alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<TABLE> <S> <C>
 
 
<ARTICLE> 6 
<CIK> 0000744822
<NAME> Fidelity Investment Trust
<SERIES>
 <NUMBER> 181
 <NAME> Fidelity France Fund
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>
<C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                year         
 
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>            oct-31-1998  
 
<PERIOD-END>                 oct-31-1998  
 
<INVESTMENTS-AT-COST>        14,765       
 
<INVESTMENTS-AT-VALUE>       16,182       
 
<RECEIVABLES>                378          
 
<ASSETS-OTHER>               0            
 
<OTHER-ITEMS-ASSETS>         0            
 
<TOTAL-ASSETS>               16,560       
 
<PAYABLE-FOR-SECURITIES>     7            
 
<SENIOR-LONG-TERM-DEBT>      0            
 
<OTHER-ITEMS-LIABILITIES>    123          
 
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES>          130          
 
<SENIOR-EQUITY>              0            
 
<PAID-IN-CAPITAL-COMMON>     17,282       
 
<SHARES-COMMON-STOCK>        1,114        
 
<SHARES-COMMON-PRIOR>        420          
 
<ACCUMULATED-NII-CURRENT>    38           
 
<OVERDISTRIBUTION-NII>       0            
 
<ACCUMULATED-NET-GAINS>      (2,311)      
 
<OVERDISTRIBUTION-GAINS>     0            
 
<ACCUM-APPREC-OR-DEPREC>     1,421        
 
<NET-ASSETS>                 16,430       
 
<DIVIDEND-INCOME>            253          
 
<INTEREST-INCOME>            88           
 
<OTHER-INCOME>               (27)         
 
<EXPENSES-NET>               264          
 
<NET-INVESTMENT-INCOME>      50           
 
<REALIZED-GAINS-CURRENT>     (2,316)      
 
<APPREC-INCREASE-CURRENT>    978          
 
<NET-CHANGE-FROM-OPS>        (1,288)      
 
<EQUALIZATION>               0            
 
<DISTRIBUTIONS-OF-INCOME>    17           
 
<DISTRIBUTIONS-OF-GAINS>     474          
 
<DISTRIBUTIONS-OTHER>        0            
 
<NUMBER-OF-SHARES-SOLD>      1,626        
 
<NUMBER-OF-SHARES-REDEEMED>  973          
 
<SHARES-REINVESTED>          39           
 
<NET-CHANGE-IN-ASSETS>       10,852       
 
<ACCUMULATED-NII-PRIOR>      23           
 
<ACCUMULATED-GAINS-PRIOR>    744          
 
<OVERDISTRIB-NII-PRIOR>      0            
 
<OVERDIST-NET-GAINS-PRIOR>   0            
 
<GROSS-ADVISORY-FEES>        91           
 
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>           14           
 
<GROSS-EXPENSE>              342          
 
<AVERAGE-NET-ASSETS>         12,484       
 
<PER-SHARE-NAV-BEGIN>        13.270       
 
<PER-SHARE-NII>              .060         
 
<PER-SHARE-GAIN-APPREC>      2.460        
 
<PER-SHARE-DIVIDEND>         .040         
 
<PER-SHARE-DISTRIBUTIONS>    1.150        
 
<RETURNS-OF-CAPITAL>         0            
 
<PER-SHARE-NAV-END>          14.750       
 
<EXPENSE-RATIO>              212          
 
<AVG-DEBT-OUTSTANDING>       0            
 
<AVG-DEBT-PER-SHARE>         0
II-00506

From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

Robert Howerth <rdhowerth@yahoo.com>

Thursday, December 2, 2010 4:03 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.

Robert Howerth

468 Yolanda Av. # 12

Santa Rosa, CA 95404
# C_2011226EN.01000302.xml

| 30.7.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 226/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.7.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 226/3

---

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 9 June 2011 — European Commission v French Republic

(Case C-383/09) (1)

1

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Habitats Directive - Inadequacy of measures taken to protect the species Cricetus cricetus (European hamster) - Deterioration of habitats)

2011/C 226/04

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: O. Beynet and D. Recchia, Agents)

Applicant:

Defendant: French Republic (represented by: G. de Bergues and S. Menez, Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Failure to take the measures necessary to comply with Article 12(1)(d) of Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora de (OJ 1992 L 206, p. 7) — Inadequacy of measures taken to protect the species Cricetus cricetus (European Hamster) — Deterioration of habitats

Cricetus cricetus

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Declares that, by failing to establish a programme of measures to ensure strict protection of the European hamster (Cricetus cricetus), the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 12(1)(d) of Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora, as amended by Council Directive 2006/105/EC of 20 November 2006; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Declares that, by failing to establish a programme of measures to ensure strict protection of the European hamster (Cricetus cricetus), the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 12(1)(d) of Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora, as amended by Council Directive 2006/105/EC of 20 November 2006;

| 2. | Orders the French Republic to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the French Republic to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 312, 19.12.2009.

1

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

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1

<S>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>           3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                   DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                        MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                               10,514,489
<SECURITIES>                                  0
<RECEIVABLES>                                 0
<ALLOWANCES>                                  0
<INVENTORY>                                   0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                     10,780,249
<PP&E>                                        0
<DEPRECIATION>                                0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                       10,780,249
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                   390,332
<BONDS>                                       0
<COMMON>                                      0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                         0
<PREFERRED>                                   0
<OTHER-SE>                                    0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>         10,780,249
<SALES>                                       0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                     (1,831,289)
<CGS>                                         0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                 0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                        424,580
<LOSS-PROVISION>                              0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                            0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                      (2,255,869)
<INCOME-TAX>                                  0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                  (2,255,869)
<DISCONTINUED>                                0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                               0
<CHANGES>                                     0
<NET-INCOME>                         (2,255,869)
<EPS-BASIC>                              (255.74)
<EPS-DILUTED>                              (255.74)


</TABLE>
# C_2011030EN.01000901.xml

| 29.1.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 30/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.1.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 30/9

---

Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 2 December 2010 — European Commission v Portuguese Republic

(Case C-526/09) (1)

1

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations - Environment - Directive 91/271/EEC - Urban waste-water treatment - Article 11(1) and (2) - Discharge of industrial waste water into collecting systems and urban waste water treatment plants - Subject to prior regulations and/or specific authorisations - Lack of authorisation)

2011/C 30/13

Language of the case: Portuguese

Parties

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: S. Pardo Quintillán and G. Braga da Cruz, acting as Agents)

Applicant:

Defendant: Portuguese Republic (represented by: L. Inez Fernandes, acting as Agent)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Infringement of Article 11(1) and (2) of Council Directive 91/271/EEC of 21 May 1991 concerning urban waste-water treatment (OJ 1991 L 135, p. 40) — Licence to discharge waste water — ‘Estação de Serviço Sobritos’

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | declares that, by permitting the discharge of industrial waste water from the industrial site Estação de Serviço Sobritos Lda, situated in the Matosinhos urban area, without adequate authorisation to that effect, the Portuguese Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 11(1) and (2) of Council Directive 91/271/EEC of 21 May 1991 concerning urban waste-water treatment; |
| --- | --- |

1.

declares that, by permitting the discharge of industrial waste water from the industrial site Estação de Serviço Sobritos Lda, situated in the Matosinhos urban area, without adequate authorisation to that effect, the Portuguese Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 11(1) and (2) of Council Directive 91/271/EEC of 21 May 1991 concerning urban waste-water treatment;

da

| 2. | orders the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

orders the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 51, 27.02.2010.

1

---
Exhibit 23.1

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

We hereby consent to the
incorporation by reference in Registration Statements on Form S-8 (Nos. 333-69616, 333-49027, 333-69618, 333-89496, 333-114965, 333-114969, 333-150418, and 333-17687) of Speedway Motorsports of our report dated March 16, 2010 relating to the
financial statements and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting, which appears in this Form 10-K.



|                                 
|---------------------------------
|                                 
|/s/    PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
|PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP       
|Charlotte, North Carolina        
|                                 
|March 16, 2010
Order entered November 25 , 2015

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05
- 14
- 00822
- CR ANTWON CARTER, Appellant

V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the 296th Judicial District Court

Collin County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 296
- 81511
- 2013



### O RDER On September 1, 2015, we ordered that Stephanie Hudson be removed as appellant’s attorney and that the trial court appoint new counsel to represent appellant on this appeal. On September 2, 2015, we received the trial cou rt’s order appointing Pamela Laka tos as appellant’s new attorney and on September 4, 2015, we ordered counsel to file appellant’s brief within sixty days. To date, however, Ms. Lakatos has neither filed appellant’s brief nor communicated with the Court re garding the status of the brief. Accordingly, we ORDER the trial court to conduct a hearing to determine why appellant’s brief has not been filed. In this regard, the trial court shall make appropriate findings and recommendations and determine whether ap pellant desires to prosecute the appeal, whether appellant is indigent, or if not indigent, whether retained counsel has abandoned the appeal. SeeT EX
. R. A PP
. P. 38.8( b ). If the trial court cannot obtain appellant’s presence at the hearing, the

trial co urt shall conduct the hearing in appellant’s absence. See Meza v. State , 742 S.W.2d 708 (Tex. App.

– Corpus Christi 1987, no pet.) (per curiam). If appellant is indigent, the trial court is ORDERED to take such measures as may be necessary to assure effect ive representation, which may include appointment of new counsel.
We ORDER the trial court to transmit a record of the proceedings, which shall include written findings and recommendations, to this Court within THIRTY DAYS of the date of this order. This appeal is ABATED to allow the trial court to comply with the above order. The appeal shall be reinstated thirty days from the date of this order or when the findings are received, whichever is earlier.
/s/ ADA BROWN JUSTICE
Thomas Eugene KREBS, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 16-7143.

Supreme Court of the United States

Jan. 9, 2017.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit denied.
John E. CARTER, petitioner, v. Herbert H. SLATERY, III, Attorney General of Tennessee.

No. 16-614.

Supreme Court of the United States

Jan. 9, 2017.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals of Tennessee, Middle Division denied.
***EXHIBIT 31***

 

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

 

I, Robert Fisher, certify that:  

 

1. I have reviewed this report on Form 10-K (“Report”) of Planktos Corp.;  

 

2. Based on my knowledge, this Report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this Report;   

 

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this Report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the period presented in this Report;   

 

4. I am responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e) for the registrant and have:  

 

a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under my supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to me by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this Report is being prepared;   

 

b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this Report my conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this Report based on such evaluation; and  

 

c) Disclosed in this Report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and   

 

5. I have disclosed based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of the registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):   

 

a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal controls over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and   

 

b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal controls over financial reporting. 

 

Date: April 25, 2008

 

/s/ Robert Fisher

Robert Fisher, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer

 

31

 

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

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                           5,175
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    2,751
<ALLOWANCES>                                      (82)
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 8,247
<PP&E>                                           3,182
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (2,059)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  10,018
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            2,985
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            78
<OTHER-SE>                                       6,955
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    10,018
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 2,521
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                      141
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 2,553
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  64
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  (109)
<INCOME-TAX>                                        92
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              (201)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     (201)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.03)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.03)
        

</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                       3,601,870
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                3,085,963
<ALLOWANCES>                                 (495,000)
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             6,411,218
<PP&E>                                       1,438,133
<DEPRECIATION>                               (375,135)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              35,155,705
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        6,583,996
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                  4,087,496
<COMMON>                                         6,273     
<OTHER-SE>                                   2,102,682
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                35,155,705
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             4,146,489
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                4,884,913
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             555,802
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (1,294,226)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (1,294,226)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (1,294,226)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.22)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
956.

#### Thomason *et al. v.*Keeney.

Action on bond, from city court of Atlanta- — Judge Reid. January 6, 1908.

Argued February 24,

Decided September 28, 1908.

*Dodd & Dodd,*for plaintiffs in error.

*E. M. & G. F. Mitchell,*contra.

Hill, C. J.

1. A petition in a suit on a contractor’s bond executed as a. part of the contract and for the faithful performance thereof, which sets, forth in full the contract and bond, alleges specific breaches of the contract, resulting in damage to the plaintiff, Igives the items of damages, claimed, and contains allegations that the plaintiff obligee fully complied with all the terms and conditions of the bond, is good, as against, a general demurrer.

2. Where the facts recited in the declaration show performance on the part of the plaintiff, as obligee in a bond, of all its terms and conditions, a. general allegation of performance is unnecessary. 1 Chit. Pl. 535; Gould, PI. § 13.

3. A requirement in a contractor’s bond that the obligee shall give immediate notice to the surety of any default by the contractor is equivalent to a requirement of reasonable notice; and what is reasonable notice is. in each case a question of fact for the jury. *Killian*v. *Georgia R. Co.,*97 *Ga.*728 (25 S. E. 384) ; *Atlantic Compress Co.*v. *Young,*118 *Ga.*868 (45 S. E. 677) ; Fidelity Co. *v.*Courtney, 186 U. S. 342 (22 Sup. Ct. 833, 46 L. ed. 1193) ; Fidelity Co. *v.*Robertson, 136 Ala. 379 (34 So. 933) ; 21 Cyc. 1733, 1734, and cit.

4. Where a contractor’s bond provides that “if the principals shall voluntarily abandon said contract, or be lawfully compelled by the obligee to cease operations thereunder, by-reason of their non-performance of any of its terms or conditions, then" the surety shall have the right, in its option, to assume the said contract and to sublet or complete the same,” a reasonable time should, be given to the surety, after the default of the contractor, in which to exercise' such option. What would be a reasonable time is a question to be determined by the jury, under the facts and circumstances of each particular ease.

*Judgment affirmed.*
Third District Court of Appeal

State of Florida

Opinion filed June 30, 2021.

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________

No. 3D21-1138

Lower Tribunal No. F06-43010

________________

Santiago Milian,

Appellant,

vs.

The State of Florida,

Appellee.

An Appeal under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.141(b)(2) from 

the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Jose L. Fernandez, Judge.

Santiago Milian, in proper person.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, for appellee.

Before FERNANDEZ, HENDON and BOKOR, JJ. 

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.