alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>      5
<LEGEND>       THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED
               FROM THE ACCOMPANYING FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND IS QUALIFIED IN
               ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                                               <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                     6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                 JUL-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                                    AUG-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                      JAN-31-2000
<CASH>                                              45,293
<SECURITIES>                                        10,192
<RECEIVABLES>                                       70,636
<ALLOWANCES>                                         1,079
<INVENTORY>                                         99,911
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                   254,910
<PP&E>                                              90,587
<DEPRECIATION>                                      38,594
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                     312,510
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                               57,580
<BONDS>                                                  0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                    0
<PREFERRED>                                              0
<COMMON>                                               219
<OTHER-SE>                                         248,372
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                       312,510
<SALES>                                             84,593
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                   111,960
<CGS>                                               44,154
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                       67,455
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                    29,955 <F1>
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                         0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                     191
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                     (3,096)
<INCOME-TAX>                                        (1,022)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                 (2,074)
<DISCONTINUED>                                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                          0
<CHANGES>                                                0
<NET-INCOME>                                        (2,074)
<EPS-BASIC>                                       ($0.10)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                       ($0.10)
<FN>
<F1>  EXCLUDES SG&A AS SG&A IS PART OF 5-03(b)(4).
</FN>


</TABLE>
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

DOMINIC JOHN FRATANGELI,

Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 66 MAL 2023

Petition for Allowance of Appeal 

from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 26th day of July, 2023, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is 

DENIED.
Exhibit 31.2

I, R. Jerry Giles, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Community Financial Corporation (the "Registrant");

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 statementsmade, 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 consolidated financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respectsthe consolidated 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 and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in ExchangeAct 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 thatmaterial 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 isbeing prepared;

b) evaluated the effectiveness of the Registrant's disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report;

c) disclosed in this report any changes in the Registrant's internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the Registrant's most recent fiscalquarter 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 and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation, to the Registrant's auditors and the audit committee ofRegistrant'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 toadversely affect the Registrant's ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and

b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the Registrant's internal control overfinancial reporting.

Date: November 14, 2005

/s/ R. Jerry GilesR. Jerry GilesSenior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
### NUMBER 13
- 19
- 00 337
- C R


## COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI
- EDINBURG

____________________________________________________________ JAVIER ALONZO , Appellant,

v.
THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee.

__________________________________ __________________________ On a ppeal from the 398 th District Court of Hidalgo County, Texas.

____________________________________________________________ 

## ORDER OF ABATEMENT

Before Justices Benavides, Hinojosa, and Tijerina Order Per Curiam

This cause is before the Court on the honorable O. Rene Flores’ motion to

withdraw

. Adequate reason for the discharge of counsel and appointment of new counsel , if

any, rests within the sound discretion of the trial court. Carroll v. State , 176 S.W.3d 249,2 255 (Tex. App.BHouston [1st Dist.] 2004, pet. ref'd). In those circumstances where the appointment of substitute counsel may be necessary, an appellate court, when faced with
a motion to withdraw, should abate the proceeding to the trial court for determination of

this issue. Accordingly, we ABATE the appeal and REMAND the cause to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with this order.
Upon remand, the trial court shall determine whether appe llant’s attorney should remain as appellant's counsel; and, if not, whether appellant is entitled to appointed

counsel. If the trial court determines that there is no reason to discharge appellant’s
current appointed attorney and appoint substitute counsel , the court shall enter an order to that effect. If the trial court determines that new counsel should be appointed, the name, address, telephone number, and state bar number of newly appointed counsel shall be
included in the order appointing counsel. The trial court shall further cause its order to be included in a supplemental clerk's record to be filed with the Clerk of this Court on or before the expiration of thirty days from the date of this order. Appellant’s brief shall be due thirty days after the receipt of the supplemental

record.

It is so ordered.

PER CURIAM

Do n ot p ublish. T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 47.2 (b)

. D elivered and filed th e 20th day of October, 2020.
# Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida Opinion filed June 30, 2021. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________ No. 3D21-1138 Lower Tribunal No. F06-43010

________________ 

### Santiago Milian, Appellant, vs. 

### The State of Florida, Appellee. An Appeal under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.141(b)(2) from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Jose L. Fernandez, Judge. Santiago Milian, in proper person. Ashley Moody, Attorney General, for appellee. Before FERNANDEZ, HENDON and BOKOR, JJ. PER CURIAM. Affirmed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>	6

<CIK>	0000744822

<NAME>	Fidelity Investment Trust

<SERIES>

	<NUMBER>	81

	<NAME>	Fidelity Worldwide Fund

<MULTIPLIER>	1,000



<S>

<C>

<PERIOD-TYPE>
year
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>
oct-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>
oct-31-1999
<INVESTMENTS-AT-COST>
871,580
<INVESTMENTS-AT-VALUE>
999,691
<RECEIVABLES>
13,078
<ASSETS-OTHER>
2,551
<OTHER-ITEMS-ASSETS>
0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>
1,015,320
<PAYABLE-FOR-SECURITIES>
14,227
<SENIOR-LONG-TERM-DEBT>
0
<OTHER-ITEMS-LIABILITIES>
20,258
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES>
34,485
<SENIOR-EQUITY>
0
<PAID-IN-CAPITAL-COMMON>
756,709
<SHARES-COMMON-STOCK>
51,978
<SHARES-COMMON-PRIOR>
62,342
<ACCUMULATED-NII-CURRENT>
4,445
<OVERDISTRIBUTION-NII>
0
<ACCUMULATED-NET-GAINS>
91,571
<OVERDISTRIBUTION-GAINS>
0
<ACCUM-APPREC-OR-DEPREC>
128,110
<NET-ASSETS>
980,835
<DIVIDEND-INCOME>
12,867
<INTEREST-INCOME>
1,918
<OTHER-INCOME>
16
<EXPENSES-NET>
10,271
<NET-INVESTMENT-INCOME>
4,530
<REALIZED-GAINS-CURRENT>
93,684
<APPREC-INCREASE-CURRENT>
120,566
<NET-CHANGE-FROM-OPS>
218,780
<EQUALIZATION>
0
<DISTRIBUTIONS-OF-INCOME>
6,009
<DISTRIBUTIONS-OF-GAINS>
26,442
<DISTRIBUTIONS-OTHER>
0
<NUMBER-OF-SHARES-SOLD>
32,894
<NUMBER-OF-SHARES-REDEEMED>
45,258
<SHARES-REINVESTED>
2,000
<NET-CHANGE-IN-ASSETS>
8,730
<ACCUMULATED-NII-PRIOR>
12,290
<ACCUMULATED-GAINS-PRIOR>
51,999
<OVERDISTRIB-NII-PRIOR>
0
<OVERDIST-NET-GAINS-PRIOR>
0
<GROSS-ADVISORY-FEES>
7,060
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>
0
<GROSS-EXPENSE>
10,815
<AVERAGE-NET-ASSETS>
962,438
<PER-SHARE-NAV-BEGIN>
15.590
<PER-SHARE-NII>
 .080
<PER-SHARE-GAIN-APPREC>
3.740
<PER-SHARE-DIVIDEND>
 .100
<PER-SHARE-DISTRIBUTIONS>
 .440
<RETURNS-OF-CAPITAL>
0
<PER-SHARE-NAV-END>
18.870
<EXPENSE-RATIO>
112





</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 23.3

                         CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS


     We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements
(Forms  S-8  No.  333-76655  and  No.  333-101422)   pertaining  to  the  Marvel
Enterprises,  Inc. 1998 Stock Incentive Plan of Marvel Enterprises,  Inc. of our
report  dated  February 27, 2004,  with  respect to the  consolidated  financial
statements  and  schedules of Marvel  Enterprises,  Inc.  included in the Annual
Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31, 2003.





/s/Ernst & Young LLP

New York, New York
March 10, 2004
PURDUE PHARMA L.P., et al., petitioners, v. EPIC PHARMA, LLC, et al.

No. 16-289.

Supreme Court of the United States

Nov. 14, 2016.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit denied.
----

            COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 1545/2004

of 30 August 2004         

fixing the corrective amount applicable to the refund on cereals

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), and in particular Article 15(2) thereof,

Whereas:

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

The corrective amount referred to in Article 1(1)(a), (b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 1784/2003 which is applicable to export refunds fixed in advance except for malt shall be as set out in the Annex hereto.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on 1 September 2004.

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

Done at Brussels, 30 August 2004.

For the Commission

Franz FISCHLER            

Member of the Commission

----

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

(2)OJ L 147, 30.6.1995, p. 7. Regulation as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 1431/2003 (OJ L 203, 12.8.2003, p. 16).

----

ANNEX

to the Commission Regulation of 30 August 2004 fixing the corrective amount applicable to the refund on cereals

----
<TABLE> <S> <C>




<ARTICLE> 9
<LEGEND>
THE SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE QUARTERLY
REPORT ON FORM 10-QSB FOR THE QUARTER ENDED  SEPTEMBER 30, 1997 AND IS QUALIFIED
IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1

       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                       6,104,678
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                       1,556,000
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                     0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                  2,901,780
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                       6,607,199
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                                 0
<LOANS>                                    160,837,701
<ALLOWANCE>                                          0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             183,278,474
<DEPOSITS>                                 128,238,136
<SHORT-TERM>                                29,000,000
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                          1,827,257
<LONG-TERM>                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        12,754
<OTHER-SE>                                  24,200,327
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>             183,278,474
<INTEREST-LOAN>                              3,341,335
<INTEREST-INVEST>                              138,383
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                30,650
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                             3,510,368
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                           1,467,783
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           1,874,417
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                        1,635,951
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                  367,630
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                918,743
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                523,861
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                     523,861
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   329,204
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .26
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .26
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                       0
<LOANS-NON>                                  1,022,000
<LOANS-PAST>                                         0
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                     0
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                        0
<RECOVERIES>                                         0
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                    0
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                                 0
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0

        

</TABLE>
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-1743

ISAAC D. POLING, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus LARRY G. MASSANARI, ACTING COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Clarksburg. Irene M. Keeley, Chief District Judge. (CA-00-40-1) Submitted: December 28, 2001 Decided: January 24, 2002 Before NIEMEYER and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Susan Kipp McLaughlin, MCLAUGHLIN & CURRY, Fairmont, West Virginia, for Appellant. James A. Winn, Regional Chief Counsel, Region III,Patricia M. Smith, Deputy Chief Counsel, Kelly C. Connelly, Assistant Regional Counsel, Office of the General Counsel, SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; Patrick M. Flatley, United States Attorney, Helen Campbell Altmeyer, Assistant United States Attorney, Wheeling, West Virginia, for Appellee.2 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM:Isaac D. Poling appeals from the district court’s order upholding the decision of the Commissioner of Social Security to deny Poling’s application for disability insurance benefits. We have reviewed the record, the briefs, and the district court’s opinion accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Poling v. Massanari , No. CA-00-40-1 (N.D.W. Va. Mar. 29, 2001). 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
Kyle ADAMS, petitioner, v. CALIFORNIA.

No. 16-6230.

Supreme Court of the United States

Nov. 7, 2016.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeal of California, Sixth Appellate District denied.
Fernando ARMENTA-ROMERO, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 16-6339.

Supreme Court of the United States

Nov. 7, 2016.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.
Petition for Writ of Mandamus Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed 

August 8, 2019.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14-19-00524-CV

IN RE MICHAEL REILLY AND RAVAGO AMERICAS D/B/A GENESIS 

POLYMERS, Relators 

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

WRIT OF MANDAMUS

80th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 2018-47163

MEMORANDUM OPINION

On July 2, 2019 relators Michael Reilly and Ravago Americas d/b/a Genesis 

Polymers filed a petition for writ of mandamus in this court. See Tex. Gov’t Code 

Ann. § 22.221 (Supp.); see also Tex. R. App. P. 52. In the petition, relators ask this 

court to compel the Honorable Larry Weiman, presiding judge of the 80th District 

Court of Harris County, to vacate his June 13, 2019 “Order Denying Defendants’ 

Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to the Texas Citizens Participation Act” (“the June 13 
2 

order”) and his June 25, 2019 “Trial Preparation Order.” The petition argues that 

such orders violated the stay imposed by section 51.014(b) of the Texas Civil 

Practice and Remedies Code. 

Relators have appealed the denial of their motion to dismiss, which is pending 

in our court as No. 14-19-00336-CV (“the appeal”). Our court has issued an order in 

the appeal, pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 29.3, staying the June 13 

order and the June 25 Trial Preparation Order. This order enforces the stay imposed 

by section 51.014(b) of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code. We therefore 

dismiss relators’ petition for writ of mandamus as moot.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Christopher, Bourliot, and Zimmerer.
# FCM Data May 2017

SELECTED FCM FINANCIAL DATA AS OF May 31,&KFF0000 &K0000002017FROM REPORTS FILED BY June 26,&KFF0000 &K0000002017	&P of &N
Commodity Futures Trading Commission ♦ Office of Public Affairs ♦ 202-418-5080

Commodity Futures Trading Commission

Office of Public Affairs

Three Lafayette Centre

1155 21st Street, NW

Washington, DC 20581

www.cftc.gov

Q & A – Final and Interim Final Rulemaking Regarding Commodity Options

What is the purpose of the final rulemaking?

The final rulemaking adopts rules to revise part 32 (and to update parts 3 and 33) of the Commission’s regulations to align the 

Commission’s general options rules with the CEA changes made by the Dodd-Frank Act. Specifically, section 721 of the 

Dodd-Frank Act added a definition of the term “swap” in section 1a(47) of the CEA. The statutory swap definition includes 

“a put, call, cap, floor, collar, or similar option of any kind that is for the purchase or sale, or based on the value, of 1 or more . 

. . commodities . . . .” Therefore, the final rule adopts the Commission’s February 3, 2011 proposal to permit commodity 

options to transact subject to all rules and regulations applicable to any other swap.

What is the purpose of the interim final rulemaking?

The rulemaking adopted by the Commission also includes an interim final rule that provides a trade option exemption from 

the general swaps rules, subject to certain conditions, for certain physical delivery commodity options. The interim final rule is 

being adopted in response to commenters that requested relief from the full panoply of Dodd-Frank swaps regulations for 

commodity options used by commercial entities to deliver and/or receive physical commodities in connection with their 

business. The trade option exemption conditions include position limits, large trader reporting, appropriate recordkeeping and 

reporting requirements, antifraud and anti-manipulation rules, and the retention of certain swap requirements for swap dealers 

and major swap participants that engage in trade options.

What is the scope and application of the final and interim final rulemakings?

The final rule and interim final rule apply to commodity options that are subject to the definition of “swap” as it will be 

further defined by the Commission and the Securities and Exchange Commission. Exchange-traded options on futures are 

specifically excluded from the swap definition and will not be affected by this rule.

What will be the relevant effective date and compliance date for the final and interim final rules?

While the effective date of the final rule and the interim final rule is 60 days after their publication in the Federal Register, the 

relevant compliance date will be 60 days after the term “swap” is further defined pursuant to section 721 of the Dodd-Frank 

Act (i.e., 60 days after the further definition of the term “swap” is adopted by the Commission and the Securities and 

Exchange Commission and published in the Federal Register).
Michael HOUSTON and Steve Houston, petitioners, v. Veneta QUEENS, et al.

No. 16-40.

Supreme Court of the United States

Nov. 28, 2016.

Petition for rehearing denied.