alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2010100EN.01000801.xml

| 17.4.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 100/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.4.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 100/8

---

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 25 February 2010 — European Commission v French Republic

(Case C-170/09) (1)

1

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 2005/60/EC - Money laundering and terrorist financing - Failure to transpose within the prescribed period)

2010/C 100/11

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: V. Peere and P. Dejmek, Agents)

Applicant:

Defendant: French Republic (represented by: G. de Bergues and B. Messmer, Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Failure to have taken or communicated, within the prescribed period, all the necessary measures to comply with Directive 2005/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 October 2005 on the prevention of the use of the financial system for the purpose of money laundering and terrorist financing (OJ 2005 L 309, p. 15)

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Declares that, by failing to adopt, within the prescribed period, all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2005/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 October 2005 on the prevention of the use of the financial system for the purpose of money laundering and terrorist financing, the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Declares that, by failing to adopt, within the prescribed period, all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2005/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 October 2005 on the prevention of the use of the financial system for the purpose of money laundering and terrorist financing, the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

| 2. | Orders the French Republic to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the French Republic to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 153, 4.07.2009.

1

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

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                         179,068
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               224,135
<PP&E>                                       7,567,615
<DEPRECIATION>                               2,016,047
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               5,775,703
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          168,843
<BONDS>                                      3,000,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                   2,606,860
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 5,775,703
<SALES>                                        601,402
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               643,883
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  465,428
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             124,458
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 53,997
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             53,997
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    53,997
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     4.22
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     4.22
        

</TABLE>
No. 612.

#### Leishman *v.*Richards *&*Conover Co., 336 U. S. 952.

Rehearing denied.
In re Benjamin TILLMAN, petitioner.

No. 16-6695.

Supreme Court of the United States

Jan. 9, 2017.

Petition for writ of mandamus denied.
The Attorney General of Texas 

September 7, 1978 

JOHN L. HILL 

Attorney General 

Honorable Charles Murphy, Director 

Texas Aeronautics Commission 

P. 0. Box 12607, Capitol Station 

Austin, Texas 787ll 

Opinion No. H- 12 3 9 

Re: Responsibility for maintenance of airports constructed 

in state parks. 

Dear Mr. Murphy: 

You inform us that the Texas Aeronautics Commission has constructed 

airports at Lake Whitney State Park and at Falcon State Park. See generally 

V.T.C.S. art. 46c-6, subdiv. 10 (Aeronautics Commission may make grants to 

state agencies for airport construction). The airstrips are in need of 

maintenance. You ask which state agency is responsible for the maintenance 

of airports constructed in state parks with funds appropriated to the Texas 

Aeronautics Commission. 

The Parks and Wildlife Code places all state parks under the confrol and 

custody of the Parks and Wildlife Department. Sec. 13.001. The department 

has authority to prepare and revise a statewide plan for the development of 

the state’s outdoor recreation resources, to develop, operate, and maintain 

outdoor facilities, and to improve and equip park sites. Sees. 13.002, 13.003. 

The operation, maintenance, and improvement of state parks is to be financed 

from the general revenue fund, the state parks fund, other funds authorized 

by law, and donations received for that purpose. Sec. 13.004. The Parks and 

Wildlife Department informs us that it has in the past performed minor 

repairs and maintenance on the a&trips. We believe the department has the 

authority and responsibility to maintain park facilities, including airstrips, 

from funds available for that purpose. 

The fact that the Parks and Wildlife Department rather than the Texas 

Aeronautics Commission has the responsibility to maintain the airstrips does 

not imply a requirement that the department continue to maintain the 

facilities after it determines the airstrips are no longer needed. 

p. 4938 
Honorable Charles Murphy - Page 2 (H-1239) 

SUMMARY 

The Department of Parks and Wildlife is responsible for the 

maintenance of airports constructed in state parks. 

Attorney General of Texas 

APPROVED: 

DAVID M. KENDALL, First Assis 

C. ROBERT HEATH, Chairman 

Opinion Committee 

P. 4939
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                             204
<SECURITIES>                                       900
<RECEIVABLES>                                       84
<ALLOWANCES>                                        88
<INVENTORY>                                        279
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 1,008
<PP&E>                                             550
<DEPRECIATION>                                     141
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   5,552
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            1,481
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            62
<OTHER-SE>                                       3,916
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     5,552
<SALES>                                            236
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                   561
<CGS>                                              743
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    2,558
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 3,577
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    29
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  49
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (5,650)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         3
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (5,650)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (5,653)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (.11)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.11)


</TABLE>
Exhibit 32.2

SPEEDWAY MOTORSPORTS, INC.

CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In
connection with the Annual Report of Speedway Motorsports, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the
undersigned, William R. Brooks, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, does hereby certify, 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.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                    |  |     |  |                                                     
|------------------- |  | --- |  | ----------------------------------------------------
|                    |  |    
|Date: March 9, 2011 |  | By: |  | /S/    WILLIAM R.
BROOKS                            
|                    |  |     |  | William R. Brooks                                   
|                    |  |     |  | Vice Chairman, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer

A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to, and will be retained by, Speedway Motorsports, Inc. and will be furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
II-01174

From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

Brian and Maria Kelly <bm3kelly@msn.com>

Wednesday, December 1, 2010 7:40 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.

Brian and Maria Kelly

1306 Fruit Ave., NW

Albuquerque, NM 87104-1226
Order entered February 24, 2021

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-19-00274-CV

STEWARD HEALTH CARE SYSTEM LLC AND SOUTHWEST 

GENERAL HOSPITAL, LP, Appellants

V.

FRANK SAIDARA, Appellee

On Appeal from the 193rd Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. DC-18-16862

ORDER

Before the Court is appellants’ February 22, 2021 unopposed motion for 

extension of time for submitting to the en banc court and filing supplemental 

briefing. We GRANT appellants’ motion. Appellants shall file supplemental 

briefing, if any, by March 4, 2021. Appellee shall file supplemental briefing, if 

any, by March 15, 2021. The case will be submitted, without oral argument, to 

the en banc Court on March 16, 2021.
/s/ ROBERT D. BURNS, III

CHIEF JUSTICE
No. 832.

#### Lyons *v.*Capital Transit Co.

United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.

Certiorari denied.
# C_2009220EN.01002001.xml

| 12.9.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 220/20 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.9.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 220/20

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Latvijas Republikas Augstākās tiesas Senāts (Republic of Latvia) lodged on 25 June 2009 — Dita Danosa v LKB Līzings SIA

(Case C-232/09)

2009/C 220/37

Language of the case: Latvian

Referring court

Referring court

Augstākās tiesas Senāts

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Dita Danosa

Applicant:

Defendant: LKB Līzings SIA

Defendant:

Questions referred

Questions referred

| 1. | Are the members of the managerial body of a capital company to be regarded as being covered by the concept of worker laid down in Community law? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Are the members of the managerial body of a capital company to be regarded as being covered by the concept of worker laid down in Community law?

| 2. | Do Article 10 of Directive 92/85/EEC (1) and the case-law of the Court of Justice of the European Communities preclude Article 224(4) of the Komerclikums, which provides that the members of the board of directors of a capital company may be removed without any restrictions, in particular, in the case of a woman, irrespective of the fact that she is pregnant? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Do Article 10 of Directive 92/85/EEC (1) and the case-law of the Court of Justice of the European Communities preclude Article 224(4) of the Komerclikums, which provides that the members of the board of directors of a capital company may be removed without any restrictions, in particular, in the case of a woman, irrespective of the fact that she is pregnant?

1

---

(1)  Council Directive 92/85/EEC of 19 October 1992 on the introduction of measures to encourage improvements in the safety and health at work of pregnant workers and workers who have recently given birth or are breastfeeding (tenth individual Directive within the meaning of Article 16 (1) of Directive 89/391/EEC) (OJ 1992 L 348, p. 1)

1

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

<ARTICLE>                                 5
        
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                             299
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      164
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 1,142
<PP&E>                                           5,956
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  18,084
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            8,297
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        29,382
<OTHER-SE>                                     (20,210)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    13,721
<SALES>                                            853
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                              942
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 7,826
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,543
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (10,068)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (10,068)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     (.61)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
# C_2011055EN.01001102.xml

| 19.2.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 55/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.2.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 55/11

---

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 9 December 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State — Netherlands) — Staatssecretaris van Justitie v F. Toprak (C-300/09), I. Oguz (C-301/09)

(Joined Cases C-300/09 and C-301/09) (1)

1

(EEC-Turkey Association Agreement - Freedom of movement for workers - Standstill rule in Article 13 of Decision No 1/80 of the Association Council - Prohibition for Member States to introduce new restrictions on access to the labour market)

2011/C 55/18

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Referring court

Raad van State

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Staatssecretaris van Justitie

Applicant:

Defendants: F. Toprak (C-300/09), I. Oguz (C-301/09)

Defendants:

Re:

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Raad van State — Interpretation of Article 13 of Decision No 1/80 of 19 September 1980 on the development of the Association, taken by the Association Council set up under the Agreement establishing an Association between the European Economic Community and Turkey — Standstill rule — Scope — Member States prohibited from introducing new restrictions on access to the labour market — Meaning of ‘new restriction’

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

In circumstances such as those of the cases in the main proceedings, concerning a national provision on the acquisition of a residence permit by Turkish workers, Article 13 of Decision No 1/80 of 19 September 1980 on the development of the Association, adopted by the Association Council established by the Agreement establishing an Association between the European Economic Community and Turkey, must be interpreted as meaning that a tightening of a provision introduced after 1 December 1980, which provided for a relaxation of the provision applicable on 1 December 1980, constitutes a ‘new restriction’ within the meaning of that article, even where that tightening does not make the conditions governing the acquisition of that permit more stringent than those which resulted from the provision in force on 1 December 1980, this being a matter for the national court to determine.

---

(1)  OJ C 267, 7.11.2009.

1

---
Reginald L. DUNAHUE, petitioner, v. Randy WATSON, Warden, et al.

No. 16-6242.

Supreme Court of the United States

Dec. 5, 2016.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit denied.
Exhibit 32.1



CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER

PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,



I, Francis E. Wilde, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that
the Quarterly Report of Tarantella, Inc. on Form 10-Q for the fiscal quarter ended March 31, 2004 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such Quarterly
Report on Form 10-Q fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and results of operations of Tarantella, Inc.



By:

/s/ Francis E. WildeName:

Francis E. WildeTitle:

Chief Executive Officer(Principal Executive Officer)May 14, 2004
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
     This  schedule  contains  summary  financial   information  extracted  from
Tanknology-NDE International, Inc. financial statements as of and for the period
ended March 31, 1999.

</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1


       

<S>                                        <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                              YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          Dec-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             Jan-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               Mar-31-1999
<CASH>                                         178,055
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                               14,468,230
<ALLOWANCES>                                 1,374,699
<INVENTORY>                                  1,216,332
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            14,843,972
<PP&E>                                      22,022,668
<DEPRECIATION>                              14,039,656
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              29,588,657
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        9,104,522
<BONDS>                                     17,687,623
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                        1,500,000
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         1,677
<OTHER-SE>                                   1,121,788
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                29,588,657
<SALES>                                     12,580,473
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            12,580,473
<CGS>                                       10,829,692
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               13,734,251
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             464,712
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             (1,535,739)
<INCOME-TAX>                                  (353,220)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                         (1,182,519)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                (1,182,519)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (0.07)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (0.07)
        

</TABLE>