alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
|                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  |
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| A T C | Fidelity Emerging Markets Discovery Fund                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 |
| **Supplement to the Fidelity Advisor® Emerging Markets Discovery Fund Class A, Class T, and Class C December 29, 2012 Prospectus**The following information replaces similar information found in the "Fund Summary" section under the heading "Fee Table" on page 4.  **Class A****Class T****Class C** Sell All SharesHold SharesSell All SharesHold SharesSell All SharesHold Shares1 year$	743$	743$	546$	546$	353$	2533 years$	1,414$	1,414$	1,286$	1,286$	1,125$	1,1255 years$	2,136$	2,136$	2,075$	2,075$	2,041$	2,04110 years$	4,034$	4,034$	4,130$	4,130$	4,381$	4,381 |

| X                                                                                                                                                                                                                            |
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| - Definition
Supplement Text Block
+ References
No definition available.
+ Details**Name:**fit_SupplementTextBlock**Namespace Prefix:**fit_**Data Type:**nonnum:textBlockItemType**Balance Type:**na**Period Type:**duration |
Preston C. PHILLIPS, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 16-6430.

Supreme Court of the United States

Jan. 9, 2017.

On petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed *in forma pauperis* and petition for writ of certiorari granted. Judgment vacated, and case remanded to the United State Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit for further consideration in light of *Mathis v. United States,* 579 U.S. ----, 136 S.Ct. 2243, 195 L.Ed.2d 604 (2016).
Osingchi U. ONYEGBALA, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 16-6701.

Supreme Court of the United States

Jan. 9, 2017.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the District of Columbia Court of Appeals denied.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                          25,122
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  156,721
<ALLOWANCES>                                    13,273
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               197,719
<PP&E>                                         153,793
<DEPRECIATION>                                  90,985
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 871,159
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          185,991
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           213
<OTHER-SE>                                     196,111
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   871,159
<SALES>                                        817,386
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               817,386
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  775,684
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              29,670
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 13,893
<INCOME-TAX>                                     7,642
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              6,251
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     6,251
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.30
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.30


</TABLE>
FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________

No. 1D18-2816

_____________________________

GREGORY HARRIS,

Petitioner,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA, Judge

THOMAS REBULL, Assistant 

State Attorney GRISKA MENA 

RODRIGUEZ, Assistant State 

Attorney STEVEN DEMANOVICH,

Assistant State Attorney 

NATALIE SNYDER, Assistant 

Public Defender KELLY FOSTER,

Regional Counsel JELANI DAVIS 

and JOHNNY BROUDY,

Respondents.

_____________________________

Petition for Writ of Prohibition—Original Jurisdiction.

August 22, 2018

PER CURIAM.

DENIED.

ROBERTS, KELSEY, and WINSOR, JJ., concur.
2

_____________________________

Not final until disposition of any timely and 

authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 

9.331.

_____________________________

Gregory Harris, pro se, Petitioner.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Respondent 

State of Florida.

No appearance for Respondents Judge Thomas Rebull, Assistant 

State Attorney Griska Mena Rodriguez, Assistant State Attorney 

Steven Demanovich, Assistant State Attorney Natalie Snyder, 

Assistant Public Defender Kelly Foster, Regional Counsel Jelani 

Davis or Johnny Broudy.
Carmelo PARRILLA-FUENTES, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 16-5055.

Supreme Court of the United States

Nov. 14, 2016.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit denied.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                         407,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  200,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                     5,000
<INVENTORY>                                    151,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               756,000
<PP&E>                                         778,000
<DEPRECIATION>                                 660,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 892,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          615,000
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        31,000
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   892,000
<SALES>                                        504,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               504,000
<CGS>                                          307,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  642,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (136,000)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (136,000)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.04)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.04)
        

</TABLE>
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

AMIT AZOULAY, IDIT AZOULAY AND

ASSAF LAVON

v.

PHILADELPHIA ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT, CITY OF PHILADELPHIA, HILLCREST PRESERVATION ALLIANCE, LLC, AND

FRIENDS OF THE WISSAHICKON

PETITION OF: AMIT AZOULAY, IDIT

AZOULAY AND ASSAF LAVON :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 586 EAL 2018

Cross Petition for Allowance of Appeal

from the Order of the Commonwealth

Court

AMIT AZOULAY, IDIT AZOULAY AND

ASSAF LAVON

v.

PHILADELPHIA ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT, CITY OF PHILADELPHIA, HILLCREST PRESERVATION ALLIANCE, LLC, AND

FRIENDS OF THE WISSAHICKON

PETITION OF: AMIT AZOULAY, IDIT

AZOULAY AND ASSAF LAVON :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 587 EAL 2018

Cross Petition for Allowance of Appeal

from the Order of the Commonwealth

Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM[ 586 EAL 2018 and 587 EAL 2018 ]

- 2

AND NOW , this 30th day of May, 2019

, the Cross Petition for Allowance of Appeal

is DENIED

.
Donald TAYLOR, petitioner, v. NEVADA.

No. 16-507.

Supreme Court of the United States

Jan. 9, 2017.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Nevada denied.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

ERIC MUMAW,

Petitioner

v.

SCHUYLKILL COUNTY COURT OF

COMMON PLEAS,

Respondent :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 87 MM 2022

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 22 nd day of December , 2022, the Application for Leave to File

Original Process is GRANTED, and the Petition for Writ of Mandamus and/or

Extraordinary Relief and the Application for Leave to File Response are DENIED.
Danny FUENTES, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 16-6132.

Supreme Court of the United States

Jan. 9, 2017.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit denied.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                          41,583
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  109,165
<ALLOWANCES>                                    10,132
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               202,580
<PP&E>                                         119,440
<DEPRECIATION>                                  65,406
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 704,134
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          183,153
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           205
<OTHER-SE>                                     152,929
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   704,134
<SALES>                                        430,411
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               430,411
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  416,437
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              11,731
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  3,508
<INCOME-TAX>                                     2,723
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                785
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       785
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (1.61)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (1.61)
        

</TABLE>
IIUV J.~ UO UC;;;;:J.LF p. 1 

COMMENT ~ 

REF: Proposed Rules for Trading Off the Centralized () 

Market 

To whom it may concern, 

I have heard the CFTC is seeking comment on 

certain rules involving block trading. 

I would like to say I see no compelling reason 

for having block trades at all in today' s accessible 

markets. 

If block trades are allowed, the minimum size 

requirements should equal at least 5% of the average 

total open interest in each commodity. 

The CFTC should take control back from the 

exchanges and give us rules that help assure 

transparent liquid markets. 

Thank you, 

Terence Watters 

1~ t~df: 

r··. 

. .-··:) 

·l 

; -~~ 

. ...::,, 

··-·I '. ) 

;-1 l "''""·""-" 

!" ./) -~.:o 

,·,l 

0 :;,] ~:~ 

i"<l ·-· :·~l 

--· ::o ~--·· 

•;;:. ..... J - I 

... --

: .... 

I 

:::J
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>	6

<CIK>	0000744822

<NAME>	Fidelity Investment Trust

<SERIES>

	<NUMBER>	91

	<NAME>	Fidelity Emerging Markets Fund

<MULTIPLIER>	1,000



<S>

<C>

<PERIOD-TYPE>
year
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>
oct-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>
oct-31-1999
<INVESTMENTS-AT-COST>
370,672
<INVESTMENTS-AT-VALUE>
407,148
<RECEIVABLES>
4,976
<ASSETS-OTHER>
469
<OTHER-ITEMS-ASSETS>
0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>
412,593
<PAYABLE-FOR-SECURITIES>
2,290
<SENIOR-LONG-TERM-DEBT>
0
<OTHER-ITEMS-LIABILITIES>
7,911
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES>
10,201
<SENIOR-EQUITY>
0
<PAID-IN-CAPITAL-COMMON>
840,246
<SHARES-COMMON-STOCK>
43,035
<SHARES-COMMON-PRIOR>
40,194
<ACCUMULATED-NII-CURRENT>
(865)
<OVERDISTRIBUTION-NII>
0
<ACCUMULATED-NET-GAINS>
(473,444)
<OVERDISTRIBUTION-GAINS>
0
<ACCUM-APPREC-OR-DEPREC>
36,455
<NET-ASSETS>
402,392
<DIVIDEND-INCOME>
7,133
<INTEREST-INCOME>
809
<OTHER-INCOME>
3
<EXPENSES-NET>
4,865
<NET-INVESTMENT-INCOME>
3,080
<REALIZED-GAINS-CURRENT>
(46,961)
<APPREC-INCREASE-CURRENT>
141,289
<NET-CHANGE-FROM-OPS>
97,408
<EQUALIZATION>
0
<DISTRIBUTIONS-OF-INCOME>
0
<DISTRIBUTIONS-OF-GAINS>
0
<DISTRIBUTIONS-OTHER>
0
<NUMBER-OF-SHARES-SOLD>
21,355
<NUMBER-OF-SHARES-REDEEMED>
18,514
<SHARES-REINVESTED>
0
<NET-CHANGE-IN-ASSETS>
131,683
<ACCUMULATED-NII-PRIOR>
0
<ACCUMULATED-GAINS-PRIOR>
(434,228)
<OVERDISTRIB-NII-PRIOR>
19,247
<OVERDIST-NET-GAINS-PRIOR>
0
<GROSS-ADVISORY-FEES>
2,504
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>
0
<GROSS-EXPENSE>
4,974
<AVERAGE-NET-ASSETS>
342,989
<PER-SHARE-NAV-BEGIN>
6.740
<PER-SHARE-NII>
 .070
<PER-SHARE-GAIN-APPREC>
2.530
<PER-SHARE-DIVIDEND>
0
<PER-SHARE-DISTRIBUTIONS>
0
<RETURNS-OF-CAPITAL>
0
<PER-SHARE-NAV-END>
9.350
<EXPENSE-RATIO>
145





</TABLE>
Commodity Futures Trading Commission 

 Office of Public Affairs 

 Three Lafayette Centre 

 1155 21st Street, NW 

 Washington, DC 20581 

 www.cftc.gov

Proposed Rule on Clearing Member Risk Management 

The Commodity Futures Trading Commission (Commission) is proposing rules concerning clearing member risk 

management for swap dealers, major swap participants, and futures commission merchants that are clearing 

members. 

Proposed Clearing Member Risk Management Rules 

The proposed regulations would require each swap dealer, major swap participant, and futures commission 

merchant that is a clearing member to establish credit and market risk-based limits based on position size, order 

size, margin requirements, or similar factors. In addition, the proposed regulations would require use of automated 

means to screen orders for compliance with the risk-based limits. These requirements could be addressed through 

simple numerical limits on order or position size or through more complex margin-based limits. Further examples 

could include price limits to reject orders that are too far away from the market, or limits on the number of orders 

that could be placed in a short time. 

Monitoring of Risk Limits 

The proposed regulations would also require monitoring for adherence to the risk-based limits intra-day and 

overnight. A clearing member could monitor and mitigate risk with the ability to see all working and filled orders 

for intraday risk management, or with a “kill button” that cancels all open orders for an account and disconnects 

electronic access.

Stress Testing 

A swap dealer, major swap participant, and futures commission merchant would also be required to conduct stress 

tests of all positions in the proprietary account and all positions in any customer account that could pose material 

risk to the futures commission merchant, to evaluate its ability to meet initial margin requirements, and to evaluate 

its ability to meet variation margin requirements in cash at least once per week. 

Monitoring Liquidation Costs 

Furthermore, the proposed regulations would require a swap dealer, major swap participant, and futures 

commission merchant that is a clearing member to evaluate its ability to liquidate positions it clears in an orderly 

manner, and estimate the cost of the liquidation at least once per month. 

Testing Lines of Credit 

Finally, a swap dealer, major swap participant, and futures commission merchant that is a clearing member test all 

lines of credit at least once per quarter under the proposed regulations. 

Commodity Futures Trading Commission ♦ Office of Public Affairs ♦ 202-418-5080
Samuel GARCIA-ESCALERA, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 16-6934.

Supreme Court of the United States

Jan. 9, 2017.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit denied.
Daniel LONGORIA, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 16-6779.

Supreme Court of the United States

Jan. 9, 2017.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied.
EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the annual report
of Semitool, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended
September 30, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
Report), I, Raymon F. Thompson, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby
certify as of the date hereof, solely for purposes pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:

| | (1) | the
Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as
          applicable, 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 at the dates and for the
periods indicated.
| | --- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A signed original of this written
statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating the signature that
appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required by
Section 906, has been provided to Semitool, Inc. and will be retained by Semitool, Inc.
and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

|Dated:  December 13, 2005 |  | By: /s/Raymon F. Thompson
Raymon F. ThompsonChairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer
|------------------------- |  | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dean ALTOBELLI, petitioner, v. Michael W. HARTMANN, et al.

No. 16-554.

Supreme Court of the United States

Dec. 5, 2016.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Michigan denied.
Johnny M. WILLIAMS, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 16-7011.

Supreme Court of the United States

Jan. 9, 2017.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.
Joseph FINCH, petitioner, v. Julie L. JONES, Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections.

No. 16-6400.

Supreme Court of the United States

Nov. 28, 2016.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit denied.
In re Charles Francis GRAHAM, petitioner.

No. 16-6196.

Supreme Court of the United States

Nov. 28, 2016.

Petition for writ of mandamus denied.
Edward L. RAMSEY, petitioner, v. Ronda J. PASH, Warden.

No. 16-6517.

Supreme Court of the United States

Jan. 9, 2017.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Missouri denied.