alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Tony Eduardo FRAZIER, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 15-9368.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 3, 2016.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied.
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

August 29, 2006 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice
130465 Michael F. Cavanagh Elizabeth A. Weaver Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan PEOPLE OF THE STAT E OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman, Justices

v SC: 130465 COA: 256560 Isabella CC: 03-000907-FH STEPHEN DOUGLA S BANFIELD, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the December 15, 2005 judgment of the Court of Appeals is consid ered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.

l0821 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.

August 29, 2006

Clerk
John C. HORNER, petitioner, v. FLORIDA.

No. 16-6832.

Supreme Court of the United States

Jan. 9, 2017.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Florida denied.
# C o u rt o f

A p p ea ls

o f t h e S t a te o f

G eo rg ia

ATLANTA,_

_ _ __ _ _ __ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ __ _
Th e Co u rt

o f Ap p ea l s h er eb y p a s s es t h e f

o ll owi n g o r der :

A2 3 A0 10 8 . STEVE PI TTMAN et a l . v . BORI S W OODARD.

Th i s cas e b e g a n as a d i s po s ses s o ry pro ceed i n g i n m ag i s t rat e co u rt

. Aft er t h e

m ag i s t rat e co u rt en t ered fi n al j u d g m en t i n f a v o r o f Bo ri s W o o d ard
, St ev e Pi t t m an
ap p eal ed t o t h e st at e co u rt

. T h e s t at e co u rt gran t ed a wri t o f p o ss es s i o n t o W o o d ard

. Pi t t m an t h en fi l ed a n ot i ce o f d i rect ap p eal t o t h i s C o u rt

. W e, h o wev er, l ack ju ri s d i ct i o n

. An ap p eal fro m a st a t e co u rt o rd er d i s p o s i n g o f a d e n o v o ap p eal fro m a

m ag i s t rat e co u rt d eci s i o n m u s t b e i n i t iat ed b y fi l i n g an ap p l i cat i on fo r d i s cret i o n ary
ap p eal

. OCGA § 5 -6 -3 5 (a) (1 1 ); S t r a ch a n v. Mer i t o r Mt g

. Co r p

. Ea s t , 2 1 6 Ga. Ap p. 8 2
, 8 2 (4 5 3 SE2 d 11 9 ) (1 9 9 5). “ Co m p l i an ce wi th t h e d i s cret i o n ary ap p eal s p ro ced u re i s ju ri sd i ct i o nal .” Ha i r Res t or a t i o n S p eci a l i s t s v. S ta t e o f Ga

. , 3 6 0 Ga. Ap p

. 9 0 1
, 9 0 3 (8 6 2 SE2 d 5 6 4 ) (2 0 2 1 ) (p u n ct u at i o n o m it t ed ). Pi t t m an ’ s fai lu re t o fo l l o w t h e p ro p er
p ro ced ure d ep ri ves u s o f ju ri s d i ct i o n o v er t h i s ap p eal
, w hi ch is h ereb y D ISM ISSED.

C o u r t o f A p p e a l s o f t h e S t a t e o

f G e o r g ia C le r k ’ s O f f i c e , A t la n t a ,

_

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ I c e r ti fy t h a t t h e a b o v e i s a t r u e e x t r a c t f r o m
t h e m i n u t e s o

f t h e C o u r t o

f A p p e a l s o f G e o r g i a

. W i tn e s s m y s i g n a t u r e a n d th e s e a l o

f s a i d c o u r t h e r e t o a f f i x e d t h e d a y a n d y e a r l a s t a b o v e w r i t t e n

.

, C l e r k

. August 10, 2022

08/10/2022
EXHIBIT 11

AMERICAN GAMING & ENTERTAINMENT, LTD.
COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS (LOSS) PER SHARE
PRIMARY AND FULLY-DILUTED


                                Three Months Ended
                                    March 31,

                               1997                    1996
                               ____                    ____

Weighted average number
of shares for computation     12,532,102              12,532,102
                            ============             =========== 

Net loss                    $ (1,975,000)              $(289,000)

Dividends and accretion
on preferred stock               467,000                 408,000
                            ____________             
____________

Net loss for common 
stockholders                $ (2,442,000)              $(697,000)
                             ============              ==========
                                                
Net loss per common 
share                             $(0.19)                 $(0.06) 
            
                                  =======                 =======
**Exhibit3.5.1**

** **

**STATE*of*DELAWARE**

 

**LIMITEDLIABILITY COMPANY**

 

**CERTIFICATE*of* FORMATION**

 

**FIRST**:      The name of the limitedliability company is PATS AIRCRAFT, LLC.

 

**SECOND**:The addressof its registered office in the State of Delaware is: 2711 CentervilleRoad, Suite 400, Wilmington DE 

19808. The name of its Registered agent at suchaddress is Corporation Service Company.

 

**IN WITNESS WHEREOF**,the undersigned has executed this Certificate of Formation of Pats Aircraft,LLC this 11th day of December, 2003.

 

 
| By:    | /s/ Richard J. Kaplan |   |
|--------|-----------------------|--------|
|   | Authorized Person(s)  |
|   |                  |
| Name:  | Richard J. Kaplan     |   |
|   | Type or Print         |
|        |                       |        |  |

 

----

 

CERTIFICATE OFMERGER

 

OF

 

PATS, INC.

(a Marylandcorporation)

 

AND

 

PATS AIRCRAFT, LLC

 

(a Delawarelimited liability company)

 

Pursuant to Title 6,Section 18-209 of the Delaware Limited Liability Company Act.

 

1.             The name of thesurviving limited liability company is PATS AIRCRAFT, LLC, a Delaware limitedliability company.

 

2.             The name of thecorporation being merged into this surviving limited liability company is PATS,INC.  The jurisdiction in which thiscorporation was formed is Maryland.

 

3.             The Agreement ofMerger has been approved and executed by both the corporation and limitedliability company.

 

4.             The name of thesurviving limited liability company is PATS AIRCRAFT, LLC.

 

5.             The executedAgreement of Merger is on file at 21652 Nanticoke Avenue, Georgetown, Delaware19947, the principal place of business of the surviving limited liabilitycompany.

 

6.             A copy of theAgreement of Merger will be furnished by the surviving limited liabilitycompany on request, without cost, to any member of the limited liabilitycompany or any person holding an interest in any other business entity, whichis to merge or consolidate.

 

7.             The Merger shall beeffective on December 31, 2003.

 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, saidlimited liability company has caused this certificate to be signed by anauthorized person, this 29th day of December, A.D., 2003.

 
|   | By:                     | /s/ Richar J. Kaplan |   |
|--------|-------------------------|----------------------|--------|
|   |                    |
|   |                    | Authorized Person    |
|   |                    |                 |
|   | Name: Richard J. Kaplan |                 |
|   |                    |
|   |                    | Print or Type        |
|        |                         |                      |        |  |  |

 

----
# C_2010063EN.01004405.xml

| 13.3.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 63/44 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.3.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 63/44

---

Order of the President of the Court of 11 January 2010 — European Commission v Kingdom of Belgium

(Case C-139/09) (1)

1

2010/C 63/75

Language of the case: French

Language of the case: French

The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 141, 20.6.2009.

1

---
# C_2009267EN.01003502.xml

| 7.11.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 267/35 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.11.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 267/35

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 10 August 2009 — MSD Sharp & Dohme GmbH v Merckle GmbH

(Case C-316/09)

2009/C 267/66

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Referring court

Bundesgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: MSD Sharp & Dohme GmbH

Applicant:

Defendant: Merckle GmbH

Defendant:

Question referred

Question referred

The following question relating to the interpretation of Directive 2001/83/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 November 2001 on the Community code relating to medicinal products for human use, (1) most recently amended by Directive 2008/89/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 March 2008, (2) is hereby referred to the Court of Justice of the European Communities for a preliminary ruling:

1

2

Does the scope of application of Article 88(1)(a) of Directive 2001/83/EC on the Community code relating to medicinal products for human use extend to the advertising to the general public of medicinal products which are available only on prescription where that advertising contains only information which was placed before the authorising authority in the course of the marketing authorisation procedure and which is accessible in any event to every person acquiring the product, and where that information is not made available to an interested party on an unsolicited basis but can be accessed only through the internet when the party concerned takes steps to do so?

---

(1)  OJ 2001 L 311, p. 67.

1

(2)  OJ 2008 L 81, p. 51.

2

---
# C_2009312EN.01001002.xml

| 19.12.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 312/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.12.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 312/10

---

Action brought on 12 August 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Poland

(Case C-326/09)

2009/C 312/16

Language of the case: Polish

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: M. van Beek and M. Kaduczak, acting as Agents)

Applicant:

Defendant: Republic of Poland

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | declare that, by not adopting the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive 2004/113/EC of 13 December 2004 implementing the principle of equal treatment between men and women in the access to and supply of goods and services, (1) and in any event by not informing the Commission of the adoption of those provisions, the Republic of Poland has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare that, by not adopting the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive 2004/113/EC of 13 December 2004 implementing the principle of equal treatment between men and women in the access to and supply of goods and services, (1) and in any event by not informing the Commission of the adoption of those provisions, the Republic of Poland has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

1

| — | order the Republic of Poland to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Republic of Poland to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

The time-limit for transposition of Directive 2004/113 expired on 21 December 2007.

---

(1)  OJ 2004 L 373, p. 37.

1

---
Brandon DYE, petitioner, v. Scott R. FRAKES, Director, Nebraska Department of Correctional Services.

No. 16-6180.

Supreme Court of the United States

Dec. 5, 2016.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Nebraska denied.
# C_2010100EN.01001202.xml

| 17.4.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 100/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.4.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 100/12

---

Order of the Court of 22 January 2010 — Makhteshim-Agan Holding BV, Makhteshim-Agan Italia Srl, Magan Italia Srl v European Commission

(Case C-69/09 P) (1)

1

(Expedited procedure)

2010/C 100/19

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Appellants: Makhteshim-Agan Holding BV, Makhteshim-Agan Italia Srl, Magan Italia Srl (represented by: K. Van Maldegem and C. Mereu, avocats)

Appellants:

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: N.B. Rasmussen and L. Parpala, Agents)

Other party to the proceedings:

Re:

Re:

Appeal brought against the order of the Court of First Instance (Sixth Chamber) of 26 November 2008 in Case T-393/06 Makhteshim-Agan Holding and Others v Commission in which the Court of First Instance declared inadmissible an action for annulment of the decision of the Commission not to submit a proposal for the inclusion of the active substance azinphos-methyl in Annex I to Council Directive 91/414/EEC of 15 July 1991 concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market (OJ 1991 L 230, p. 1), allegedly contained in a letter of 12 October 2006 (D/531125) — Actionable measure

Makhteshim-Agan Holding and Others

Commission

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The application of Makhteshim-Agan Holding, Makhteshim-Agan Italia Srl and Magan Italia Srl that Case C-69/09 P be decided under an expedited procedure is rejected. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The application of Makhteshim-Agan Holding, Makhteshim-Agan Italia Srl and Magan Italia Srl that Case C-69/09 P be decided under an expedited procedure is rejected.

| 2. | The costs are reserved. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The costs are reserved.

---

(1)  OJ C 82, 04.04.2009.

1

---
Darcy PILOTO, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 16-6742.

Supreme Court of the United States

Jan. 9, 2017.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit denied.
# C_2009282EN.01001901.xml

| 21.11.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 282/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.11.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 282/19

---

Action brought on 14 July 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Slovak Republic

(Case C-264/09)

2009/C 282/36

Language of the case: Slovak

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: O. Beynet, F. Hoffmeister and J. Javorský, acting as Agents)

Applicant:

Defendant: Slovak Republic

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | that by failing to grant non-discriminatory access to its transmission system the Slovak Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 20(1) and 9(e) of European Parliament and Council Directive 2003/54/EC of 26 June 2003 concerning common rules for the internal market in electricity and repealing Directive 96/92/EC (1) |
| --- | --- |

—

that by failing to grant non-discriminatory access to its transmission system the Slovak Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 20(1) and 9(e) of European Parliament and Council Directive 2003/54/EC of 26 June 2003 concerning common rules for the internal market in electricity and repealing Directive 96/92/EC (1)

1

| — | order the Slovak Republic to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Slovak Republic to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

The time-limit for transposition of the directive expired on 1 July 2004.

---

(1)  OJ 2003 L 176, p. 37

1

---
**Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm**

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference into the Prospectuses and Statements of Additional Information in Post–Effective Amendment No. 204 to the Registration Statement on Form N–1A of Fidelity Investment Trust: Fidelity Global Commodity Stock Fund and Fidelity Infrastructure Fund of our reports dated December 13, 2023; Fidelity Enduring Opportunities Fund, Fidelity Series International Growth Fund, and Fidelity Sustainable Emerging Markets Equity Fund of our reports dated December 14, 2023; Fidelity Series Canada Fund of our report dated December 15, 2023, relating to the financial statements and financial highlights, which appear in the above referenced funds’ Annual Reports to Shareholders on Form N-CSR for the period ended October 31, 2023. We also consent to the references to our Firm under the headings “Financial Highlights” in the Prospectuses and “Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm” in the Statements of Additional Information.

/s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP

Boston, Massachusetts
IV 

House Calendar No. 9 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. RES. 157 

[Report No. 111–14] 

Providing for consideration of motions to suspend the rules, and for other 

purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 11, 2009 

Mr. PERLMUTTER, from the Committee on Rules, reported the following resolution; which was referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed 

RESOLUTION 

Providing for consideration of motions to suspend the rules, 

and for other purposes. 

1 Resolved, That it shall be in order at any time 

2 through the legislative day of February 13, 2009, for the 

3 Speaker to entertain motions that the House suspend the 

4 rules. The Speaker or her designee shall consult with the 

5 Minority Leader or his designee on the designation of any 

6 matter for consideration pursuant to this section. 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with BILLS
2 

•HRES 157 RH 

1 SEC. 2. The matter after the resolved clause of House 

2 Resolution 10 is amended to read as follows: ‘‘That unless 

3 otherwise ordered, before Monday, May 18, 2009, the hour 

4 of daily meeting of the House shall be 2 p.m. on Mondays; 

5 noon on Tuesdays; 10 a.m. on Wednesday and Thursday, 

6 and 9 a.m. on all other days of the week; and from Mon7 day, May 18, 2009, until the end of the first session, the 

8 hour of daily meeting of the House shall be noon on Mon9 days; 10 a.m. on Tuesdays, Wednesdays, and Thursdays; 

10 and 9 a.m. on all other days of the week.’’. 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with BILLS

pwalker on PROD1PC71 with BILLS
House Calendar No. 9 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. RES. 157 

[Report No. 111–14] 

RESOLUTION 

Providing for consideration of motions to suspend 

the rules, and for other purposes. 

FEBRUARY 11, 2009 

Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be 

printed 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with BILLS
EXHIBIT 23


                          INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT




The Board of Directors
Central Bancorp, Inc.:


We consent to incorporation by reference in the Registration  Statements on Form
S-8 (333-71165, 333-87005 and 333-49264) of Central Bancorp, Inc. of our report,
dated April 25, 2002,  relating to the  consolidated  balance  sheets of Central
Bancorp,  Inc.  and  subsidiary  as of March 31, 2002 and 2001,  and the related
consolidated  statements  of income,  changes in  stockholders'  equity and cash
flows for each of the years in the three-year period ended March 31, 2002, which
report is included herein.




                                             /s/ KPMG LLP

Boston, Massachusetts
March 20, 2003
|        |
|--------|
|        |  |
|   | /s/ Marek Bakun |
|   | Marek BakunChief Financial Officer |
# C_2010063EN.01002001.xml

| 13.3.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 63/20 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.3.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 63/20

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Castilla La Mancha (Spain) lodged on 25 November 2009 — CLECE, S.A. v María Socorro Martín Valor and Ayuntamiento de Cobisa

(Case C-463/09)

2010/C 63/31

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Referring court

Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Castilla La Mancha

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: CLECE, S.A.

Applicant:

Defendant: María Socorro Martín Valor and Ayuntamiento de Cobisa

Defendant:

Question referred

Question referred

Does a situation in which a Town Hall resumes or takes over the activity of cleaning its premises, which was previously carried out by a contractor, and for which new staff are hired, fall within the scope of [Council Directive 2001/23/EC] (1), as defined in Article 1(1)(a) and (b) thereof?

1

---

(1)  Council Directive 2001/23/EC of 12 March 2001 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the safeguarding of employees' rights in the event of transfers of undertakings, businesses or parts of undertakings or businesses (OJ 2001 L 82, p. 16).

1

---
II-01033

From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

Carla Rautenberg <RCarla@aol.com>

Thursday, December 2, 2010 8:56 AM

dfadefinitions <dfadefinitions@CFTC.gov>

Re: No loopholes in Dodd-Frank

1) Securities and Exchange Commission/Commodities Futures Trading Commission, Re: Commercial Risk (CFTC RIN

3235-AK65, SEC File Number $7-12-10)

Dear Commissioners Shapiro and Gensler: Don’t let the American Bankers Association (ABA) redefine important terms like

"commercial risk" to keep banks that engage in risky derivatives trading from complying with transparency and business

conduct requirements. Commercial risk should not be expanded to include financial risk. Accepting the ABA argument

would open the door for exemptions for risky hedge funds and insurance companies.

2) Commodities Futures Trading Commission, Re: Position Limits (RIN 3038-AD 17 )

Dear Commissioner Gensler: The CFTC needs to set strong position limits to crack down on the energy and food commodity

speculation that serves no productive purpose. I urge the Commission to define limits that will address not only manipulation,

but also excessive speculation, which will require a stricter approach.

3) U.S. Department of the Treasury, Re: FX Swaps (75 FR 66426 Document Number 2010-27274)

Dear Secretary Geithner: Just say "no" to foreign exchange traders who want to exempt foreign currency derivatives from the

clearing and transparency requirements of the

Dodd-Frank Act. $4 trillion dollars a day is traded in these highly-leveraged swaps and this number may increase to over $10

trillion in a decade. As the head of the Financial

Stability Oversight Board your job is to decrease risk in the system, not encourage off-book trading and opaque markets.

Carla Rautenberg

3065 Berkshire

Cleveland Heights, OH 44118
H. Res. 184 

In the House of Representatives, U. S., 

February 25, 2009. 

Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it 

shall be in order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 

1105) making omnibus appropriations for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2009, 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 amendment printed in the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution shall be considered as adopted. The 

bill, as amended, shall be considered as read. All points of 

order against the bill, as amended, are waived. The previous 

question shall be considered as ordered on the bill, as amended, 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 Appro- 
2 

•HRES 184 EH 

priations; and (2) one motion to recommit with or without instructions. 

SEC. 2. House Resolution 158 is laid on the table. 

Attest: 

Clerk.