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

            COUNCIL DECISION         

of 14 June 2004         

amending Decision 98/161/EC authorising the Kingdom of the Netherlands to apply a measure derogating from Articles 2 and 28a(1) of the Sixth Directive 77/388/EEC on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes

(2004/514/EC)

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to the Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment (1), and in particular Article 27 thereof,

Having regard to the proposal from the Commission,

Whereas:

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

Article 1

In Article 1 of Decision 98/161/EC, the date ‘31 December 2003’ shall be replaced by the following wording: ‘until the date of entry into force of a special scheme for the application of VAT to the recycled waste sector amending Directive 77/388/EEC, but not later than 31 December 2005’.

Article 2

This Decision shall apply as from 1 January 2004.

Article 3

This Decision is addressed to the Kingdom of the Netherlands.

Done at Luxembourg, 14 June 2004.

For the Council

The President

B. COWEN            

----

(1)OJ L 145, 13.6.1977, p. 1. Directive as last amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 290/2004 (OJ L 50, 20.2.2004, p. 5).

(2)OJ L 53, 24.2.1998, p. 19. Decision as amended by Decision 2000/435/EC (OJ L 172, 12.7.2000, p. 24).

----
TO: All Court of Appeals Judges, Professor Bacigal, Professor Spratt, and Alice Armstrong 

FROM: Marty Ring 

DATE: September 4, 2018 

 

 The following cases in which the Court of Appeals issued published opinions have been 

disposed of by the Supreme Court: 

1. Robert Ryan Grasty 

 v. Commonwealth of Virginia 

 Record No. 0281-17-1 

 Opinion rendered by Judge Humphreys 

 on December 5, 2017 

 Refused (171721) 
 On August 9, 2018 the Supreme Court issued an opinion in the following case, which had 

been appealed from this Court 

1. Francisco Garcia-Tirado 

 v. Commonwealth of Virginia 

 Record No. 1982-15-4 

 Memorandum opinion rendered by Senior Judge Annunziata on March 7, 2017 

 Judgment of Court of Appeals affirmed by opinion rendered on August 9, 2018 

 (170458)
----

            COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 1611/2004

of 15 September 2004         

laying down the reduction coefficient to be applied under the tariff quota for corn opened by Regulation (EC) No 958/2003

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1784/2003 of 29 September 2003 on the common organisation of the market in cereals (1),

Having regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 958/2003 of 3 June 2003, laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Decision 2003/286/EC as regards the concessions in the form of Community tariff quotas on certain cereal products originating in the Republic of Bulgaria and amending Regulation (EC) No 2809/2000 (2), and in particular Article 2(3),

Whereas:

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

Each application for an import licence for quota ‘Bulgaria’ for corn lodged and forwarded to the Commission on 13 September 2004 in accordance with Article 2(1) and (2) of Regulation (EC) No 958/2003 shall be accepted at a rate of 0,0518166 of the quantity applied for.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on 16 September 2004.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 15 September 2004.

For the Commission

J. M. SILVA RODRÍGUEZ            

Agriculture Director-General

----

(1)OJ L 270, 21.10.2003, p. 78.

(2)OJ L 136, 4.6.2003, p. 3.

----
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 95-7362

DEE DEIDRE FARMER; WILLIAM CHERRY,

Plaintiffs - Appellants,

versus

TERRY PENNINGTON, Lieutenant; ROBERT FOX, Unit

Manager; J. ROBINSON, Correctional Counselor;

JERRY GAUGHAN, Disciplinary Hearing Officer,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard, District

Judge. (CA-95-440-5-CT-H)

Submitted: December 12, 1995 Decided: January 5, 1996

Before HAMILTON and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Dee Deidre Farmer, William Cherry, Appellants Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
* Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971).

2

PER CURIAM:

Appellants appeal from the district court's order denying relief on their Bivens* complaint. We have reviewed the record and

the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Farmer v.

Pennington, No. CA-95-440-5-CT-H (E.D.N.C. Aug. 14, 1995). 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.

AFFIRMED
United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

October 14, 2010 

ERRATA 

______________________ 

2010-1127 

(Serial No. 11/014,909) 

IN RE RICHARD F. SCHWEMBERGER 

 

Decided: October 13, 2010 

Precedential Opinion 

______________________ 

Please make the following change: 

Page 1, correct attorneys name “Frances N. Lynch” to 

“Frances M. Lynch”
Page 1 

Commodity Futures Trading Commission 

CEA CASES 

NAME: DAVID LAIKEN 

CITATION: 24 Agric. Dec. 1036 

DOCKET NUMBER: 113 

DATE: AUGUST 31, 1965 

DOCUMENT TYPE: ORDER VACATING STAY ORDER 

(No. 10,024) 

In re DAVID LAIKEN. CEA Docket No. 113. Decided August 31, 1965. 

Stay order vacated 

Decision by Thomas J. Flavin, Judicial Officer

ORDER VACATING STAY ORDER

In this proceeding under the Commodity Excange Act (7 U.S.C. § 1 et seq.), an 

order was issued October 9, 1964, suspending respondent's registration as a 

floor broker for a period of 10 days and ordering all contract markets to refuse 

all trading privileges to respondent during such period. Respondent filed an 

appeal of the order of October 9, 1964, in the United States Court of Appeals 

for the Second Circuit and on October 19, 1964, the order of October 9, 1964, 

was stayed pending the outcome of respondent's appeal. On May 18, 1965, the 

Court affirmed the order of October 9, 1964. Accordingly, the stay order of 

Octooer 19, 1964, is hereby vacated and the suspension of respondent's 

registration as a floor broker under the act and the order to all contract 

markets to refuse him all trading priaileges, both for a period of 10 days, 

contained in the order of October 9, 1964, shall be effective October 4, 1965. 

LOAD-DATE: June 8, 2008 
Page 2
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                           2,645
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                               0
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                     0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                          0
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                          23,998
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                            23,998
<LOANS>                                         90,629
<ALLOWANCE>                                        790
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 126,697
<DEPOSITS>                                      99,045
<SHORT-TERM>                                    12,850
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                                951
<LONG-TERM>                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           309
<OTHER-SE>                                      12,542
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                 125,697
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                  5,443
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                  857
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                   258
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                 6,558
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                               2,774
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 424
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                            3,198
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                      180
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   2
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                  2,206
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  1,417
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                       1,115
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,115
<EPS-BASIC>                                       2.25
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     2.25
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    4.06
<LOANS-NON>                                          0
<LOANS-PAST>                                       796
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                   580
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                       38
<RECOVERIES>                                        68
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                  790
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                               790
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0


</TABLE>
##### 



Exhibit 31.2
 CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO RULES 13A-14 AND 15D-14
OF THE SECURITIES ACT OF 1934
  1.
    
    I have reviewed this Annual Report on Form 10-K/A for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2006 of Meadow Valley Corporation (the Report);2.
    
    Based on my knowledge, the Report does not contain any untrue statement of a
material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made,
in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading
with respect to the period covered by the Report;3.
    
    Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in the Report, fairly present in all material respects the
financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and
for, the periods presented in the Report;4.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange
Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and we have:
 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 the Report is being prepared;b)
    
    Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure
controls and procedures and presented in the Report our conclusions about the
effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the
period covered by the Report based on such evaluation; andc)
    
    Disclosed in the Report any change in the registrants internal
control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most
recent fiscal annual (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
 5.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our
most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the
registrants auditors and the audit committee of the registrants board of directors
(or persons performing the equivalent functions):
 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; andb)
    
    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: April 27, 2007
    /s/ David D. DotyDavid D. DotyChief Financial Officer
```

[Federal Register: June 18, 2004 (Volume 69, Number 117)]
[Notices]
[Page 34141]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr18jn04-71]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION


Sunshine Act Meeting

Time and Date: 11 a.m., Friday, July 2, 2004.

Place: 1155 21st., NW., Washington, DC, 9th Floor Commission Conference
Room.

Status: Closed.

Matters to be Considered: Surveillance matters.

Contact Person for More Information: Jean A. Webb, 202-418-5100.

Jean A. Webb,
Secretary of the Commission.
[FR Doc. 04-14000 Filed 6-16-04; 2:58 pm]
BILLING CODE 6351-01-M
```
Exhibit 32.2




CERTIFICATION





Pursuant
to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and
(b) of Section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code), the
undersigned officer of Maiden Holdings, Ltd (the “Company”), hereby certifies,
to such officer’s knowledge, that:





The
Company’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2009
(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:November 16,
      2009
              By:
              
              /s/JOHN M. MARSHALECKName:     John
      M. MarshaleckTitle:
              
              Chief
      Financial Officer





The
foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of
Section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code) and is not being
filed as part of the Report.
• Bright line test vs. discretionary position 

accountability level

• Applies to 28 core referenced commodities

• Futures, direct access FBOT linked contracts, 

economically equivalent swaps

• Spot month, individual month and all months 

combined

• Aggregation by owner or controller

1

Proposed CFTC Position Limits

May 19, 2011 CFTC staff comments
Proposed All-Months Position Limits

May 19, 2011 CFTC staff comments 2

Proposed Position Limit Levels

Commodity 

Group

Open Interest

for Main Contract*,

May 10, 2011

Open Interest

for commodity group,

May 10, 2011

Open Interest

for commodity group,

2010 Average

Illustrative Proposed Levels,

All-Months-Combined Limits,

Using 2010 data

Crude Oil 3,090,401 4,748,333 4,243,439 108,000

Gasoline 329,798 389,486 342,930 10,500

No. 2 Heating Oil 383,188 539,313 539,809 15,400

Natural Gas 1,042,014 5,351,830 4,715,746 119,800

* The main contracts are the NYMEX Light Sweet Crude Oil contract, the NYMEX New York Harbor Gasoline Blendstock contract,

 the NYMEX Henry Hub Natural Gas contract, and the NYMEX New York Harbor No. 2 Heating Oil contract.

 All Futures and Options combined (AFOC) Open Interest
Proposed All-Months Position Limits

May 19, 2011 CFTC staff comments 3

Proposed Position Limit Groups

Commodity Group

Open Interest

for Main Contract*,

May 10, 2011

Open Interest

for commodity group,

May 10, 2011

Open Interest

for commodity group,

2010 Average

Corn 2,154,362 2,165,077 1,781,963

Soybeans 783,601 789,008 685,585

Wheat 580,373 582,078 571,939

* The main contracts are the CBOT Corn contract, the CBOT Soybean contract, and the CBOT Wheat contract.

All Futures and Options combined (AFOC) Open Interest

Proposed Position Limit Levels

Commodity Group Existing Federal Limits,

All Months Combined

Proposed CBOT Level,

All Months Combined

Illustrative Proposed Levels,

All-Months-Combined Limits,

Using 2010 data

Corn 22,000 33,000 46,500

Soybeans 10,000 15,000 19,100

Wheat 6,500 12,000 16,200
Account Aggregation

4

• Procedures for aggregation of positions under 

common ownership or control (both direct and 

indirect)

• Ownership/equity threshold of 10%

• Previous Eligible Entity / Independent Account 

Controller framework eliminated 

• Limited exemptions (with specified application 

procedure) for certain passive pool participants, 

FCMs, and owned non-financial entities

May 19, 2011 CFTC staff comments
Current CFTC Surveillance Systems

• Large Trader Reporting System –

end-of-day reportable positions 

• Trade Capture Report –

intraday transactions

• Order book data –

bids to buy and offers to sell

May 19, 2011 CFTC staff comments 5
Proposed Dodd-Frank Systems

• Swaps Position Reporting –

a Large Trader Reporting System for swaps

reports by swap dealers

• Swap Execution Facility (SEF) –

intraday transactions on SEFs

• Swap Data Repositories (SDR) –

life cycle or “snap shot” swap data

May 19, 2011 CFTC staff comments 6
Exhibit 31.2
 Section 302 Certification
  1.
    
    I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of A. H. Belo Corporation;2.
    
    Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material
fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the
circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the
period covered by this report;3.
    
    Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included
in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of
operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this
report;4.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing and
maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e)
and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:
 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; andc)
    
    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
 5.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most
recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants auditors
and the audit committee of the registrants board of directors (or persons performing the
equivalent functions):
 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; andb)
    
    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.
  /s/ Alison K. EngelAlison K. EngelSenior Vice President/Chief Financial Officer
Domineque RAY, petitioner, v. ALABAMA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, et al.

No. 16-5295.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 31, 2016.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit denied.
Abel Eduardo MONTOYA-GAXIOLA, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 15-9323.

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.
Order entered April 23 , 2013

In The 

## Court of Appeals **Fifth District of Texas at Dallas**

No. 05
- 12
- 00 913
- CR
ANTHONY BEANS , Appellant
V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the Criminal District Court No. 7 Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Ca use No. f11
- 72079
- y 

### O RDER
On March 29 , 2013, this Court ordered court reporter Sha ron Hazlewood to file a supplemental record containing the jury verdict and punishment proceedings within fifteen days. To date, Ms. Hazlewood has neither filed the supple mental record nor communicated with the Court regarding the status of the record. However, appellant cites to the record in his brief, so it appears the record has been prepared. Accordingly, we ORDER court reporter Sharon Hazlewood to file, within TEN DA YS of the date of this order, a s u pplemental record containing the jury verdict and punishment proceedings. No further extensions will be granted. If Ms. Hazlewood does not file the supplemental record within the time specified, we will order that she n ot sit as a court reporter until she files the supplemental record in this case.We DIRECT the Clerk to send copies of this order, by electronic transmission, to the Honorable Michael Snipes, Presiding Judge, Criminal District Court No. 7; Sharon Hazlewood , official court reporter, Criminal District Court No. 7; and to counsel for all parties.

/s/ DAVID EVANS JUSTICE
Raul A. VARGAS-ORTIZ, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 16-6391.

Supreme Court of the United States

Nov. 14, 2016.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit denied.
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

OF TEXAS

NO. PD-1269-16

CHRISTOPHER JAMES HOLDER, Appellant

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS

ON APPELLANT’S PETITION FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW

FROM THE FIFTH COURT OF APPEALS

COLLIN COUNTY

Per curiam. NEWELL, J., filed a concurring opinion. YEARY, J., filed a

concurring and dissenting opinion.

O R D E R

The Court grants discretionary review of ground four of Appellant’s petition for

discretionary review, which states,

The Court of Appeals erred in holding the State’s acquisition of Petitioner’s

historical cell phone records under an order issued under the federal stored

communications act without a showing of probable cause in the petition

was reasonable under the guarantees of privacy in Article I section 9 of the

Texas constitution.

The parties shall brief the issue and file their briefs within 30 days from the date of
Holder–2

this order. The Clerk of this Court will send copies of this order to the State Prosecuting

Attorney, the District Attorney for Collin County, and Appellant’s counsel.

October 23, 2019

Publish