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


<ARTICLE>               5
<LEGEND>
     See accompanying notes.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                       <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>             9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>         DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>            JAN-01-1997     
<PERIOD-END>              SEP-30-1997     

<CASH>                        170606
<SECURITIES>                  512821 
<RECEIVABLES>                 841101
<ALLOWANCES>                  (19203)
<INVENTORY>                   309461
<CURRENT-ASSETS>              1862683
<PP&E>                        101592
<DEPRECIATION>                (64868)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                2147082
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>         721020
<BONDS>                       717500                
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>         0                        
<PREFERRED>                   0                             
<COMMON>                      809                           
<OTHER-SE>                    699562
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>  2147082
<SALES>                       4827890                    
<TOTAL-REVENUES>              4827890
<CGS>                         3367560
<TOTAL-COSTS>                 3367560
<OTHER-EXPENSES>              1721512
<LOSS-PROVISION>              (196714)
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>            66055
<INCOME-PRETAX>               (196714)
<INCOME-TAX>                  0                 
<INCOME-CONTINUING>           (196714)
<DISCONTINUED>                0                          
<EXTRAORDINARY>               0                              
<CHANGES>                     0                              
<NET-INCOME>                  (196714)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                 (.08)
<EPS-DILUTED>                 (.08)
# C_2011204EN.01000702.xml

| 9.7.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 204/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.7.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 204/7

---

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 12 May 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Najwyższy — Republic of Poland) — Polska Telefonia Cyfrowa sp. z o.o. v Prezes Urzędu Komunikacji Elektronicznej

(Case C-410/09) (1)

1

(Act concerning the conditions of accession to the European Union - Article 58 - Directive 2002/21/EC - Commission guidelines - No publication in the Official Journal of the European Union in the language of a Member State - Enforceability)

2011/C 204/13

Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Referring court

Sąd Najwyższy

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Polska Telefonia Cyfrowa sp. z o.o.

Applicant:

Defendant: Prezes Urzędu Komunikacji Elektronicznej

Defendant:

In the presence of: Prezes Urzędu Ochrony Konkurencji i Konsumentów

In the presence of

Re:

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Sąd Najwyższy — Interpretation of Article 58 of the Act concerning the conditions of accession of the Czech Republic, the Republic of Estonia, the Republic of Cyprus, the Republic of Latvia, the Republic of Lithuania, the Republic of Hungary, the Republic of Malta, the Republic of Poland, the Republic of Slovenia and the Slovak Republic and the adjustments to the Treaties on which the European Union is founded (OJ 2003 L 236, p. 33) — Publication of acts in the Official Journal of the European Union — Application by the regulatory authority of a Member State of Commission guidelines not published in the language of that State

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

Article 58 of the Act concerning the conditions of accession of the Czech Republic, the Republic of Estonia, the Republic of Cyprus, the Republic of Latvia, the Republic of Lithuania, the Republic of Hungary, the Republic of Malta, the Republic of Poland, the Republic of Slovenia and the Slovak Republic to the European Union and the adjustments to the Treaties on which the European Union is founded must be interpreted as not precluding a national regulatory authority from referring to the Commission Guidelines on market analysis and the assessment of significant market power under the Community regulatory framework for electronic communications networks and services in a decision by which that national regulatory authority imposes certain regulatory obligations on an operator of electronic communications services, notwithstanding the fact that those guidelines have not been published in the Official Journal of the European Union in the language of the Member State in question, even though that language is an official language of the Union.

---

(1)  OJ C 24, 30.1.2010.

1

---
822.

#### South & Lane *v.*People’s National Bank.

Appeal, from Troup superior court — Judge Freeman. . September 24, 1907.

Submitted January 20,

Decided March 30, 1908.

*E. T. Moon, Isaac Jaclcson,*for plaintiff in error.

*W. U. Mooty,*contra.

Hill, C. J.

1. The holder of a negotiable instrument indorsed in blank by the payee is presumed to be such bona fide and for value, and is entitled to sue the maker. Unless the indorsement is denied on oath, it need not be proved. *Habersham*v. *Lehman,*63 *Ga.*380; 1 Daniel on Negotiable Instruments, §693; Tiedeman on Commercial Paper, §256.

2. A bill or note indorsed in blank is transferable by delivery, and the indorsement, so long as it continues in blank, makes the bill or note in effect payable to bearer. Possession of. such a negotiable instrument proves property. Chitty on Bills, 253-255; Stirling *v.*Bender, 7 Ark. 201 (44 Am. D. 539).

3. Where there is conflict in the evidence relating to a plea of non est factum, and the verdict of the jury against the plea is approved by the trial judge, the verdict will not be disturbed. *Judgment affirmed.*
# C_2009167EN.01002501.xml

| 18.7.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 167/25 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.7.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 167/25

---

Action brought on 27 March 2009 — Ingo Hanschmann v Europol

(Case F-27/09)

2009/C 167/46

Language of the case: Dutch

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Ingo Hanschmann (The Hague, Netherlands) (represented by: P. de Casparis, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Police Office (Europol)

Defendant:

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Annulment of the decision of 12 June 2008 informing the applicant that it was impossible to offer him a permanent post, along with the decision of 7 January 2009 rejecting the complaint brought against the first decision.

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | annul the decision of 12 June 2008 by which the defendant indicated to the applicant that it was unable to offer him a permanent position, along with the complaint decision of 7 January 2009 rejecting the applicant’s submissions against the decision of 12 June 2008; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of 12 June 2008 by which the defendant indicated to the applicant that it was unable to offer him a permanent position, along with the complaint decision of 7 January 2009 rejecting the applicant’s submissions against the decision of 12 June 2008;

| — | order Europol to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order Europol to pay the costs.

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

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                          92,993
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                10,962
<PP&E>                                         155,923
<DEPRECIATION>                                (20,144)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 261,741
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          528,197
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                      2,000
<COMMON>                                        11,851
<OTHER-SE>                                   (280,307)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   261,741
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               165,687
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             2,313,606
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (2,159,674)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (2,259,674)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (2,259,674)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (.19)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.19)


</TABLE>
NEW JERSEY THOROUGHBRED HORSEMEN'S ASSOCIATION, INC., petitioner, v. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION, et al.

No. 16-477.

Supreme Court of the United States

Jan. 17, 2017.

The Acting Solicitor General is invited to file a brief in these cases expressing the views of the United States.
Exhibit 32.2   Certification of CEO
      and CFOPursuant to 18 U.S.C.
      Section 1350,As Adopted Pursuant
      toSection 906 of the
      Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
   In connection with the
Annual Report on Form 10-K ofGolden Spirit Enterprises Ltd.for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), Jaclyn Cruz, as the
equivalent of the Chief Financial Officer of the Company,  hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant
to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of his
knowledge:  (1)   The Report
fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934; and  (2)   The
information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.  /s/Jaclyn CruzName: Jaclyn CruzDate: April 12,
2010  This
certification is furnished with this Report pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not be deemed filed by the Partnership for
purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended.
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-60665 Summary Calendar

MILTON MORRIS,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

KENNETH S. APFEL, COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,

Defendant-Appellee.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi

(97-CV-141-BRS)

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

October 14, 1999

Before POLITZ, WIENER, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Plaintiff-Appellant Milton Morris appeals the district court’s

judgment affirming the Commissioner of Social Security’s denial of

disability benefits. Morris contends that the Administrative Law

Judge (ALJ) did not apply the proper legal standards in evaluating

his claim. Specifically, Morris asserts that the ALJ erred in

finding that he was not disabled without considering or referring

to lay testimony that corroborated a “retrospective” diagnosis of

post traumatic stress disorder (PTSD).2

There is no medical opinion that Morris’s impairment relates

back to the insured period. Thus, there has been no “retrospective

diagnosis.” S ee E stok v. Apfel

, 152 F.3d 636, 638 (7th Cir. 1998)

(defining the term “retrospective diagnosis”). As there is thus no

retrospective diagnosis to corroborate, the ALJ did not err in

declining to consider the lay testimony. C f. Likes v. Callahan

,

112 F.3d 189 (5th Cir. 1997) (holding that lay testimony was

relevant to corroborate retrospective diagnosis of PTSD).

Morris also argues that the ALJ failed to consult a medical

advisor, pursuant to Social Security Ruling (SSR) 83-20, from which

to infer the o nset date of his disability. Morris did not raise

this issue before Appeals Council and did not produce any medical

evidence or opinion from which an onset date of disability during

the relevant period could have been inferred. Thus, SSR 83-20 is

inapplicable, and the ALJ was not required to consult a medical

advisor. See SSR 83-20.

Having reviewed the entire record, we find that the decision

is supported by substantial evidence and that the proper legal

standards were used in evaluating the evidence. S ee Anthony v.

Sullivan , 954 F.2d 289, 292 (5th Cir. 1992); 42 U.S.C. § 405(g).

AFFIRMED.
In the Matter of DISBARMENT OF James W. KENNEDY.

No. D-3001.

Supreme Court of the United States

Feb. 20, 2018.

Disbarment order entered.
Court of Appeals 

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA, September 07, 2016

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order

A16A2028. JOHNNY JONES v. THE STATE.

The appellant in this case failed to comply with the notice of docketing mailed by this 

Court and with Court of Appeals Rules 22 (a) and 23 (a), regarding the filing of an enumeration 

of errors and brief within twenty days after the appeal was docketed. See also Court of Appeals 

Rule 13.

On July 25, 2016, this Court ordered the appellant to file an enumeration of errors and a 

brief no later than August 01, 2016. As of the date of this order, the appellant's enumeration of 

errors and brief still have not been filed. Accordingly, this appeal is deemed abandoned and is 

hereby ordered DISMISSED. Court of Appeals Rules 7, 23 (a).

Because procedural deficiencies have deprived the appellant of the right of appellate 

review, the appellant is hereby informed of the following in accordance with Rowland v. State, 

264 Ga. 872 (452 SE2d 756) (1995):

This Court has dismissed your appeal because an enumeration of errors and a 

brief have not been filed on your behalf as required. If this failure occurred while 

you were represented by legal counsel and was due to your appellate counsel's 

failure to perform the duties of appellate counsel, and if you still wish to appeal, 

you may file a motion in the trial court for permission to pursue an out-of-time 

appeal. If the trial court grants your motion for an out-of-time appeal, you will 

have 30 days from the filing date of the order granting your motion to file in the 

trial court a notice of appeal from the judgment of conviction and sentence. If the 

trial court denies your motion for an out-of-time appeal, you will have 30 days 

from the filing date of the order denying your motion to file in the trial court a 

notice of appeal from that order.
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk's Office, Atlanta, September 07, 2016.

I certify that the above is a true extract from the minutes 

of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto 

affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

The Clerk of Court is directed to send a copy of this order to the appellant as well as to 

the appellant's attorney of record, if any. The appellant's attorney is also directed to send a copy 

of this order to the appellant.
secretary 

From: 

Sent: 

To: 

0 7-tt/ 

@ COMMENT 

GLinford@Dennys.com 

Thursday, January 17, 2008 12:17 PM 

secretary · 

RECEIVED 

I-, } I 2: tl? 

·~ 

Subject: CFTC Proposal to Double Speculative Position Limits;, -r • .. , •.. , ... _ -

u ~- v. u,~ a i-·,t Jc C l {r:Ti\Fli l\.T 

As I am sure you are already aware, due to the exaggerated influence of speculative 

commodity funds, today's futures markets cannot be relied upon to reflect short-to-mid 

term supply and demand fundamentals. Supply and demand, for the most part, has become 

merely a long term market indicator. 

We have lost the spirit of intent of the futures markets. The proposal of doubling 

current speculative position limits will only widen today's reality gap, effectively 

increasing the chances of further price manipulation. 

Ultimately, the price tag of these over exaggerated markets is being paid by the US 

consuming public. We cannot readily fix the oversights of the past, but it is our 

responsibility to be good stewards of the future. 

Please, do not allow the expansion of our current speculative position limits. 

Greg Linford 

Senior Director, Procurement 

Denny's Purchasing, P-09-06 

203 East Main Street 

Spartanburg, SC 29319 

(P) 864-597-7159 

(F) 864-597-6940 

1
# C_2009113EN.01002301.xml

| 16.5.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 113/23 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.5.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 113/23

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d'État (France) lodged on 2 March 2009 — Graphic Procédé v Ministère du budget, des comptes publics et de la fonction publique

(Case C-88/09)

2009/C 113/44

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Referring court

Conseil d'État

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Graphic Procédé

Applicant:

Defendant: Ministère du budget, des comptes publics et de la fonction publique

Defendant:

Question referred

Question referred

What are the criteria to be employed in order to determine whether reprographics is a supply of goods or a provision of services [for the purposes of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment] (1)?

1

---

(1)  OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1.

1

---
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

JARVIS LEWIS,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

No. 4D19-3124

[August 13, 2020]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit, 

Martin County; Sherwood Bauer, Jr., Judge; L.T. Case Nos. 

432019CF000259A, 432019CF000263, and 432019CF000265.

Carey Haughwout, Public Defender, and Virginia Murphy, Assistant 

Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

No appearance for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

GROSS, GERBER and KUNTZ, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
EXHIBIT 3

Certification Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.

In connection with the Annual Report of DOLPHIN PRODUCTIONS, INC., (the
"Company") on Form 10-KSB for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2005 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), the undersigned Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial
Officer of the Company certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 that:

(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section
13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

(2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operation of the
Company.


February 6, 2006



    /s/Richard H Casper

    Richard H. Casper
    Chief Executive Officer







    /s/Pamela Lindquist

    Pamela Lindquist
    Chief Financial Officer
# C_2010080EN.01000602.xml

| 27.3.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 80/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 80/6

---

Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 4 February 2010 — European Commission v United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

(Case C-186/09) (1)

1

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 2004/113/EC - Equal treatment for men and women - Access to and supply of goods and services - Failure to transpose within the prescribed period as regards Gibraltar)

2010/C 80/11

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: M. van Beek and P. Van den Wyngaert, Agents)

Applicant:

Defendant: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (represented by: H. Walker, Agent)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Failure of Member State to fulfil obligations — Failure to take, in the prescribed period, the provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive 2004/113/EC of 13 December 2004 implementing the principle of equal treatment between men and women in the access to and supply of goods and services (OJ 2004 L 373, p. 37)

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 Council Directive 2004/113/EC of 13 December 2004 implementing the principle of equal treatment between men and women in the access to and supply of goods and services, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland 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 Council Directive 2004/113/EC of 13 December 2004 implementing the principle of equal treatment between men and women in the access to and supply of goods and services, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

| 2. | Orders the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 180, 1.8.2009.

1

---
Order entered January 20, 2015

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-14-01162-CV

HM RUBY FUND, L.P., Appellant

V.

C.A. RUNDELL, JR., ET AL., Appellees

On Appeal from the 116th Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. DC-10-09062

ORDER

We GRANT cross-appellants’ January 13, 2015 unopposed second motion for an 

extension of time to a brief. Cross-appellants shall file their brief by FEBRUARY 13, 2015. 

We caution cross-appellants that no further extension of time will be granted absent 

extraordinary circumstances.

/s/ ELIZABETH LANG-MIERS 

JUSTICE
Moses CLARY, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 17-7666.

Supreme Court of the United States

March 5, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit denied.

Justice ALITO took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.
COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA

Present: Judge McCl anahan, Senior Judges Coleman and Annunziata

DOLLAR TREE DISTRIBUTION, INC. AND AMERICAN ZURICH INSURANCE COMPANY MEMORANDUM OPINION * v. Record No. 3023-05-1 PER CURIAM MAY 30, 2006 STEVEN MICHAEL DURR, SR.

FROM THE VIRGINIA WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION (Robert L. Samuel, Jr.; Williams Mullen, on brief), for appellants. (Karen M. Rye, on brief), for appellee.

Dollar Tree Distribution, Inc. and its insurer appeal a decision of the Workers’ Compensation Commission finding that Steven Michael Durr, Sr.’s failure to disconnect trailer brake air lines before pulling away in the tract or he was operating did not constitute willful misconduct pursuant to Code § 65.2-306. We have reviewed the record and the commission’s opinion and affirm for the reas ons stated by the commission in its final opinion. See Durr v. Dollar Tree Distribution, Inc. , VWC File No. 218-97-34 (Nov. 29, 2005) . We dispense with oral argument and summarily affirm because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented

in the materials before the C ourt and argument would not aid th e decisional process. See Code § 17.1-403; Rule 5A:27.

Affirmed.

* Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, this opin ion is not designated for publication.