alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2010246EN.01000901.xml

| 11.9.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 246/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.9.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 246/9

---

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 15 July 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Vestre Landsret — Denmark) — Skatteministeriet v DSV Road A/S

(Case C-234/09) (1)

1

(Community Customs Code - Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 - Article 204(1)(a) - Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 - Article 859 - External transit procedure - Authorised consignor - Creation of a customs debt - Transit document relating to non-existent goods)

2010/C 246/14

Language of the case: Danish

Referring court

Referring court

Vestre Landsret

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Skatteministeriet

Applicant:

Defendant: DSV Road A/S

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Vestre Landsret — Interpretation of Articles 1, 4(9) and (10), 92, 96 and 204(1)(a) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code (OJ 1992 L 302, p. 1) — Authorised consignor generating by mistake two transit documents for the same consignment of goods in the New Computerised Transit System (NCTS), thus assigning two different movement reference numbers to a single consignment — Customs debt arising following the impossibility of discharging the external Community transit procedure by presenting the goods to the customs office of destination — Charging of customs duty on goods which have been declared but do not physically exist

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

Article 204(1)(a) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code, as amended by Regulation (EC) No 648/2005 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 April 2005, is to be interpreted as not applying to a situation such as that of the case before the referring court, where an authorised consignor generated by mistake two external transit procedures for one and the same consignment of goods, because the goods covered by the extra procedure do not exist and, as a consequence, that procedure cannot entail the creation of a customs debt pursuant to the above provision.

---

(1)  OJ C 205, 29.8.2009.

1

---
HOUSING AUTHORITY OF the CITY OF LOS ANGELES, et al., petitioners, v. Michael NOZZI, et al.

No. 15-1337.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 3, 2016.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.
II-Ol070

From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

Lee West <broadassedmarine@yahoo.com>

Thursday, December 2, 2010 8:31 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.

Lee West

6203 N. 12th PL

Phoenix, AZ 85014
Terry CONEY, petitioner, v. Julie L. JONES, Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections.

No. 16-5614.

Supreme Court of the United States

Nov. 28, 2016.

Petition for rehearing denied.
Arika MATELYAN, aka Arika Hayes Matelyan, petitioner, v. SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES.

No. 16-6024.

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.
II-01192

From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

Maureen Dougherty <rfog2000@yahoo.com>

Wednesday, December 1, 2010 5:35 PM

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.

Maureen Dougherty

645 Danbury Court

Newtown, PA 18940
# Exhibit 23.1

Consent of Certified
Public Accountants.

---

# Exhibit 23.1

# CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

We  consent  to the  incorporation  by  reference  in the  Registration  Statement  on Form  S-8  (No.  333-117982)
pertaining  to the New  Commerce  BanCorp 1999 Stock  Incentive  Plan of our report  dated  January 28, 2005,  with
respect to the  consolidated  financial  statements of New Commerce BanCorp and Subsidiary which is included in the
Annual Report on Form 10-KSB for the year ended December 31, 2004.

/s/ Elliott Davis, LLC

March 23, 2005Greenville, South Carolina
Brad A. RUSSELL, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 16-6816.

Supreme Court of the United States

Jan. 9, 2017.

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

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from S3
Incorporated Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheet as of March 31, 1997 and
Condensed Consolidated Statement of Income for the three months ended March 31,
1997 and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such 10-Q filing.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                          82,164
<SECURITIES>                                    64,413
<RECEIVABLES>                                   99,064
<ALLOWANCES>                                     2,181
<INVENTORY>                                     53,316
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               330,847
<PP&E>                                          61,611
<DEPRECIATION>                                  22,113
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 511,236
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           99,583
<BONDS>                                        103,500
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       171,590
<OTHER-SE>                                     113,512
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   511,236
<SALES>                                        138,166
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               138,166
<CGS>                                           80,923
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   80,923
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                31,572
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   300
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,622
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 25,679
<INCOME-TAX>                                     9,758
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             15,921
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    15,921
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.31
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.30
        

</TABLE>
[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 121 (Friday, June 22, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Page 33547]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-15756]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Institute of Child Health and Human Development; Notice 
of Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended (5 US.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following 
meeting.
    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the 
provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 
U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could 
disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as 
patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals 
associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would 
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Institute of Child Health and Human 
Development Special Emphasis Panel.
    Date: July 2, 2001.
    Time: 3 p.m. to 4 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: 6100 Executive Blvd., Room 5E01, Rockville, MD 20852, 
(Telephone Conference Call).
    Contact Person: Jon M. Ranhand, Scientist Review Administrator, 
Division of Scientific Review, National Institute of Child Health 
and Human Development, NIH, 6100 Executive Blvd., Room 5E03, 
Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 435-6884.
    This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the 
meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and 
funding cycle.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.209, 
Contraception and Infertility Loan Repayment Program; 93.864; 
Population Research; 93.865, Research for Mothers and Children; 
93.929, Center for Medical Rehabilitation Research, National 
Institutes of Health, HHS)


    Dated: June 18, 2001.
Anna P. Snouffer,
Acting Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 01-15756 Filed 6-21-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-M
No. 877.

#### Keating *v.*United States.

C. A. 7th Cir.

*Maurice J. Walsh*for petitioner.

*Solicitor General Perlman*for the United States.

Certiorari denied.
OFFICIAL NOTICE FROM COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TEXAS

P.O. BOX 12308, CAPITOL STATION, AUSTIN, TEXAS 78711

:> state OF TEXAS

. PENALTY FOR

10/16/2014 PRIVATE U$

BECK, CORY JOEL

On this day, fine applicatio

and.presented to the " ^*

<,

,£©f?fJOEL BECK

0 2 1M

0004279596

BOWES

S5 J®' OCT18 2014

MAILED FROM ZlftCjQQF.JfiZnj « WR-82,280-02

v«--5f Wabeas Corpus has been received

Abel Acosta, Clerk
Paula HANSON-HODGE, petitioner, v. Carolyn W. COLVIN, Acting Commissioner of Social Security.

No. 16-6068.

Supreme Court of the United States

Nov. 28, 2016.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied.
# Fourth Court of Appeals San Antonio, Texas

April 18, 2022

No. 04

- 22

- 00182

- CV

IN THE INTEREST OF A.R.T ., a child,

From the 288th Judicial District Court
, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2020PA01505 Honorable Charles E. Montemayor , Judge Presiding



### O R D E R
In this accelerated appeal, the reporter’s record was due on April 11 , 2022

. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 35.1( b). To date, this court has not received a notification of late record or the reporter’s record.
W e order court reporter Elva Chapa to file the reporter’s record or a notification of late record in this court within ten days of the date of this order

.

_________________________________ Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said court on this 1 8th day of April, 2022

.

___________________________________ MICHAEL A. CRUZ
, Clerk of Court
Exhibit 99.2

          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 Quarterly  Report of ChrisKen  Growth & Income L.P.
II, a Delaware  limited  partnership  (the  "Company"),  on Form  10-QSB for the
period  ending  June  30,  2002,  as  filed  with the  Securities  and  Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),  I, Robert Mayer,  Chief Financial
Officer of ChrisKen Income Properties,  Inc. II, the managing general partner 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, to my knowledge and based
on my review of the Report:


     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 result of operations of the Company.





                           By:      ChrisKen Income Properties, Inc. II
                                    Managing General Partner


                           By:      /s/ Robert Mayer
                                    ------------------------------------
                                    Robert Mayer
                                    Chief Financial Officer

                                    August 14, 2002
James B. MITCHELL, petitioner, v. Conner ELDRIDGE, et al.

No. 16-6034.

Supreme Court of the United States

Nov. 28, 2016.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit denied.
EXHIBIT 32.2



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION
1350

ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF

THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with the Quarterly Report
of Fortune Industries, Inc., an Indiana corporation, (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30,
2012, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Randy Butler, Chief
Financial Officer of the Company, certify the following pursuant to Section 18, U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002:



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.



|Date:  November 14, 2012 | By: /s/ Randy Butler   
|------------------------ | -----------------------
|                         | Randy Butler           
|                         | Chief Financial Officer
# C_2010317EN.01001101.xml

| 20.11.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 317/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.11.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 317/11

---

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 30 September 2010 — Evets Corp. v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

(Case C-479/09 P) (1)

1

(Appeal - Community trade mark - Word mark DANELECTRO - Figurative mark QWIK TUNE - Request for renewal of registration of the trade mark - Application for restitutio in integrum - Failure to observe the time-limit for submitting the request for renewal of registration of the trade mark)

2010/C 317/20

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Appellant: Evets Corp. (represented by: S. Ryan, Solicitor)

Appellant:

Other party to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: A. Folliard-Monguiral, acting as Agent)

Other party to the proceedings:

Re:

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (First Chamber) of 23 September 2009 in Joined Cases T-20/08 and T-21/08 Evets v OHIM, by which that Court dismissed an action for annulment of the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (OHIM) of 5 November 2007 in Case R 603/2007-4 dismissing the appeal against the decision of the Administration of Trade Marks and Legal Division and declaring that the application for restitutio in integrum filed by the appellant with a view to having its rights regarding the renewal of the word mark ‘DANELECTRO’ re-established was deemed not to have been filed on account of lateness — Failure to observe the time-limit for submitting the request for renewal of the trade marks

Evets

OHIM

restitutio in integrum

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the appeal; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the appeal;

| 2. | Orders Evets Corp. to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Evets Corp. to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 24, 30.01.2010.

1

---
James W. ZIGLAR, petitioner, v. Ahmer Iqbal ABBASI, et al.

No. 15-1358.

Supreme Court of the United States

Jan. 6, 2017.

Motion of petitioners for enlargement of time for oral argument and for divided argument is granted in part and denied in part, and the time is divided as follows: 20 minutes for the Acting Solicitor General on behalf of petitioners in Nos. 15-1358 and 15-1359, 10 minutes for petitioners in No. 15-1363, and 30 minutes for respondents.

Justice SOTOMAYOR and Justice KAGAN took no part in the consideration or decision of this motion.
No. 183.

#### Taylor *v.*Commissioner of Internal Revenue.

November 11, 1935.
Exhibit
      32.1





Certification*




In
      connection with the Quarterly Report of Red Oak Concepts, Inc., (the “Company”),
      on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ending March 31, 2008 as filed with the
      Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Periodic Report”)
      pursuant to the requirement set forth in Rule 13a-14(b) of the Securities
      Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”), and Section 1350 of
      Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code (18 U.S.C.§ 1350),
      Susan Zachmann, President, Chief Executive Officer of the Company and principal
      financial officer of the Company, hereby certifies that, to the best of my
      knowledge:




1. The
      Periodic Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
      Section 15(d) of the Exchange Act, and




2. The
      information contained in the Periodic Report fairly presents, in all material
      respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company
      for
      the period covered by the Periodic Report.





Date:
                May 22, 2007
            By:
            /s/  
                Susan ZachmannSusan
                ZachmannPresident,
                Chief Executive Officer(Principal
                Executive Officer andPrincipal
                Financial Officer)




*  This
      certification accompanies the Periodic Report to which it relates, is not deemed
      filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission and is not to be incorporated
      by reference into any filing of Red Oak Concepts, Inc. under the Securities
      Act
      of 1933, as amended, or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (whether
      made before or after the date of the Periodic Report), irrespective of any
      general incorporation language contained in such filing.
# C_2010346EN.01002102.xml

| 18.12.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 346/21 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.12.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 346/21

---

Order of the Court of 24 June 2010 — Kronoply GmbH & Co. KG v European Commission

(Case C-117/09 P) (1)

1

(Appeal - State aid - Application for aid intended to amend aid previously granted to the recipient undertaking and notified to the Commission after the investment project had been fully completed - Criteria of the incentive effect and of necessity)

2010/C 346/35

Language of the case: German

Parties

Parties

Appellant: Kronoply GmbH & Co. KG (represented by: R. Nierer and L. Gordalla, Rechtsanwälte)

Appellant:

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: K. Gross, V. Kreuschitz and T. Scharf, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings:

Re:

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber) of 14 January 2009 in Case T-162/06 Kronoply v Commission by which the Court dismissed the application for annulment of Commission Decision 2006/262/EC of 21 September 2005 declaring State aid which Germany is planning to implement for the appellant to be incompatible with the common market (OJ 2006 L 94, p. 50) — Proposed aid intended to amend aid previously granted to the recipient undertaking notified to the Commission after the investment project had been fully completed by means of the aid initially approved — Incorrect assessment of the incentive effect and of the necessity of the aid at issue

Kronoply

Commission

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The appeal is dismissed. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The appeal is dismissed.

| 2. | Kronoply GmbH & Co. KG is ordered to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Kronoply GmbH & Co. KG is ordered to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 141, 20.6.2009.

1

---