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

<ARTICLE> 9
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                          88,591
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                             100
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                     0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                    710,426
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                          22,598
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                            22,851
<LOANS>                                      1,969,114
<ALLOWANCE>                                     26,850
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,956,070
<DEPOSITS>                                   2,200,802
<SHORT-TERM>                                   445,262
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                             28,490
<LONG-TERM>                                     21,634
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                           30,000
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        15,653
<OTHER-SE>                                     214,229
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>               2,956,070
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                 44,144
<INTEREST-INVEST>                               11,806
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                    45
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                55,995
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                              20,408
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               5,992
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                           29,595
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                    1,845
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                               (439)
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                 25,056
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  9,878
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                       9,878
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     6,924
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.45
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.44
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    4.43
<LOANS-NON>                                     13,806
<LOANS-PAST>                                     1,198
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                    40
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                25,721
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                    1,923
<RECOVERIES>                                     1,207
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                               26,850
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                            26,850
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0
        

</TABLE>
Jarmaal McLEOD, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 16-6036.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 31, 2016.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit denied.
Marc DeWayne HOWELL, petitioner, v. COLLIN COUNTY, TEXAS DETENTION FACILITY, et al.

No. 16-6125.

Supreme Court of the United States

Nov. 28, 2016.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied.
<PAGE>
 
                                                                      EXHIBIT 11

                               ETEC SYSTEMS, INC.
            COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER COMMON SHARE AND EQUIVALENTS
                    (In thousands, except per share amounts)



<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                          THREE MONTHS ENDED
                                                                              OCTOBER 31,
                                                              ----------------------------------------
                                                                     1997                    1996
                                                              ----------------        ----------------
<S>                                                              <C>                     <C>
Weighted average common shares outstanding                              21,734                  19,719
Weighted average common stock equivalents calculated by the
 treasury stock method applied to options and warrants issued              884                   1,399
                                                              ----------------        ----------------
Weighted average common shares and equivalents                          22,618                  21,118
                                                              ================        ================
 
Net income                                                             $ 9,228                 $ 6,984
                                                              ================        ================
 
Net income per share                                                   $  0.41                 $  0.33
                                                              ================        ================
</TABLE>
Chanesamone APHAYAVONG, petitioner, v. CALIFORNIA.

No. 16-5279.

Supreme Court of the United States

Nov. 28, 2016.

Petition for rehearing denied.
IV 

House Calendar No. 253 

111TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. RES. 1764 

[Report No. 111–681] 

Providing for consideration of the Senate amendment to the bill (H.R. 2965) 

to amend the Small Business Act with respect to the Small Business 

Innovation Research Program and the Small Business Technology Transfer Program, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

DECEMBER 15, 2010 

Ms. PINGREE of Maine, from the Committee on Rules, reported the following 

resolution; which was referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be 

printed 

RESOLUTION 

Providing for consideration of the Senate amendment to the 

bill (H.R. 2965) to amend the Small Business Act with 

respect to the Small Business Innovation Research Program and the Small Business Technology Transfer Program, and for other purposes. 

1 Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it 

2 shall be in order to take from the Speaker’s table the bill 

3 (H.R. 2965) to amend the Small Business Act with re4 spect to the Small Business Innovation Research Program 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HRES 1764 RH 

1 and the Small Business Technology Transfer Program, 

2 and for other purposes, with the Senate amendment there3 to, and to consider in the House, without intervention of 

4 any point of order except those arising under clause 10 

5 of rule XXI, a motion offered by the Majority Leader or 

6 his designee that the House concur in the Senate amend7 ment with the amendment printed in the report of the 

8 Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution. The 

9 Senate amendment and the motion shall be considered as 

10 read. The motion shall be debatable for one hour equally 

11 divided and controlled by the Majority Leader and Minor12 ity Leader or their respective designees. The previous 

13 question shall be considered as ordered on the motion to 

14 final adoption without intervening motion. 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with BILLS

jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
House Calendar No. 253 

111TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. RES. 1764 

[Report No. 111–681] 

RESOLUTION 

Providing for consideration of the Senate amendother purposes. Business Technology Transfer Program, and for Innovation Research Program and the Small Business Act with respect to the Small Business ment to the bill (H.R. 2965) to amend the Small 

DECEMBER 15, 2010 

Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be 

printed 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
Theodore A. HOGAN, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 16-6547.

Supreme Court of the United States

Nov. 28, 2016.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit denied.
TAC ATS/HFT

Working Group 4

Market Microstructure Issues

June 20, 2012

1
Participants

CFTC

• Andrei Kirilenko

• Richard Haynes 

• JonMarc Buffa

Subcommittee Members

• Irene Aldridge, ABLE Alpha 

Trading, LTD, 

• Joel Hasbrouk, New York 

University

• Jordan Lea, American Cotton 

Shippers Association 

• Michael Mendelson, AQR Capital 

Management LLC 

• Peter Reiss, D.E. Shaw Group

• Joseph Saluzzi, Themis Trading, 

LLC

• Jitesh Thakkar, Edge Financial 

Technologies

2
Market microstructure issues

• Microstructure

– Trading protocols

– Participants

– Operational efficiency

– Market efficiency 

• What are the changes caused by ATS/HFT?

3
The group’s approach

• Discussion and classification of current 

strategies.

• Taxonomy (a joint product w. group 2)

• Use a basis for identifying practices that are 

beneficial those that are not.

4
Strategies that may use HFT 

techniques

5

ARBITRAGE

HIGH-FREQUENCY TRADING

SHORT-TERM 

DIRECTIONAL

TRADING 

LIQUIDITY 

PROVISION

LIQUIDITY 

DETECTION

The Working Group does not and cannot opine on the legality of any of the HFT strategies discussed in this presentation. Their inclusion does not constitute or imply endorsement by the 

Working Group or the CFTC.
Strategies that may use HFT 

techniques

– Liquidity Provision

• Rebate capture *

• Quote matching

• Spread capture

• Market making

• Layering

– Liquidity Detection

• Pinging / sniffing / sniping 

• Quote stuffing

• Spoofing

*presently applies to equities only

6
Strategies that may use HFT 

techniques

– Arbitrage

• Cross-asset

• Cross-market

• Stat-arb / relative value trading

• Latency arbitrage

– Directional

• Momentum / trend

• Mean reversion

• Event driven

• Ignition

7
Next Steps

• Identifying/designing metrics for evaluating 

market quality (e.g. market depth, liquidity). 

• Analytical tools to continue formalizing our 

intuitions. 

• Aggressive vs. passive strategies and on how 

HFT activity may affect relevant metrics. 

8
9

Disclaimer: The statements made herein represent

the collective views of the members of the CFTC

Technology Advisory Committee, Subcommittee

on Automated and High Frequency Trading,

Working Group #4 (the “Working Group”) and are

not necessarily the views of each member’s firm or

any one member individually. While the Working

Group has made every effort to present accurate

and reliable information in this material, this

material is currently in draft form and is subject to

change at any time without notice in the sole

discretion of the Working Group. The Working

Group does not guarantee the accuracy,

completeness, efficacy, or timeliness of the

information contained herein. Reference herein to

any product, process or service does not constitute

or imply endorsement by the Working Group.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA No. DA 19
- 0 71 5 STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee, v. WOLFGANG ALEXANDER LUCAS VASQUEZ ,

Defendant and Appellant
.

**ORDER** Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, and good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension of time to and including July 22 , 20 20 , within which to prepare, file, and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by: Mike McGrath Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

June 15 2020

06/15/2020

Case Number: DA 19-0715
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Defense

###### Office of the Secretary

# AGENCY:

Department of Defense Education Benefits Board of Actuaries.

# ACTION:

Notice of meeting.

# SUMMARY:

A meeting of the board has been scheduled to execute the provisions of Chapter 101, Title 10, United States Code (10 U.S.C. 2006 et. seq.). The Board shall review DoD actuarial methods and assumptions to be used in the valuation of the G.I. Bill. Persons desiring to: (1) Attend the DoD Education Benefits Board of Actuaries meeting or, (2) make an oral presentation or submit a written statement for consideration at the meeting must notify Inger Pettygrove at (703) 696-7413 by July 24, 2001. Notice of this meeting is required under the Federal Advisory Committee Act.

# DATES:

August 10, 2001, 10:00 am to 1:00 pm.

# ADDRESSES:

The Pentagon, Room 1E801—Room 2 and 3.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

                        Christopher Doyle, Chief Actuary, DoD Office of the Actuary, 1555 Wilson                               ( print page 32940)                            Boulevard, Suite 701, Arlington, VA 22209-2405, (703) 696-7407.                    

Dated: June 12, 2001.

Patricia L. Toppings,

Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.

[FR Doc. 01-15401  Filed 6-18-01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 5001-08-M
Certification Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §
1350


(Section 906 of Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002)




Burlington Northern Santa Fe
Corporation




In connection with the Annual Report of
Burlington Northern Santa Fe Corporation (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the
year ended December 31, 2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), the undersigned, Matthew K. Rose,
Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and Thomas N.
Hund, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, each
hereby certifies that, to his knowledge on the date hereof:




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.




Dated:February 14, 2008




/s/  Matthew K.
      Rose
            
            
            /s/  Thomas N.
      HundMatthew K.
Rose
              Chairman, President
      and
              Chief Executive
      Officer
            
            
            Thomas N. Hund
              Executive Vice President
      and
              Chief Financial
      Officer







A signed original of this written
statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Burlington Northern Santa
Fe Corporation and will be retained by Burlington Northern Santa Fe Corporation
and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
request.
Alaa E. ELKHARWILY, petitioner, v. MAYO HOLDING COMPANY, et al.

No. 16-403.

Supreme Court of the United States

Nov. 14, 2016.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit denied.
Jenericah KIBE, petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General.

No. 16-420.

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.
EX-4.1



 Exhibit 4.1 
  





 







 IMPORTANT NOTICE 

The Corporation will furnish without charge to each stockholder who so requests a full statement of the information required by Section 2-2 11
(b) of the Maryland General Corporation Law with respect to the designations, powers, preferences and relative participating, optional or other special rights of each class of stock or series thereof of the Corporation and the qualifications,
limitations or restrictions of such preferences and/or rights. Such request may be made to the Corporation or the Registrar and Transfer Agent. 
  

							
	 The following abbreviations, when used in the inscription on the face of this certificate, shall be construed as though they were
written out in full according to applicable laws or regulations:
  

	TEN COM	 	- as tenants in common	  	UNIF GIFT MIN ACT	 	-                                      
   Custodian                                    
    
		 		  		 	            (Cust)                         
                                         
  (Minor)
	TEN ENT	 	- as tenants by the entireties	  		 	under Uniform Gifts to Minors Act                            
            
		 		  		 	                                      
                                         
             (State)
	JT TEN	 	- as joint tenants with right of survivorship	  	UNIF TRF MIN ACT	 	-                                 Custodian (until 
age                              )
		 	  and not as tenants in common	  		 	            (Cust)
		 		  		 	                        under Uniform Transfers to Minors Act  
              
		 		  		 	          (Minor)                           
                                         
                        (State)
	Additional abbreviations may also be used though not in the above list.	 	

  

					
		  	PLEASE INSERT SOCIAL SECURITY OR OTHER IDENTIFYING NUMBER OF ASSIGNEE
	For value received,                          hereby sell, assign and transfer unto	  	 
	
	  

	(PLEASE PRINT OR TYPEWRITE NAME AND ADDRESS, INCLUDING POSTAL ZIP CODE, OF ASSIGNEE)	  	
	
	  

	
	  

		
	  
	  	
	of the capital stock represented by the within Certificate, and do hereby irrevocably constitute and appoint	  	Shares
		
	  
	  	
	to transfer the said stock on the books of the within named Corporation with full power of substitution in the premises.	  	Attorney

  

			
	
Dated:                         
                                 20       
                     
  

Signature:                        
                                         
                 
  

Signature:                        
                                         
                 

Notice:   The signature to this assignment must correspond with the name as written upon the face of
the certificate, in every particular, without alteration or enlargement, or any change whatever.
  
	  	
Signature(s) Guaranteed: Medallion Guarantee Stamp

THE SIGNATURE(S) SHOULD BE GUARANTEED BY AN ELIGIBLE GUARANTOR INSTITUTION (Banks, Stockbrokers, Savings and Loan Associations and Credit Unions)
WITH MEMBERSHIP IN AN APPROVED SIGNATURE GUARANTEE MEDALLION PROGRAM, PURSUANT TO S.E.C. RULE 17Ad-15.
Butchie J. STEMPLE, petitioner, v. Bobby P. SHEARIN, Warden, et al.

No. 15-8701.

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.
# C_2011152EN.01000402.xml

| 21.5.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 152/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.5.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 152/4

---

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 29 March 2011 — ThyssenKrupp Nirosta GmbH, formerly ThyssenKrupp Stainless AG v European Commission

(Case C-352/09 P) (1)

1

(Appeals - Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Community market in stainless steel flat products - Decision finding an infringement of Article 65 CS after the expiry of the ECSC Treaty on the basis of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 - Powers of the Commission - Principles of nulla poena sine lege and res judicata - Rights of the defence - Attributability of the unlawful conduct - Transfer of liability by means of a statement - Limitation period - Cooperation during the administrative procedure)

2011/C 152/06

Language of the case: German

Parties

Parties

Appellant: ThyssenKrupp Nirosta GmbH, formerly ThyssenKrupp Stainless AG (represented by: M. Klusmann, Rechtsanwalt, and S. Thomas, Universitätsprofessor)

Appellant:

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: F. Castillo de la Torre and R. Sauer, Agents)

Other party to the proceedings:

Re:

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber) of 1 July 2009 in Case T-24/07 ThyssenKrupp Stainless v Commission, by which the Court of First Instance dismissed the action for annulment of the Commission Decision of 20 December 2006 relating to a proceeding under Article 65 CS and, in the alternative, the application for reduction of the fine imposed on the applicant by that decision — Cartel on the market for stainless steel flat products — Decision finding an infringement of Article 65 CS after expiry of the ECSC Treaty, pursuant to Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 of 16 December 2002 on the implementation of the rules on competition laid down in Articles 81 and 82 of the Treaty (OJ 2003 L 1, p. 1) — Infringement of nulla poene sine lege and res judicata principles and of Articles 5, 7(1) and 83 EC — Infringement of applicable rules concerning time-bar for proceedings

ThyssenKrupp Stainless

Commission

nulla poene sine lege

res judicata

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the appeal;

| 2. | Orders ThyssenKrupp Nirosta GmbH to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders ThyssenKrupp Nirosta GmbH to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 282, 21.11.2009.

1

---
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ramon Ernesto CRUZ-PAGUADA, a.k.a. Pedro Pablo Agurcia, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 09-16444

Non-Argument Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.

June 17, 2010.

Patricia D. Barksdale, Jacksonville, FL, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

James H. Burke, Jr., Donna Lee Elm, Federal Public Defender, Jacksonville, FL, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before MARCUS, PRYOR and MARTIN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Ramon Ernesto Cruz-Paguada appeals his sentence of 46 months of imprisonment, which was imposed after he pleaded guilty to illegally reentering the United *853States after deportation. 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a). Cruz-Paguada argues, for the first time on appeal, that the district court erred by enhancing his sentence based on his prior conviction for smuggling illegal aliens into the United States, *id.*§ 1324, when that conviction was not charged in his indictment. Cruz-Paguada’s argument is foreclosed by the decision of the Supreme Court in *Almendarez-Torres v. United States,*523 U.S. 224, 118 S.Ct. 1219, 140 L.Ed.2d 350 (1998). “[W]e are bound to follow *Almendarez-Torres*unless and until the Supreme Court itself overrules that decision.” *United States v. Thomas,*242 F.3d 1028, 1035 (11th Cir.2001); *see also United States v. Greer,*440 F.3d 1267, 1273 (11th Cir.2006). The district court did not err, much less plainly err, by enhancing Cruz-Paguada’s sentence.

Cruz-Paguada’s sentence is AFFIRMED.