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

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JUN-30-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                          77,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   49,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                    13,000
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               151,000
<PP&E>                                         306,000
<DEPRECIATION>                                 216,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 241,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        3,443,000
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                      1,000
<COMMON>                                        53,000
<OTHER-SE>                                 (3,256,000)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   241,000
<SALES>                                        350,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               350,000
<CGS>                                          140,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  140,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             2,285,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                              (31,000)
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              41,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (2,096,000)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (2,096,000)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 2,096,000
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (.49)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.49)


</TABLE>
# C_2011030EN.01003703.xml

| 29.1.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 30/37 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.1.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 30/37

---

Judgment of the General Court of 9 December 2010 — Fédération internationale des logis v OHIM (Green convex square)

(Case T-282/09) (1)

1

(Community trade mark - Application for a Community figurative trade mark representing a green convex square - Absolute ground for refusal - Lack of distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

2011/C 30/67

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Fédération internationale des logis (Paris, France) (represented by: B. Brisset, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: A. Folliard-Monguiral, agent)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 22 April 2009 (Case R 1511/2008-1) concerning an application for registration a green convex square as a Community trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action.

| 2. | Orders the Fédération internationale des logis to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the Fédération internationale des logis to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 220, 12.9.2009.

1

---
Helen LE, et al., petitioners, v. Kenneth Edward AZNOE.

No. 16M50.

Supreme Court of the United States

Nov. 7, 2016.

Motion to direct the Clerk to file a petition for writ of certiorari out of time denied.
##### Table of Contents



UNITED STATES
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20549
 
 FORM 10-K/A
 (Amendment No. 1)
 
 þ
    
    ANNUAL REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934
 FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 2009
 OR
 o
    
    TRANSITION REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934
 FOR THE TRANSITION PERIOD FROM ___________ TO ___________
 COMMISSION FILE NUMBER: 1-11535
 
 Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter
 
 Burlington Northern Santa Fe, LLC
 (Formerly, Burlington Northern Santa Fe Corporation)
 State of Incorporation or Organization
    
    I.R.S. Employer Identification No.Delaware
    
    27-1754839
 2650 Lou Menk Drive, Fort Worth, Texas 76131-2830   (800) 795-2673
 Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(b) of the Act:
 Title of each class
    
    Name of each exchange on which registeredNone
 Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(g) of the Act:
None
 YesþNoo
 YesoNoþ
 Yes þ No o
 YesþNoo
 þ
  Large accelerated filerþ
    
    Accelerated filero
    
    Non-accelerated filero
    
    Smaller reporting companyo
 Yes o No þ




---



##### Table of Contents



Explanatory Note
   2




---



##### Table of Contents



Table of Contents
 Part IIIItem 14. Principal Accountant Fees and Services
    
    
    4Part IVItem 15. Exhibits and Financial Statement Schedules
    
    
    5Signatures
    
    
    S-1Exhibit Index
    
    
    E-1Exhibit 31.1Exhibit 31.2
   3




---



##### Table of Contents



Part III
 
 Item 14. Principal Accountant Fees and Services
 Independent Auditor Fees
  2009
    
    
    2008Audit fees
    
    $
    2,790
    
    
    $
    2,507Tax fees
    
    
    79
    
    
    
    151All other fees
    
    
    78
    
    
    
    23Total
    
    $
    2,947
    
    
    $
    2,681
 Tax Fees
  All Other Fees
  Pre-Approval Policies and Procedures
   4




---



##### Table of Contents



Part IV
 
 Item 15. Exhibits and Financial Statement Schedules
     5




---



##### Table of Contents



Signatures
  Burlington Northern Santa Fe, LLCDated: May 3, 2010
    
    By:
    
    /s/ Matthew K. Rose

Matthew K. RoseChairman, President andChief Executive Officer
  S-1




---



##### Table of Contents



Burlington Northern Santa Fe, LLC and Subsidiaries
 
 Exhibit Index
 Incorporated by Reference(if applicable)Exhibit Number and Description
    
    Form
    
    File Date
    
    File No.
    
    Exhibit(31)
    Rule 13a-14(a)/15d-14(a) Certifications31.1
    
    
    Principal Executive Officers
Certifications Pursuant to Rule
13a-14(a) (Section 302 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002).
31.2
    
    
    Principal Financial Officers
Certifications Pursuant to Rule
13a-14(a) (Section 302 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002).

 
    
    Filed herewith  E-1
Broderick Don SCOTT, petitioner, v. Wendy KELLEY, Director, Arkansas Department of Correction.

No. 15-9497.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 3, 2016.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit denied.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                       1,006,297
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   26,829
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                          56,844
<DEPRECIATION>                                  16,669
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,429,682
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         2,080
<OTHER-SE>                                     292,614
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,429,682
<SALES>                                        202,669
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               202,669
<CGS>                                           71,588
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,187,310
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               200,956
<LOSS-PROVISION>                             (189,686)
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (273,769)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (273,769)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (273,769)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.26)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.26)


</TABLE>
# C_2009102EN.01001803.xml

| 1.5.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 102/18 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.5.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 102/18

---

Action brought on 13 February 2009 — Swarovski v OHIM — Swarovski (Daniel Swarovski Privat)

(Case T-55/09)

2009/C 102/30

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Daniel Swarovski (Volders, Austria) (represented by: R. Küppers, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Swarovski AG (Triesen, Liechtenstein)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of 9 November 2008 in Case R 0348/2008-1; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of 9 November 2008 in Case R 0348/2008-1;

| — | dismiss the appeal; |
| --- | --- |

—

dismiss the appeal;

| — | order the intervener to pay the costs of the proceedings, including the costs of the appeal proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the intervener to pay the costs of the proceedings, including the costs of the appeal proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: Daniel Swarovski

Applicant for a Community trade mark:

Community trade mark concerned: Word mark ‘Daniel Swarovski Privat’ for goods and services in classes 3, 4, 8, 9, 15, 16, 18, 20, 21, 26, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 39 and 44 (application No 3 981 099)

Community trade mark concerned:

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Swarovski AG

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings:

Mark or sign cited in opposition: Word mark ‘DANIEL SWAROVSKI’ for goods and services in classes 16, 18, 21, 25 and 41 (Community trade mark No 3 895 133); word mark ‘Swarovski’ for goods and services in classes 2, 3, 6, 8, 9, 11, 16, 18, 19, 20, 21, 24, 25, 28, 34, 35 and 41 (Community trade mark No 3 895 091); word mark ‘Swarovski’ for services in class 36 (Austrian word mark No 218 795); word mark ‘Swarovski’ for goods in classes 11, 16, 21 and 34 (Austrian word mark No 96 389); and word mark ‘Swarovski’ for goods in classes 8, 9, 11, 14, 18, 21, 25 and 26 (international registration in respect of Italy No 528 189)

Mark or sign cited in opposition:

Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition allowed in part

Decision of the Opposition Division:

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed in part

Decision of the Board of Appeal:

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) and (5) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (1) since there is no likelihood of confusion between the marks at issue or the requisite detriment to the earlier marks and, moreover, since the scope of protection of the earlier marks has been determined incorrectly.

Pleas in law:

1

---

(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark (OJ 1994 L 11, p. 1).

1

---
Renata Nicole ANNESE, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 16-7140.

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.
II-00447

From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

Steve Nepi <snepi@comcast.net>

Thursday, December 2, 2010 6:29 PM

dfadefinitions <dfadefinitions@CFTC.gov>

Re: No loopholes in Dodd-Frank

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

3235-AK65, SEC File Number $7-12-10)

Dear Commissioners Shapiro and Gensler: Don’t let the American Bankers Association (ABA) redefine important terms like

"commercial risk" to keep banks that engage in risky derivatives trading from complying with transparency and business

conduct requirements. Commercial risk should not be expanded to include financial risk. Accepting the ABA argument

would open the door for exemptions for risky hedge funds and insurance companies.

2) Commodities Futures Trading Commission, Re: Position Limits (RIN 3038-AD 17 )

Dear Commissioner Gensler: The CFTC needs to set strong position limits to crack down on the energy and food commodity

speculation that serves no productive purpose. I urge the Commission to define limits that will address not only manipulation,

but also excessive speculation, which will require a stricter approach.

3) U.S. Department of the Treasury, Re: FX Swaps (75 FR 66426 Document Number 2010-27274)

Dear Secretary Geithner: Just say "no" to foreign exchange traders who want to exempt foreign currency derivatives from the

clearing and transparency requirements of the

Dodd-Frank Act. $4 trillion dollars a day is traded in these highly-leveraged swaps and this number may increase to over $10

trillion in a decade. As the head of the Financial

Stability Oversight Board your job is to decrease risk in the system, not encourage off-book trading and opaque markets.

Steve Nepi

2172 Champlain Dr.

Boulder, CO 80301
Kenjuan DE ADAMS, petitioner, v. William MUNIZ, Warden.

No. 15-9293.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 3, 2016.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.
II-00770

From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

timothy strong <wingnut@buffalo.com>

Thursday, December 2, 2010 11:30 AM

dfadefinitions <dfadefinitions@CFTC.gov>

Re: No loopholes in Dodd-Frank

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

3235-AK65, SEC File Number $7-12-10)

Dear Commissioners Shapiro and Gensler: Don’t let the American Bankers Association (ABA) redefine important terms like

"commercial risk" to keep banks that engage in risky derivatives trading from complying with transparency and business

conduct requirements. Commercial risk should not be expanded to include financial risk. Accepting the ABA argument

would open the door for exemptions for risky hedge funds and insurance companies.

2) Commodities Futures Trading Commission, Re: Position Limits (RIN 3038-AD 17 )

Dear Commissioner Gensler: The CFTC needs to set strong position limits to crack down on the energy and food commodity

speculation that serves no productive purpose. I urge the Commission to define limits that will address not only manipulation,

but also excessive speculation, which will require a stricter approach.

3) U.S. Department of the Treasury, Re: FX Swaps (75 FR 66426 Document Number 2010-27274)

Dear Secretary Geithner: Just say "no" to foreign exchange traders who want to exempt foreign currency derivatives from the

clearing and transparency requirements of the

Dodd-Frank Act. $4 trillion dollars a day is traded in these highly-leveraged swaps and this number may increase to over $10

trillion in a decade. As the head of the Financial

Stability Oversight Board your job is to decrease risk in the system, not encourage off-book trading and opaque markets.

timothy strong

7 woodbrook

e aurora, NY 14052
Order filed, June 8, 2022.

In The



## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14

- 22

- 00288

- CR

____________

DANIEL CHRISTOPHER WALSH , Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee

On Appeal from the 232nd District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 1639142



### ORDER

The reporter’s record in this case was due April 18, 2022

. See Tex. R. App.

P. 35.1. The court sent past due notice for the reporter’s record on April 29,

2022. On May 25, 2022 the court determine d that the reporter ’ s record

submitted by the court reporter did not comply with Appendix C of the Texas

Rules of Appellate Procedure. N o r esponse was received, and t he record has not

been filed with the court. Because the reporter’s record has not been filed

timely, we issue the following order.

We order Ar lene Webb , the court reporter, to file the record in this appeal

within 10 days of the date of this order

.

PER CURIAM

Panel Consists of Justices Bourliot, Hassa n , and Wilson
Jack FRISON, Sr., petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 16-506.

Supreme Court of the United States

Nov. 28, 2016.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit denied.
***EXHIBIT 32***

 

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANICAL OFFICER 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 report on Form 10-K of Planktos Corp. for the annual period ended December 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (“Report”), I, Robert Fisher, do hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge and belief:

 

|   | (1) | This 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 this Report fairly represents, in all material respects, the financial condition of the registrant at the end of the period covered by this Report and results of operations of the registrant for the period covered by this Report. |
|--------|-----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

Date: April 25, 2008

 

/s/ Robert Fisher  

Robert Fisher, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer

 

This certification accompanies this Report pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the registrant for the purposes of §18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. This certification shall not be incorporated by reference into any filing under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (whether made before or after the date of this Report), irrespective of any general incorporation language contained in such filing.

 

A signed original of this written statement required by §906 has been provided to the registrant and will be retained by the registrant and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

 

 

 

 

32
# C_2009102EN.01002201.xml

| 1.5.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 102/22 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.5.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 102/22

---

Action brought on 17 February 2009 — Volkswagen AG v OHIM

(Case T-63/09)

2009/C 102/35

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Volkswagen AG (Wolfsburg, Germany) (represented by: H.-P. Schrammek, C. Drzymalla and S. Risthaus, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Suzuki Motor Corporation

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 9 December 2008 in Case R-749/2007-2; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 9 December 2008 in Case R-749/2007-2;

| — | Order the defendant to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: Suzuki Motor Corporation

Applicant for a Community trade mark:

Community trade mark concerned: Word mark ‘SWIFT GTi’ for goods in Class 12 (application No 3 456 084)

Community trade mark concerned:

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The applicant

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings:

Mark or sign cited in opposition: German word mark ‘GTI’ (No 39 406 386) and international word mark ‘GTI’ (No 717 592) for goods in Class 12

Mark or sign cited in opposition:

Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejection of the opposition

Decision of the Opposition Division:

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal

Decision of the Board of Appeal:

Pleas in law: Breach of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) 40/94, (1) since there is a likelihood of confusion between the two opposing marks.

Pleas in law:

1

---

(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark (OJ 1994 L 11, p. 1).

1

---
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

March 26, 2007 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

132826 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman,

 Justices 

v SC: 132826 

 COA: 270707

 Oakland CC: 2005-202847-FH 

MICHAEL ROGER BRULEZ,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the November 8, 2006 

order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court. 

s0319 

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

March 26, 2007 

 Clerk