alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
FORM 10-Q
Exhibit 31.1
**CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER**
I, Vincent A. Rego, certify that:
1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Encore Wire Corporation; 2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state amaterial 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 quarterly report; 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this quarterly report, fairlypresent in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, andfor, the periods presented in this quarterly report; 4. The registrant’s other certifying officers and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls andprocedures (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 oursupervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which thisquarterly report is being prepared; b. evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this quarterly reportour conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the periodcovered by this quarterly report based on such evaluation; and c. disclosed in this quarterly report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurredduring the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth quarter in the case of an annualreport) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting; and
5. The registrant’s other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal controlover financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of registrant’s board of directors (orpersons performing the equivalent functions):
 

 

FORM 10-Q
a. all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reportingwhich are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and reportfinancial information; and b. any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting.
Date: November 8, 2004      /s/ VINCENT A. REGO      Vincent A. Rego   *Chairman of the Board and*   *Chief Executive Officer*
Commodity Futures Trading Commission 

 Office of Public Affairs 

 Three Lafayette Centre 

 1155 21st Street, NW 

 Washington, DC 20581 

 www.cftc.gov

Q & A – Requirements for Processing, 

Clearing, and Transfer of Customer Positions 

What is the purpose of the proposed regulations? 

Through this proposed rulemaking, the Commission seeks to expand access to, and to strengthen the financial 

integrity of, the swap markets subject to Commission oversight by requiring and establishing uniform standards for 

prompt processing, submission, and acceptance of swaps eligible for clearing by a derivatives clearing organization 

(DCO). The Commission also seeks to facilitate a DCO’s prompt transfer of customer positions from a carrying 

clearing member to another clearing member with the goal of avoiding unnecessary delay and market disruption. 

What matters are addressed in this rulemaking? 

The proposed regulations would establish the time frame for a swap dealer, major swap participant, futures 

commission merchant, swap execution facility, and designated contract market to submit contracts, agreements, or 

transactions to a DCO for clearing. They also would establish standards for cleared products and the prompt and 

efficient processing of all contracts, agreements, and transactions submitted to a DCO for clearing. Related 

regulations would require swap execution facilities and designated contract markets to coordinate with DCOs in the 

development of rules and procedures to facilitate clearing. Additionally, the Commission is proposing a regulation 

requiring a DCO, upon customer request, to promptly transfer customer positions and related funds from one 

clearing member to another, without requiring the close-out and re-booking of the positions. 

How does this rulemaking relate to earlier proposed rulemakings governing the same 

registrants? 

This rulemaking refines and supplements earlier proposed rulemakings, either by modifying already-proposed rule 

provisions or by proposing new provisions. The following previously proposed rules are affected: 

§ 23.506 – Swap processing and clearing. [swap dealers and major swap participants] 

§ 37.702 – General financial integrity. [swap execution facilities] 

§ 38.601 – Mandatory clearing. [designated contract markets] 

§ 39.12 – Participant and product eligibility. [derivatives clearing organizations] 

§39.15 – Treatment of funds. [derivatives clearing organizations] 

How long is the public comment period? 

The deadline for comments will be 30 days from the date the notice of proposed rulemaking is published in the 

Federal Register. 

Commodity Futures Trading Commission ♦ Office of Public Affairs ♦ 202-418-5080
Exhibit (d)(63)

FORM OF
David B. FENKELL, petitioner, v. ALLIANCE HOLDINGS, INC., et al.

No. 16-473.

Supreme Court of the United States

Jan. 9, 2017.

The Acting Solicitor General is invited to file a brief in this case expressing the views of the United States.
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 Adolor Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Michael
R. Dougherty, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 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/ MICHAEL R. DOUGHERTY                                  
|Michael R. Dougherty President and Chief Executive Officer

February 29, 2008
# C_2011298EN.01000202.xml

| 8.10.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 298/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.10.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 298/2

---

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 28 July 2011 (references for a preliminary ruling from the Højesteret — Denmark) — Orifarm A/S, Orifarm Supply A/S, Handelsselskabet af 5. januar 2002 A/S, in liquidation, Ompakningsselskabet af 1. november 2005 A/S (C-400/09), Paranova Danmark A/S, Paranova Pack A/S (C-207/10) v Merck Sharp & Dohme Corporation (formerly Merck & Co.), Merck Sharp & Dohme BV, Merck Sharp & Dohme

(Joined Cases C-400/09 and C-207/10) (1)

1

(Trade marks - Directive 89/104/EEC - Article 7(2) - Pharmaceutical products - Parallel imports - Repackaging of the product bearing the trade mark - New packaging indicating as the repackager the holder of the marketing authorisation on whose instructions the product was repackaged - Physical repackaging carried out by a separate undertaking)

2011/C 298/03

Language of the case: Danish

Referring court

Referring court

Højesteret

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Orifarm A/S, Orifarm Supply A/S, Handelsselskabet af 5. januar 2002 A/S, in liquidation, Ompakningsselskabet af 1. november 2005 A/S (C-400/09), Paranova Danmark A/S, Paranova Pack A/S (C-207/10)

Applicants:

Defendants: Merck Sharp & Dohme Corporation (formerly Merck & Co.), Merck Sharp & Dohme BV, Merck Sharp & Dohme

Defendants:

Re:

Re:

References for a preliminary ruling — Højesteret — Interpretation of the Court’s judgments in Case C-232/94 MPA Pharma and in Joined Cases C-427/93, C-429/93 and C-436/93 Bristol-Myers Squibb and Others, and of First Council Directive 89/104/EEC of 21 December 1988 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks (OJ 1989 L 40, p. 1) — Repackaging of a medicinal product which was the subject of parallel importation — Parallel importer which is the holder of the marketing authorisation for an imported medicinal product and which indicates itself, on the new packaging, as being the repackager, notwithstanding the fact that the purchase and repackaging of the medicinal product were in fact carried out by a separate company

MPA Pharma

Bristol-Myers Squibb and Others

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

Article 7(2) of First Council Directive 89/104/EEC of 21 December 1988 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks must be interpreted as not allowing the proprietor of a trade mark relating to a pharmaceutical product which is the subject of parallel imports to oppose the further marketing of that product in repackaged form on the sole ground that the new packaging indicates as the repackager not the undertaking which, on instructions, actually repackaged the product and holds an authorisation to do so, but the undertaking which holds the marketing authorisation for the product, on whose instructions the repackaging was carried out, and which assumes liability for the repackaging.

---

(1)  OJ C 312, 19.12.2009.

1

OJ C 179, 3.7.2010.

---
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Robert James, Appellant.

[873 NYS2d 501]

— Application by the appellant for a writ of error coram nobis to vacate, on the ground of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel, a decision and order of this Court dated January 29, 2008 *(People v James,*
      *69447 AD3d 947 [2008]), affirming a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, rendered September 6, 2006.

Ordered that the application is denied.

The appellant has failed to establish that he was denied the effective assistance of appellate counsel *(see Jones v Barnes,*463 US 745 [1983]; *People v Stultz,*2 NY3d 277 [2004]). Prudenti, P.J., Mastro, Florio and McCarthy, JJ., concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM FORM 10-Q
FOR THE QUARTERLY PERIOD ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 1996 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH QUARTERLY REPORT.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                           5,099
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   69,845
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,822
<INVENTORY>                                    100,865
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               185,346
<PP&E>                                          88,994
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 390,195
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           95,261
<BONDS>                                        439,440
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           109
<OTHER-SE>                                   (184,907)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   390,195
<SALES>                                        407,168
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               407,168
<CGS>                                          255,999
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  255,999
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               157,872
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              37,178
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (47,827)
<INCOME-TAX>                                    14,807
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (62,634)
<DISCONTINUED>                                   8,480
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                (3,715)
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (57,869)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (5.38)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (5.38)
        

</TABLE>
CHANG MING LI 

v. 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

Before the 

COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION 

CFTC Docket No. 10-R024 

GAIN CAPITAL GROUP, LLC, 

d/b/a FOREX.COM 

ORDER OF SUMMARY AFFIRMANCE 

Our review of the record and the parties' and amicus's appellate submissions establishes 

that the Administrative Law Judge committed no error material to the outcome of the 

proceedings in h1s Order of Dismissal. 1 For purposes of this determination, our consideration of 

the appellate submissions has been limited to matters that were raised before the Administrative 

Law Judge and therefore properly preserved for appeal and that were not otherwise waived. 

Accordingly, pursuant to Section 14 of the Commodity Exchange Act and Commission 

Regulation 12.406(b), we summarily affirm the Order of Dismissal without opinion? 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 3 

1 We note that, while the complainant, Chang Ming Li, traded both foreign currency and gold with the respondent 

Gain Capital Group, LLC, the respondent asserted that the losses at issue in this case resulted solely from gold 

trading and Li did not dispute this. Gain Motion for Summary Disposition at I; Li Opposition to Respondent's 

Motion for Summary Disposition and Complainant's Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment at 2. We therefore find 

it unnecessary to reach any issues specific to foreign currency to resolve this appeal and take no position on the 

merits of the discussion of foreign currency in the Order of Dismissal. 

2 Pursuant to Commission Regulation 12.406(b), 17 C.F.R. § 406(b), neither the initial decision nor the 

Commission's order of summary affirmance shall serve as a Commission precedent in other proceedings. 

3 Under Sections 6(c) and 14(e) of the Commodity Exchange Act, 7 U.S.C. §§ 9 and 18(e)(2000), a patiy may 

appeal a reparation order of the Commission to the United States Comt of Appeals for only the circuit in which a 

hearing was held; if no hearing was held, the appeal may be filed in any circuit in which the appellee is located. The 

Commission has ruled that telephonic hearings are "held" in Washington, D.C., although parties may speak from 

several different locations. Dubois v. Alaron, [2000-2002 Transfer Binder] Comm. Fut. L. Rep. (CCH) ~ 28,406 at 

51,027 n.l7 (CFTC Oct. 26, 2000). The statute also states that such an appeal must be filed within 15 days after 
By the Commission (Chairman GENSLER and Commissioners CHILTON, O'MALIA and 

WETJEN). 

Melissa D. Jurgens 

Secretary of the Co mission 

Commodity Futures Trading Commission 

Dated: December 16, 20 13 

notice of the order and that any appeal is not effective unless, within 30 days of the date of the Commission order, 

the appealing party files with the court a bond equal to double the amount of any reparation award.
[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 121 (Friday, June 22, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Page 33542]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-15713]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY

[FEMA-1378-DR]


West Virginia; Amendment No. 1 to Notice of a Major Disaster 
Declaration

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA).

ACTION: Notice.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration 
for the State of West Virginia, (FEMA-1378-DR), dated June 3, 2001, and 
related determinations.

EFFECTIVE DATE: June 11, 2001.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Madge Dale, Response and Recovery 
Directorate, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, DC 20472, 
(202) 646-3772.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The notice of a major disaster declaration 
for the State of West Virginia is hereby amended to include the 
following areas among those areas determined to have been adversely 
affected by the catastrophe declared a major disaster by the President 
in his declaration of June 3, 2001:

    Cabell, Mason, Mingo, Roane, and Summers Counties for Individual 
Assistance.
    Clay, Lincoln, and Wayne Counties for Individual Assistance 
(already designated for Public Assistance).
    McDowell County for Individual and Public Assistance.

(The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA) 
are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 83.537, Community 
Disaster Loans; 83.538, Cora Brown Fund Program; 83.539, Crisis 
Counseling; 83.540, Disaster Legal Services Program; 83.541, 
Disaster Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 83.542, Fire Suppression 
Assistance; 83.543, Individual and Family Grant (IFG) Program; 
83.544, Public Assistance Grants; 83.545, Disaster Housing Program; 
83.548, Hazard Mitigation Grant Program.)
Robert J. Adamick,
Deputy Associate Director, Response and Recovery Directorate.
[FR Doc. 01-15713 Filed 6-21-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6718-02-U
**Exhibit 23.1**

**Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm**

We consent to the incorporation by reference in theRegistration Statements on Forms S-8 (333-37011 and 333-39322) of The Bank of Kentucky Financial Corporation of our reports, dated February 24, 2007, with respect to the consolidated financial statements of The Bank of Kentucky FinancialCorporation and The Bank of Kentucky Financial Corporation management’s assessment of the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting, which reports appear inthis Annual Report on Form 10-K of The Bank of Kentucky Financial Corporation for the year ended December 31, 2006. 

 

Columbus, Ohio 

March 12, 2007
N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT JASON LAC EY, Plaintiff - Appe lla nt, v. B . HAM KAR ; e t a l., De fe nda

nts - Appe lle e s. No. 14-15470 D.C . No. 2:10-c v-01695-C M K M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Ea ste rn Distric t of C a lifornia C ra ig Ke llison, M a gistra

te Judge , Pre s iding * * Subm itte d Fe brua

ry 17, 2015 *** B e fore : O’ SC ANNLAIN, LEAVY, a n d FER N ANDEZ, C irc uit Judge s. Ja son La c e y , a C a l i fornia sta te prisone r, a

ppe a ls pro sefrom

the distric t c ourt’ s sum

m ary judgm e nt in his 42 U.S.C . § 1983 a c tion a lle ging de libe rate 

# FIL ED FEB 26 2015 M OLLY C. DW Y E R, CLERK U. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3. ** The pa

rtie s c onse nte d to proc e e d be fore a m a gistra te judge . Se e28 U.S.C . § 636(c ).

*** The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without oral a

rgum e nt. Se eFe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).indiffe re nc e to his serious m e dic a l ne e ds. W e have jurisdic tion under 28 U.S.C .

§ 1291. W e re vie wde novo, Toguc hi v . C hung , 391 F.3d 1051, 1056 (9th C ir. 2004), a nd we a ffirm . The distric t c ourt prope rly grante d sum

m a ry judgm e nt for de fe nda

nts be c a use La c e y fa ile d to ra ise a

ge nuine disputeof m ate ria l fa c t a s to whe the r de fe nda nts we re de libe rate ly

indiffe re nt to his pain a

nd re spira tory c ondition. Se e id. at 1057-60 (de libe rate indiffe re nc e is a high le ga l sta

n da rd, a nd is m e t only if the p rison offic ia l knows of a nd disre ga

rds a n e xc e ssive risk to theprisone r’ s he a lth); J ac k son v . Mc Intosh , 90 F.3d 330, 332 (9th C ir. 1996) (to e s ta blish tha t a diffe re nc e of m e dic a l opinion a m ounte d to de libe rate indiffe re nc e , a prisone r

“ m ust show tha

t the c ourse of tre atm e nt the doc tors c hose wa s m e dic a lly una c c e p ta ble unde r the c irc um s ta

nc e s” and “ that

the y c hose this c ourse in c onsc i ous disre ga

rd of a n e xc e ssive risk to [theprisone r’ s] he a lth” ). W e re je c t La c e y ’ s c onte ntions c onc e rning ine ffe c t ive a ssista nc e of c ounse l. Se eN ic holson v . Rushe n , 767 F.2d 1426, 1427 (9th C i r. 1985) (pe r c uriam ) (“ Ge ne ra lly , a

pla intiff in a

c i vil c a se ha s no right to e ffe c tive a ssista nc e of c ounse l.” ). AFFIRM E D.

1 4 - 1 5 4 7 0 2
John J. BAUTISTA, Jr., petitioner, v. Teresa Y. LEE-BAUTISTA, et al.

No. 15-9348.

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.
Leon Trenton-Gerad BINFORD, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 16-253.

Supreme Court of the United States

Jan. 9, 2017.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit denied.
<PAGE>












                                  EXHIBIT 99(c)

      Chief Financial Officer Certification Pursuant to Section 906 of the
                           Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002











<PAGE>




                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                                   AS ADDED BY
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


         In connection with the Annual Report of First Southern Bancshares, Inc.
(the "Company") on Form 10-KSB/A for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2001 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), I, Roderick V.
Schlosser, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company,
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.1350, as added by Section 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 as of and for the period covered by the
               Report.



                                         /s/ Roderick V. Schlosser
                                         ---------------------------------------
                                         Roderick V. Schlosser
                                         Executive Vice President
                                           and Chief Financial Officer

Date: April 15, 2003

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to First Southern Bancshares, Inc. and will be retained by First
Southern Bancshares, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission or its staff upon request.
873.

#### Zuber *v.*Central of Georgia Railway Company.

Certiorari, from Pulton superior court — Judge Pendleton. November 5, 1907.

Argued February 4,

Decided September 28, 1908.

*Moore & Pomeroy, W. W. Hood,*for plaintiff.

*Lamar Rucker,*for defendant.

Hill, C. J.

This case is controlled by the decision of this court, this day rendered, in the case of *Smith & Simpson Lumber Company*v. *Louisville & Nashville Railroad Company,*ante.

*Judgment affirmed.*