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

<ARTICLE> 5
<RESTATED> 
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1996
<CASH>                                               0
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   35,038
<ALLOWANCES>                                       480
<INVENTORY>                                     21,768
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                56,979
<PP&E>                                          37,488
<DEPRECIATION>                                   9,176
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  85,340
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           22,707
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            71
<OTHER-SE>                                      41,078
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    85,340
<SALES>                                         44,747
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                44,747
<CGS>                                           40,203
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    3,114
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   112
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 477
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    953
<INCOME-TAX>                                       367
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                586
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       586
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .06
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .06
        

</TABLE>
# C_2011340EN.01000201.xml

| 19.11.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 340/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.11.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 340/2

---

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 29 September 2011 — Arkema SA v European Commission

(Case C-520/09 P) (1)

1

(Appeal - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Article 81 EC and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement - European market for monochloroacetic acid - Rules on imputing a subsidiary’s anti-competitive practices to its parent company - Presumption of the actual exercise of a decisive influence - Obligation to state reasons)

2011/C 340/02

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Appellant: Arkema SA (represented by: M. Debroux, avocat)

Appellant:

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

Other party to the proceedings:

Re:

Re:

Appeal brought against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Seventh Chamber) of 30 September 2009 in Case T-168/05 Arkema v Commission, by which the Court dismissed Arkema’s application for annulment of Commission Decision C(2004) 4876 final of 19 January 2005 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 EC and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement concerning an agreement in the market for monochloroacetic acid and, in the alternative, for a reduction in the amount of the fine imposed on it — Failure to comply with the rules on imputing a subsidiary’s anti-competitive practices to its parent company — Infringements of the principle of equal treatment and the right to a fair hearing — Failure to have regard to the scope of the guidelines on the method of setting fines

Arkema

Commission

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the appeal;

| 2. | Orders Arkema SA to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Arkema SA to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 37, 13.2.2010.

1

---
Michael SANUDO, petitioner, v. Eric ARNOLD, Acting Warden.

No. 17-7191.

Supreme Court of the United States

Feb. 20, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.
II-00712

From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

Laura Herndon <lauraliherndon@gmail. com>

Thursday, December 2, 2010 12:13 PM

dfadefinitions <dfadefinitions@CFTC.gov>

Re: No loopholes in Dodd-Frank

1) Securities and Exchange Commission/Commodities Futures Trading Commission, Re: Commercial Risk (CFTC PIN

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 (PIN 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.

Laura Herndon

125 N. Brighton St. #231

Burbank, CA 91506
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.                  

###### Federal Emergency Management Agency

          - [FEMA-1379-DR] 

# AGENCY:

Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). 

# ACTION:

Notice.

# SUMMARY:

This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration for the State of Texas, (FEMA-1379-DR), dated June 9, 2001, and related determinations. 

# EFFECTIVE DATE:

June 18, 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 Texas 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 9, 2001:

## Grimes and Harrison Counties for Individual 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.) 

Lacy E. Suiter, 

Assistant Director, Readiness, Response and Recovery Directorate.

[FR Doc. 01-15931 Filed 6-25-01; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6718-02-P
Robert MEDINA, aka Pope, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 16-766.

Supreme Court of the United States

Jan. 23, 2017.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit denied.
Steven N. TAYLOR, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 16-6637.

Supreme Court of the United States

Jan. 9, 2017.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.
AMGEN INC., et al., petitioners, v. SANDOZ INC.

No. 15-1195.

Supreme Court of the United States

Jan. 25, 2017.

The following briefing schedule is adopted:

Petitioner in No. 15-1039 will file an opening brief limited to the question presented in its petition, not to exceed 15,000 words, on or before Friday, February 10, 2017. Petitioner in No. 15-1195 will file a consolidated opening brief on the question presented in their petition and response brief, not to exceed 19,000 words, on or before Friday, March 10, 2017. Petitioner in No. 15-1039 will file a consolidated response brief and reply brief, not to exceed 10,000 words, on or before Friday, March 31, 2017. Petitioner in No. 15-1195 will file a reply brief, not to exceed 6,000 words, on or before Friday, April 14, 2017.

Any brief of an *amicus curiae* in support of petitioner in No. 15-1039 or in support of neither party is to be filed on or before Friday, February 17, 2017, and the brief should bear a light green cover. Any brief of an *amicus curiae* in support of petitioner in No. 15-1195 is to be filed on or before Friday, March 17, 2017, and the brief should bear a dark green cover. An *amicus curiae* may file only a single brief in this case.
Exhibit 10.25

AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO COMMON STOCK PURCHASE WARRANT

This Amendment No. 1 to Common Stock Purchase Warrant is made and entered into as of the 30th day of December, 2005, by and among Digital Generation
Systems, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the "Corporation"), and Scott K. Ginsburg ("Ginsburg").

WHEREAS,
StarGuide Digital Networks, Inc., a Nevada corporation ("StarGuide"), and Ginsburg entered into a Common Stock Purchase Warrant, dated on or about March 2000 (the
"Original Warrant");

WHEREAS,
StarGuide merged with a wholly owned subsidiary of the Corporation and thereby became a wholly owned subsidiary of the Corporation in January 2001 and the Original
Warrant became exercisable for 3,899,700 shares of common stock, $0.001 par value, of the Corporation, at an exercise price of $1.44 per share;

WHEREAS,
on or about August 2003 Ginsburg assigned the right to purchase 86,660 shares of common stock of the Corporation to Omar Choucair and 303,310 shares of common stock of
the Corporation to Matt Devine and a new Common Stock Purchase Warrant was issued to Ginsburg for 3,509,730 shares of common stock of the Corporation (the "Warrant"); and

WHEREAS,
the Warrant was amended on or about June 24, 2004 pursuant to resolutions adopted by the unanimous written consent of the board of directors of the Corporation; and

WHEREAS,
the Corporation and Ginsburg wish to further amend the terms of the Warrant as described herein;

NOW,
THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises, benefits and covenants herein contained, the Corporation and Ginsburg hereby agree as follows:

1.     Unless
otherwise defined, all capitalized terms used herein shall have the meaning ascribed to them in the Warrant. All references to Section herein shall be to Sections
of the Warrant.

2.     The
entirety of Section 2 in the Warrant shall read as follows:



3.     The
first sentence of Section 7 in the Warrant shall read as follows:



---





IN
WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Amendment No. 1 to Common Stock Purchase Warrant as of the date first above written.

| |  | DIGITAL GENERATION SYSTEMS, INC.                   
| |  | ---------------------------------------------------
| |  | By:                                                
| |  |                                                    
| |  | Name:                                              
| |  |                                                    
| |  | Title:                                             
| |  |                                                    
| |  | GINSBURG:                                          
| |  | /s/SCOTT K. GINSBURGScott K. Ginsburg, Individually

---



QuickLinks
Josephat MUA, et ux., petitioners, v. CALIFORNIA CASUALTY INDEMNITY EXCHANGE, et al.

No. 16-5497.

Supreme Court of the United States

Jan. 9, 2017.

Petition for rehearing denied.
# C_2009129EN.01000302.xml

| 6.6.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 129/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.6.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 129/3

---

Action brought on 23 February 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of the Netherlands

(Case C-79/09)

2009/C 129/05

Language of the case: Dutch

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by D. Triantafyllou and W. Roels, acting as Agents)

Applicant:

Defendant: Kingdom of the Netherlands

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | Declare that, by granting exemption from VAT for the making available of personnel in the socio-cultural sector, the health sector and the education sector to so-called Euregios and for promotion of work mobility, the Kingdom of the Netherlands has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 2(1)(c), Article 24(1) and Article 132 of the VAT Directive; (1) |
| --- | --- |

—

Declare that, by granting exemption from VAT for the making available of personnel in the socio-cultural sector, the health sector and the education sector to so-called Euregios and for promotion of work mobility, the Kingdom of the Netherlands has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 2(1)(c), Article 24(1) and Article 132 of the VAT Directive; (1)

1

| — | order Kingdom of the Netherlands to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order Kingdom of the Netherlands to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

The Commission submits that the making available of staff in the socio-cultural sector, the health sector and the education sector must be subject to tax in accordance with Articles 2, 9 and 24 of the VAT Directive and that neither the exemptions under Article 132(1)(b), (c), (g) and (i) nor the exemption under Article 132(1)(n) is applicable to this provision of services

---

(1)  Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 11).

1

---
CMEGroup 

A CME/Chicago Board of Trade Company 

VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL AND COURIER 

Mr. David Stawick 

Secretary of the Commission 

Commodity Futures Trading Commission 

Three Lafayette Centre 

1155 21st Street, NW 

Washington, DC 20581 

C.f.T.C. 

OFFICE Of THE SECRETARl#\T 

auna a ~2 a:r1 a stl 

Usa Dunsky 

Director and Associate General Counsel 

Received CFTC 

Records Section 

t;;~,/vr 

COMMENT 

RE: Revised Adjusted Net Capital Requirements for Futures Commission Merchants and 

Introducing Brokers- 74 Fed. Reg. 21290 (May 7. 2009). RIN 3038-AC66 

Dear Mr. Stawick: 

CME Group Inc. hereby requests a 2-week extension of time, until July 20, 2009, to submit 

comments on the Commodity Futures Trading Commission's notice of proposed rulemaking 

with respect to revised adjusted net capital requirements for futures commission merchants and 

introducing brokers. 

If you have any questions or concerns regarding this request, do not hesitate to contact me at 

(312) 338-2483 or lisa.dunsky@cmegroup.com. 

Sincerely, 

Lisa A. Dunsky 

Cc: Mark Bretscher 

Thelma Diaz 

20 South Wacker Drive Chicago, Illinois 60606 r 312 338 2483 F 312 930 3323 lisa.dunsl<y@cmegroup.com cmegroup.com
# C_2010328EN.01006101.xml

| 4.12.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 328/61 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.12.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 328/61

---

Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 14 October 2010 — W v Commission

(Case F-86/09) (1)

1

(Civil Service - Contractual agents - Remuneration - Family benefits - Couple of persons of the same sex - Household allowance - Condition governing the grant - Access to legal marriage - Notion - Article 1(2)(c)(iv) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations)

2010/C 328/98

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: W (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: É. Boigelot, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: J. Currall and D. Martin, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Annulment of the decision not to grant the household allowance to the applicant on the ground that the applicant and his partner have access to legal marriage in Belgium

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Tribunal:

| 1. | Annuls the decisions of the Commission of 5 March 2009 and 17 July 2009 refusing W the benefit of the grant of the household allowance provided for in Article 1 of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations of the European Union; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decisions of the Commission of 5 March 2009 and 17 July 2009 refusing W the benefit of the grant of the household allowance provided for in Article 1 of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations of the European Union;

| 2. | Orders the European Commission to pay all the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the European Commission to pay all the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 11, 16.1.2010, p. 40.

1

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

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                      $1,685,214
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                               $2,605,710
<ALLOWANCES>                                ($453,234)
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            $4,413,610
<PP&E>                                      $4,717,107
<DEPRECIATION>                            ($1,108,821)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             $29,623,101
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                      $13,915,616
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                 $1,351,090
<COMMON>                                        $6,942
<OTHER-SE>                                 $14,343,453
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               $29,623,101
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                           $17,419,158
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                              $19,486,291
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            $2,649,184
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                          $2,272,895
<INCOME-PRETAX>                           ($1,690,844)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                       ($1,690,844)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                              ($1,690,844)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (.21)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
ASCIRA PARTNERS, LLC, et al., petitioners, v. Scott DANIEL, et al.

No. 16-560.

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.
W. Wayne PERRY, Jr., petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 16-7192.

Supreme Court of the United States

Jan. 17, 2017.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied.
Hearing Date: January 31, 2013 at 3:00 p.m. (Prevailing Eastern Time)

Response Deadline: January 22, 2013 at 4:00 p.m. (Prevailing Eastern Time)

HUGHES HUBBARD & REED LLP

One Battery Park Plaza

New York, New York 10004

Telephone: (212) 837-6000

Facsimile: (212) 422-4726

James B. Kobak, Jr.

Christopher K. Kiplok 

Meaghan C. Gragg

Anson B. Frelinghuysen

Attorneys for James W. Giddens,

Trustee for the SIPA Liquidation of MF Global Inc.

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

In re

MF GLOBAL INC.,

Debtor.

Case No. 11-2790 (MG) SIPA

NOTICE OF ILLUSTRATIVE SCHEDULE OF POTENTIAL DISTRIBUTIONS 

FOLLOWING SETTLEMENTS WITH CHAPTER 11 

DEBTORS AND MF GLOBAL UK

As set forth in the December 21, 2012 Motion of James W. Giddens (the 

“Trustee”), SIPA Trustee for the Liquidation of MF Global Inc. (“MFGI”), to Approve Further 

Distributions to Former Commodity Futures Customers of MF Global Inc. (the “Motion,” ECF 

No. 5169), the Trustee is seeking the Court’s approval to make further distributions to all 

remaining non-affiliate commodity futures customers with allowed and finalized claims from the 

separate funds of 4d and 30.7 MFGI commodity futures customer property.

Pursuant to the terms of the Motion,1

 

1. See Motion at ¶¶ 3 and 12 n.8.

attached hereto as Exhibit A is an 

Illustrative Schedule Of Potential Distributions Following Settlements With Chapter 11 Debtors 

and MF Global UK as of the filing date of this Notice.
2

Dated: New York, New York

January 10, 2013

HUGHES HUBBARD & REED LLP

By: /s/ James B. Kobak, Jr.

Christopher K. Kiplok

James B. Kobak, Jr.

Meaghan C. Gragg

Anson B. Frelinghuysen 

One Battery Park Plaza

New York, New York 10004

Telephone: (212) 837-6000

Facsimile: (212) 422-4726

Email: kobak@hugheshubbard.com

Attorneys for James W. Giddens, Trustee for 

the SIPA Liquidation of MF Global Inc.
EXHIBIT A
Domestic Futures 

Account Class

Foreign Futures 

Account Class Securities

Total Allowed Claims Value 

(excluding affiliates) $ 938,000,000 5,468,000,000 $ 277,000,000 $ 

Property In 

Trustee Possession $ 208,000,000 861,000,000 $ 270,000,000 $ 

Current Required Reserves $ 73,000,000 799,000,000 $ 768,000,000 $ 

Possible Current

Distribution Rate 81% 18% 60%

Chapter 11 Debtors $ - 333,000,000 $ 572,000,000 $ 

MFGUK $ - 294,000,000 $ 147,000,000 $ 

Expected Initial 

Payments $ 290,000,000 - $ - $ 

$ 210,000,000

to

$ 270,000,000

Expected Initial: 

47%

Potential Future: 

68% - 74%

Expected Cash Recoveries From MFGUK 

as a Result of Settlement

THE FIGURES IN THIS SCHEDULE ARE BASED ON THE BEST DATA AVAILABLE 

TO THE TRUSTEE, ARE SUBJECT TO REVISION OR AMENDMENT, AND DO NOT ACCOUNT 

FOR ALL POTENTIAL AND / OR INCREASED FUTURE DISTRIBUTIONS AND RECOVERIES.

Illustrative Potential 

Distribution Percentage 

Following Settlement 

Agreements With Chapter 11 

Debtors and Approval of 

Settlement Agreement With 

MFGUK

Illustrative Schedule Of Potential Distributions Following 

Settlements With Chapter 11 Debtors and MF Global UK

Reserves Released as a Result of Settlements

Potential Future 

Distributions - $ - $ 

93% 100%