alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 32

CERTIFICATION

Each of the undersigned hereby certifies in his capacity as an officer of Community Financial Corporation (the "Company") that the quarterly report of the Company on Form 10-Q for the period endedJune 30, 2007 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in such report fairly presents, in all materialrespects, the financial condition of the Company at the end of such period and the results of operations of the Company for such period.

| Dated: August 13, 2007 | /s/ P. Douglas RichardP. Douglas RichardPresident and Chief Executive Officer     |
|------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                        |                                                                                   |
|                        |                                                                                   |
|                        |                                                                                   |
|                        |                                                                                   |
| Dated: August 13, 2007 | /s/ R. Jerry GilesR. Jerry GilesSenior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer |
|                        |                                                                                   |
|                        |                                                                                   |
II-00352

From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

Elaine Fischer <efischer@workmail. corn>

Thursday, December 2, 2010 11:40 PM

dfadefinitions <dfadefinitions@CFTC.gov>

Re: No loopholes in Dodd-Frank

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

Elaine Fischer

2710 L Holly Hall

Roanoke, VA 24018
IN T:HE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA 

IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE OF 

FRANK JOE GONZALEZ, A/K/A 

FRANK J. GONZALEZ, DECEASED. 

MARK GONZALEZ, 

Appellant, 

vs. 

LORENA CARRILLO-ARELLANO, 

Respondent. 

No. 85146 

HLE 

AUG 3 0 2022 

ELIZADETH A. BROWN 

CLERK OF S PRES,AE COURT 

BY 

DEPUTY CLERK 

ORDER DISMISSING APPEAL 

This appeal was docketed on August 10, 2022, without payment 

of the requisite filing fee and without the case appeal statement. See NRAP 

3(e), (f). That same day, this court issued notices directing appellant to file 

the case appeal statement and to pay the required filing fee or demonstrate 

compliance with NRAP 24 within 7 days. The notices advised that failure 

to pay the filing fee would result in the dismissal of this appeal and failure 

to :file the case appeal statement could result in sanctions, including 

dismissal of this appeal. To date, appellant has not paid the filing fee, filed 

the case appeal statement, or otherwise responded to this court's notices. 

Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed. See NRAP 3(a)(2). 

It is so ORDERED. 

CLERK OF THE SUPREME COURT 

ELIZABETH A. BROWN 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 

CLERK'S ORDER 

I()) 1917 
cc: Hon. Veronica Barisich, District Judge 

Aspire Law Group, Ltd. 

Law Offices of Bri.an H. Nelson 

Eighth District Court Clerk 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 

CLERK'S ORDER 

2
# C_2009256EN.01001301.xml

| 24.10.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 256/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.10.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 256/13

---

Action brought on 7 August 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Belgium

(Case C-315/09)

2009/C 256/25

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: F. Erlbacher and L. de Schietere de Lophem, acting as Agents)

Applicant:

Defendant: Kingdom of Belgium

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | Declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive 2006/88/EC of 24 October 2006 on animal health requirements for aquaculture animals and products thereof, and on the prevention and control of certain diseases in aquatic animals, (1) as amended by Commission Directive 2008/53/EC of 30 April 2008 amending Annex IV to Council Directive 2006/88/EC as regards Spring viraemia of carp (SVC), (2) or, in any event, by failing to inform the Commission of those provisions, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under those directives; |
| --- | --- |

—

Declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive 2006/88/EC of 24 October 2006 on animal health requirements for aquaculture animals and products thereof, and on the prevention and control of certain diseases in aquatic animals, (1) as amended by Commission Directive 2008/53/EC of 30 April 2008 amending Annex IV to Council Directive 2006/88/EC as regards Spring viraemia of carp (SVC), (2) or, in any event, by failing to inform the Commission of those provisions, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under those directives;

1

2

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

—

order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

The period for the transposition of Directive 2006/88/EC expired on 1 May 2008 and the period for transposition of Directive 2008/53/EC expired on 1 August 2008. However, at the time the present action was brought, the defendant had not yet adopted all the measures necessary to transpose the directive or, in any event, had not informed the Commission thereof.

---

(1)  OJ 2006 L 328, p. 14.

1

(2)  OJ 2008 L 117, p. 27.

2

---
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-07-00634-CV

In re James T. Jackson Sr.

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING FROM TRAVIS COUNTY

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

The petition for writ of mandamus is denied. See Tex. R. App. P. 52.8(a).

__________________________________________

Jan P. Patterson, Justice

Before Justices Patterson, Puryear and Henson

Filed: December 7, 2007
Edwardo CHAPALET, aka Edward G. Chapalet, petitioner, v. FLORIDA.

No. 16-6102.

Supreme Court of the United States

Nov. 28, 2016.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Florida denied.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-6462 

JEFF D. GOSNELL,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

DOUG MITCHELL, Superintendent,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western

District of North Carolina, at Asheville. Graham C. Mullen, Senior

District Judge. (1:03-cv-00108)

Submitted: June 22, 2006 Decided: July 3, 2006

Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Jeff D. Gosnell, Appellant Pro Se. Clarence Joe DelForge, III,

NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Raleigh, North Carolina, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Jeff D. Gosnell seeks to appeal the district court’s

order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition. The

order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a

certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A

certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial

showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C.

§ 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by

demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that any

assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is

debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by

the district court is likewise debatable. Miller-El v. Cockrell,

537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484

(2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have

independently reviewed the record and conclude that Gosnell has not

made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of

appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately

presented in the materials before the court and argument would not

aid the decisional process. 

DISMISSED
Antonio GUERRERO, aka Tony, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 15-9569.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 3, 2016.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit denied.
Khadafy Kareem MULLENS, petitioner, v. FLORIDA.

No. 16-6773.

Supreme Court of the United States

Jan. 9, 2017.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Florida denied.
Samuel Allen BARE, et al., petitioners, v. THE ASSURANCE GROUP, INC.

No. 16-761.

Supreme Court of the United States

Jan. 23, 2017.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals of North Carolina denied.
# C_2010024EN.01002102.xml

| 30.1.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 24/21 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.1.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 24/21

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Simvoulio tis Epikratias (Greece) lodged on 28 October 2009 — Christina Ioanni Toki v Ipourgos Ethnikis Pedias kai Thriskevmaton

(Case C-424/09)

2010/C 24/37

Language of the case: Greek

Referring court

Referring court

Simvoulio tis Epikratias

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Christina Toki

Applicant:

Defendant: Ipourgos Ethnikis Pedias kai Thriskevmaton

Defendant:

Questions referred

Questions referred

| 1. | For the purposes of Article 3(b) of Directive 89/48/EEC on a general system for the recognition of higher-education diplomas awarded on completion of professional education and training of at least three years’ duration (OJ 1989 L 19, p. 16), prior its repeal pursuant to Article 62 of Directive 2005/36/EC (OJ 2005 L 255, p. 22), does the recognition mechanism provided for therein apply to cases in which, in the Member State of origin, the profession in question is regulated within the meaning of the second subparagraph of Article 1(d) of the directive, but the person concerned is not a full member of an association or organisation which fulfils the conditions of that paragraph? |
| --- | --- |

1.

For the purposes of Article 3(b) of Directive 89/48/EEC on a general system for the recognition of higher-education diplomas awarded on completion of professional education and training of at least three years’ duration (OJ 1989 L 19, p. 16), prior its repeal pursuant to Article 62 of Directive 2005/36/EC (OJ 2005 L 255, p. 22), does the recognition mechanism provided for therein apply to cases in which, in the Member State of origin, the profession in question is regulated within the meaning of the second subparagraph of Article 1(d) of the directive, but the person concerned is not a full member of an association or organisation which fulfils the conditions of that paragraph?

| 2. | For the purposes of Article 3(b) of Directive 89/48/EEC does pursuit of a profession full-time in the Member State of origin mean pursuit in a self-employed or employed capacity of the actual profession authorisation to pursue which is being sought in the host Member State in reliance on Directive 89/48/EEC, or may it also cover employment on research work in an academic field related to the profession in an establishment that is in principle not for profit? |
| --- | --- |

2.

For the purposes of Article 3(b) of Directive 89/48/EEC does pursuit of a profession full-time in the Member State of origin mean pursuit in a self-employed or employed capacity of the actual profession authorisation to pursue which is being sought in the host Member State in reliance on Directive 89/48/EEC, or may it also cover employment on research work in an academic field related to the profession in an establishment that is in principle not for profit?

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


<ARTICLE>                     5
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1
<CURRENCY>                                     U.S. Dollars

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>               DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                  JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                    JUN-30-1999
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                           1
<CASH>                                    0
<SECURITIES>                              0
<RECEIVABLES>                    12,881,969
<ALLOWANCES>                        366,000
<INVENTORY>                      10,775,802
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                 24,893,209
<PP&E>                           29,788,183
<DEPRECIATION>                    6,972,099
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                   56,503,149
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>            24,499,801
<BONDS>                           9,981,916
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>            10,037,500
<PREFERRED>                               0
<COMMON>                             70,152
<OTHER-SE>                       11,913,780
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>     56,503,149
<SALES>                          44,033,690
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                 44,033,690
<CGS>                            32,360,648
<TOTAL-COSTS>                    32,360,648
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                  8,073,338
<LOSS-PROVISION>                     (1,344)
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                1,102,811
<INCOME-PRETAX>                   2,498,237
<INCOME-TAX>                     (1,836,000)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>               4,334,237
<DISCONTINUED>                            0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                           0
<CHANGES>                                 0
<NET-INCOME>                      4,334,237
<EPS-BASIC>                           .57
<EPS-DILUTED>                           .45



</TABLE>
<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>                                       1,246,595
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   44,566
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,918,310
<PP&E>                                       5,661,662
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              12,954,604
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        4,529,940
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        16,153
<OTHER-SE>                                   6,453,865
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                12,954,604
<SALES>                                        585,484
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               585,484
<CGS>                                          667,739
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                2,852,913
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               (33,584)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             530,668
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                (2,764,513)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (0.17)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
Andre JACKSON, petitioner, v. CALIFORNIA; and Andre Jackson, petitioner, v. California.

No. 15-9326.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 3, 2016.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of California denied.
Robert L. SWINTON, petitioner, v. STEUBEN COUNTY JAIL, et al.

No. 17-7260.

Supreme Court of the United States

March 5, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit denied.
[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 124 (Wednesday, June 27, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Page 34278]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-16096]


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

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION


Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards; Meeting of the ACRS 
Subcommittee on Plant Operations; Notice of Meeting

    The ACRS Subcommittee on Plant Operations will hold a meeting on 
July 9, 2001, Room T-2B3, 11545 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland.
    The entire meeting will be open to public attendance.
    The agenda for the subject meeting shall be as follows:
    Monday, July 9, 2001--9:30 a.m. until 12:30 p.m.
    The Subcommittee will continue its discussion of the Reactor 
Oversight Process. The purpose of this meeting is to gather 
information, analyze relevant issues and facts, and to formulate 
proposed positions and actions, as appropriate, for deliberation by the 
full Committee.
    Oral statements may be presented by members of the public with the 
concurrence of the Subcommittee Chairman and written statements will be 
accepted and made available to the Committee. Electronic recordings 
will be permitted only during those portions of the meeting that are 
open to the public, and questions may be asked only by members of the 
Subcommittee, its consultants, and staff. Persons desiring to make oral 
statements should notify the cognizant ACRS staff engineer named below 
five days prior to the meeting, if possible, so that appropriate 
arrangements can be made.
    During the initial portion of the meeting, the Subcommittee, along 
with any of its consultants who may be present, may exchange 
preliminary views regarding matters to be considered during the balance 
of the meeting.
    The Subcommittee will then hear presentations by and hold 
discussions with representatives of the NRC staff, and other interested 
persons regarding this review.
    Further information regarding topics to be discussed, whether the 
meeting has been canceled or rescheduled, and the Chairman's ruling on 
requests for the opportunity to present oral statements and the time 
allotted therefore, can be obtained by contacting the cognizant ACRS 
staff engineer, Ms. Maggalean W. Weston (telephone: 301/415-3151) 
between 8:00 a.m. and 5:30 p.m. (EDT). Persons planning to attend this 
meeting are urged to contact the above named individual one or two 
working days prior to the meeting to be advised of any potential 
changes to the agenda, etc., that may have occurred.

    Dated: June 21, 2001.
James E. Lyons,
Associate Director for Technical Support.
[FR Doc. 01-16096 Filed 6-26-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE O F FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME E XPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED L ENORIS DRUMWRIGHT , A ppellant ,
v. Case No. 5D 22

- 510 LT Case No. 2006

- CF

- 006077

- A

- O S TATE OF FLORIDA , A ppellee

. ________________________________/ D ecision filed July 5 , 2022 3.800 Appeal from the Circuit Court for Orange County , Patricia Strowbridge , Judge. Lenoris Drumwright, Crestview, pro se. Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Allison L. Morris, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Appellee.

P ER CURIAM. A FFIRMED.

LAMBERT , C.J. , EVANDER and HARRIS , JJ., concur.
Michael KUPRITZ, petitioner, v. CHASE BANK USA, N.A.

No. 17-7174.

Supreme Court of the United States

Feb. 20, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District denied.
Abdal H. MUHAMMAD, petitioner, v. UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION BOARD OF REVIEW.

No. 16-9250.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 2, 2017.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania denied.
**Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 7 April 2011 – Greece v Commission**

**(Case C-321/09 P)**

Appeal – EAGGF – Expenditure excluded from Community financing owing to failure to comply with Community rules – Expenditure incurred by the Hellenic Republic

1.                     *Union law – Principles – Duty to act within a reasonable time – Administrative procedure – Assessment that must be made in
concreto – Criteria for assessment – Assessment within the jurisdiction of the General Court – Review by the Court of Justice
(see paras 32-36)*

2.                     *Union law – Principles – Protection of legitimate expectations – Conditions – Specific assurances given by the authorities
(see paras 45-46)*

3.                     *Appeals – Grounds – Mistaken assessment of the facts – Inadmissibility – Review by the Court of Justice of the assessment
of the facts put before the Court of First Instance – Possible only where the clear sense of the evidence has been distorted
(Art. 256 TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para.) (see paras 48-49)*

**Re:**

| | | | | |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Appeal brought against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Eighth Chamber) of 11 June 2009, in Case T‐33/07 | Greece | v | Commission | , by which that court dismissed an application for the partial annulment of Commission Decision 2006/932/EC of 14 December 2006 excluding from Community financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) (notified under document number C(2006) 5993) – Olive oil, cotton, dried grapes and citrus fruit sectors. |

**Operative part**

The Court:

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

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 2. | | Orders the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs. |
NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF FAMILY AND LIFE ADVOCATES, dba NIFLA, et al., petitioners, v. Xavier BECERRA, Attorney General of California, et al.

No. 16-1140.

Supreme Court of the United States

March 5, 2018.

Motion of Solicitor General for leave to participate in oral argument as *amicus curiae* and for divided argument granted.
Patricia PETER-TAKANG, petitioner, v. Suzy SONNIER, Secretary, Louisiana Department of Children and Family Services, et al.

No. 16-6879.

Supreme Court of the United States

Jan. 17, 2017.

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