------------------------|-----------------------------------------|
| Len E.      Williams          | Eric S.      Nadeau                |
| President      and            | Executive Vice      President and  |
| Chief Executive      Officer  | Chief Financial      Officer       |

----
EXHIBIT 23 
  
 Consent
of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm
 
 
 We
consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements (Form
S-8 No. 333-18495, 333-77473, 333-37426, 333-88528, 333-115925, 333-126074,
333-134644, and 333-161017) pertaining to Stock Incentive Plans and Executive
Nonqualified Excess Plan of ATC Technology Corporation of our reports dated
February 25, 2010, with respect to the consolidated financial statements and
schedule of ATC Technology Corporation, and the effectiveness of internal
control over financial reporting of ATC Technology Corporation, included in the
Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31, 2009.
    /s/ Ernst & Young LLP
   Chicago,
Illinois
 February
25, 2010
**Exhibit 32**

Certification Pursuant to18 U.S.C. Section 1350,

As AdoptedPursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

The undersigned, James J. Leto, President and Chief Executive Officerof GTSI Corp. (“the Company”) and Joe Ragan, Senior Vice President and ChiefFinancial Officer of the Company, certify that the Quarterly Report on Form10-Q/A for the quarter ended March 31, 2006 filed by GTSI Corp. with theSecurities and Exchange Commission fully complies with the requirements ofSection 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of GTSI Corp.

Date:       December 22, 2006
| /s/ JAMES J. LETO                                  |   |
|----------------------------------------------------|--------|
| James J. Leto                                      |
| President and  Chief Executive Officer             |
|                                               |
|                                               |
| /s/ JOE RAGAN                                      |   |
| Joe Ragan                                          |   |
| Senior Vice  President and Chief Financial Officer |

 

1

----
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 1568 Engrossed in House (EH)]

H. Res. 1568

                In the House of Representatives, U. S.,

                                                         July 29, 2010.
    Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it shall be in order to 
consider in the House the bill (H.R. 5893) to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 
1986 to create jobs through increased investment in infrastructure, to eliminate 
loopholes which encourage companies to move operations offshore, and for other 
purposes. All points of order against consideration of the bill are waived 
except those arising under clause 9 or 10 of rule XXI. The bill shall be 
considered as read. All points of order against provisions in the bill are 
waived. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill to 
final passage without intervening motion except: (1) one hour of debate equally 
divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee 
on Ways and Means; and (2) one motion to recommit.
    Sec. 2.  The requirement of clause 6(a) of rule XIII for a two-thirds vote 
to consider a report from the Committee on Rules on the same day it is presented 
to the House is waived with respect to any resolution reported through the 
calendar day of August 1, 2010.
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```
<PAGE>   1

                                                                      EXHIBIT 11





                            ENCORE WIRE CORPORATION

                      COMPUTATION OF NET INCOME PER SHARE

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                        Quarter Ended              Nine Months Ended
                                                                        September 30,                September 30,

                                                                      1996          1995           1996         1995  
                                                                  -----------------------------------------------------
<S>                                                               <C>            <C>            <C>          <C>
COMMON SHARES OUTSTANDING AT
  BEGINNING OF PERIOD   . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .     7,106,417    7,099,817      7,104,417    7,080,317

TREASURY SHARES INCLUDING WEIGHTED
  AVERAGE NUMBER OF SHARES PURCHASED
  DURING THE PERIOD   . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .       (92,315)          --        (82,474)          --

WEIGHTED AVERAGE NUMBER OF COMMON
  SHARES ISSUED DURING THE PERIOD   . . . . . . . . . . . . . .           353        1,767          2,082       10,187

INCREMENTAL SHARES RELATED TO ASSUMED
  EXERCISE OF STOCK OPTIONS   . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .       105,278            *         65,162      394,502
                                                                  -----------    ---------      ---------    ---------

WEIGHTED COMMON AND COMMON
  EQUIVALENT SHARES OUTSTANDING   . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .     7,119,733    7,101,584      7,089,187    7,485,006
                                                                  ===========    =========      =========    =========

WEIGHTED COMMON AND COMMON
  EQUIVALENT SHARES USED IN THE
  CALCULATION OF INCOME PER
  COMMON AND COMMON EQUIVALENT
  SHARE   . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .     7,119,733    7,101,584      7,089,187    7,485,006
                                                                  ===========    =========      =========    =========

NET INCOME (LOSS) (IN THOUSANDS)  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   $     3,103    $    (111)     $   3,872    $     347
                                                                  ===========    =========      =========    =========

NET INCOME (LOSS) PER COMMON AND
  COMMON EQUIVALENT SHARE   . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   $       .44    $    (.02)     $     .55    $     .05
                                                                  ===========    =========      =========    =========
</TABLE>

* Warrants and stock options were not dilutive in the quarter ended September
  30, 1995.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
     This schedule  contains summary  financial  information  extracted from the
Company's Balance Sheet at June 30, 1996 and the Statement of Operations for the
fiscal year then ended and is  qualified  in its  entirety by  reference to such
financial statements and the notes thereto.
</LEGEND>

       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              JUN-30-1997
<PERIOD-START>                                 JUL-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                                   JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                         609,006
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  990,045
<ALLOWANCES>                                   30,000
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               2,234,205
<PP&E>                                         494,320
<DEPRECIATION>                                 359,111
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 3,119,596
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          1,099,542
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       2,717
<OTHER-SE>                                     2,017,339
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   3,119,596
<SALES>                                        2,351,191
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               2,351,191
<CGS>                                          2,099,873
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  2,155,277
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               (1,903,959)
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                0
<INCOME-TAX>                                   19,207
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            0
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   0
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  0
        


</TABLE>
H. Res. 1473 

In the House of Representatives, U. S., 

September 15, 2010. 

Whereas recreational aviation represents a significant portion 

of the Nation’s aviation activity; 

Whereas recreational aviators utilize backcountry airstrips as 

access points for a variety of activities; 

Whereas backcountry airstrips provide multiple benefits to 

the general public, including search and rescue, fire management, research, disaster relief, and wildlife management benefits; 

Whereas recreational aviation helps State economies by providing efficient access to recreational activities for visitors; 

Whereas backcountry airstrips serve as emergency landing 

sites for aircraft in the event of mechanical problems or 

inclement weather; and 

Whereas backcountry airstrips provide for dispersed recreational activity and act as internal trailheads within 

backcountry areas: Now, therefore, be it 

Resolved, That the House of Representatives recognizes 

the value of recreational aviation and backcountry airstrips 

located on the Nation’s public lands and commends aviators 
2 

•HRES 1473 EH 

and the various private organizations that maintain these airstrips for public use. 

Attest: 

Clerk.