alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2010288EN.01007102.xml

| 23.10.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 288/71 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.10.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 288/71

---

Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 29 June 2010 — Esneau-Kappé v European Police Office (Europol)

(Case F-42/09) (1)

(Staff case - Europol employees - Non-renewal of a contract - Contract of indefinite duration - Article 6 of the Staff Regulations applicable to Europol employees - Principle of respect for the rights of the defence)

(2010/C 288/133)

Language of the case: Dutch

Parties

Applicant: Anne Esneau-Kappé (The Hague, Netherlands) (represented initially by P. de Casparis, lawyer, then by W. J. Dammingh and N. D. Dane, lawyers)

Defendant: European Police Office (Europol) (represented by D. Neumann and D. El Khoury, agents, and by B. Wägenbaur and R. Van der Hout, lawyers)

Re:

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

Operative part of the judgment

The Tribunal:

| 1. | annuls the decision of 12 June 2008 by which the European Police Office (Europol) refused to offer to Ms Esneau-Kappé a contract of indefinite duration; |
| --- | --- |

1.

annuls the decision of 12 June 2008 by which the European Police Office (Europol) refused to offer to Ms Esneau-Kappé a contract of indefinite duration;

| 2. | orders Europol to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

orders Europol to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 180, of 01.08.09., p 63

---
### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN
NO. 03 - 20 - 00189 - CV Appellant, Paul Marx// Cross - Appellants, Nellie Katherine Marx, Sandra Jones and William Donald Marx, Individually and as Co - Trustees of the Paul Marx 2013

Management Trust, and Joh nnie Love - Marx

v. Appellees, Nellie Katherine Marx, Sandra Jones and William Donald Marx, Individually and as Co - Trustees of the Paul Marx 2013 Management Trust// Cross - Appellees,

Paul Marx and Johnnie Love - Mar x

FROM THE PROBATE C OURT NO. 1 OF TRAVIS COUNTY NO. C - 1 - PB - 16 - 000686, THE HONORABLE GUY S. HERMAN, JUDGE PRESIDING
O R D E R PER CURIAM

Joseph S. Babb, who has been appointed to serve as guardian of the estate of
a ppellant Paul Marx fo r limited purposes related to this litigation, has filed a mot ion to allow him, in his c apacity as guardian of the estate of P aul Marx , to substitute as appellant in place of Paul Marx
. See Tex. R. App. P. 7.1 ( b ). The Court grants the motion. The case now will be styled as follows: J

oseph S. Babb as Gu ardian of the Estate of Pa ul Marx // Cross

- Appellants, Nellie Katherine Marx ; Sandra Jones ; and William Donald Marx, Individually and as Co

- Trustees of the Paul Marx 2013 Management Trust ; and Joh nnie Love

- Marx v. Nellie Katherine Marx ; Sandra Jones ; and William D onald Marx, Individually and asCo

- Trustees of the Paul Marx 2013 Management Trust// Cross

- Appellees, Joseph S. Babb as

Gu ardian of the Estate of Pa ul Marx and Johnnie Love

- Marx
.

It is ordered on September 3, 2020
.
Before Jus tices Goodwin, Triana, and S mith
<PAGE>
 
                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.2

                                                                                
                       [KPMG Peat Marwick LLP Letterhead]

                        INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS' REPORT
                                        

Board of Directors
Headlands Mortgage Company:

We have examined management's assertion about Headlands Mortgage Company's (the
Company) compliance with the minimum servicing standards set forth in the
Mortgage Bankers Association of America's (MBA's) Uniform Single Attestation
Program for Mortgage Bankers (USAP) as of and for the year ended December 31,
1998 included in the accompanying management assertion.  Management is
responsible for the Company's compliance with those minimum servicing standards.
Our responsibility is to express an opinion on management's assertion about the
Company's compliance based on our examination.

Our examination was made in accordance with standards established by the
American Institute of Certified Public Accountants and, accordingly, included
examining, on a test basis, evidence about the Company's compliance with the
minimum servicing standards and performing such other procedures as we
considered necessary in the circumstances.  We believe that our examination
provides a reasonable basis for our opinion.  Our examination does not provide a
legal determination on the Company's compliance with the minimum servicing
standards.

In our opinion, management's assertion that the Company has complied in all
material respects with the aforementioned minimum servicing standards as of and
for the year ended December 31, 1998 is fairly stated, in all material respects.

San Francisco, California
February 2, 1999

                                           /s/   KPMG Peat Marwick LLP

                                       8
<PAGE>
 
                [HEADLANDS MORTGAGE SECURITIES INC. LETTERHEAD]

As of and for the year ended December 31, 1998, Headlands Mortgage Company (the
"Company") has complied in all material respects with the minimum servicing
standards set forth in the Mortgage Bankers Association of America's Uniform
Single Attestation Program for Mortgage Bankers.  As of and for this same
period, the Company had in effect a fidelity bond and errors and omissions
policy both in the amount of $6.6 million.



                              HEADLANDS MORTGAGE COMPANY



                              By:
                                 ------------------------------------
                                 Dennis Tussey
                                 Senior Vice President, Loan Administration

                                       9
[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 123 (Tuesday, June 26, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Page 33965]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-15919]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Administration on Aging


Public Information Collection Requirement Submitted to the Office 
of Management and Budget for Clearance

AGENCY: Administration on Aging, HHS.
    The Administration on Aging (AoA), Department of Health and Human 
Services, has submitted the following proposal for the collection of 
information in compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA; Pub. 
L. 96-511): State Annual Long-Term Care Ombudsman Report and 
Instructions.
    Type of Request: Extension of a currently approved collection.
    Use: Extension of reporting format for use by states in reporting 
on activities of their Long-Term Care Ombudsman Programs, as required 
under section 712 of the Older Americans Act, as amended.
    Frequency: Annually.
    Respondents: State Agencies on Aging.
    Estimated Number of Responses: 52.
    Total Estimated Burden Hours: 7,235.
    Additional Information or Comments: The Administration on Aging has 
submitted to the Office of Management and Budget, for approval, an 
extension, with no revisions, of a reporting form and instructions for 
the State Annual Long-Term-Care Ombudsman Report, pursuant to 
requirements in Section 712(b) and (h) of the Older Americans Act. AoA 
published in the March 13, 2001 Federal Register a notice that it 
planned to request the extension and inviting comments; no comments 
were received. The form is currently being evaluated for possible 
revision to reflect additional programmatic reporting needs. However, 
this should not affect the PRA clearance process. Written comments and 
recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent 
within 30 days of the publication of this notice directly to the 
following address: Office of Regulatory Affairs, Atten: Allison Herron 
Eydt, OMB Desk Officer, Room 10325, Washington, DC 20201.

    Dated: June 15, 2001.
Norman L. Thompson,
Acting Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Aging.
[FR Doc. 01-15919 Filed 6-25-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4154-01-P
# C_2009102EN.01003201.xml

| 1.5.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 102/32 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.5.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 102/32

---

Appeal brought on 2 March 2009 by Carina Skareby against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal delivered on 15 December 2008 in Case F-34/07, Skareby v Commission

(Case T-91/09 P)

2009/C 102/47

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Appellant: Carina Skareby (Leuven, Belgium) (represented by S. Rodrigues and C. Bernard-Glanz, lawyers)

Appellant:

Other party to the proceedings: Commission of the European Communities

Other party to the proceedings:

Form of order sought by the appellant

Form of order sought by the appellant

| — | Declare the appeal admissible; |
| --- | --- |

—

Declare the appeal admissible;

| — | set aside the judgment delivered on 15 December 2008 by the European Civil Service Tribunal in Case F-34/07; |
| --- | --- |

—

set aside the judgment delivered on 15 December 2008 by the European Civil Service Tribunal in Case F-34/07;

| — | allow the pleadings seeking the setting aside of that judgment and compensation submitted by the applicant before the Civil Service Tribunal; |
| --- | --- |

—

allow the pleadings seeking the setting aside of that judgment and compensation submitted by the applicant before the Civil Service Tribunal;

| — | order the Commission to pay the costs of both instances. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission to pay the costs of both instances.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

By the present appeal, the appellant seeks the setting aside of the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (CST) of 15 December 2008 delivered in Case F-34/07 Skareby v Commission dismissing the action by which the appellant sought, firstly, annulment of her career development report for 2005 and, secondly, damages.

Skareby

Commission

In support of her appeal, the appellant raises three pleas alleging an error of legal characterisation of the facts, a failure correctly to apply Article 5 of the general implementing provisions and Article 43 of the Staff Regulations of officials of the European Communities and a failure to state reasons, since the CST ruled that it could not be said that the Commission had not carried out an assessment of the appellant for the period from January to September 2005, despite the fact that the appellant’s career development report for 2005 was, almost word for word, merely a virtually identical copy of the appellant’s career development report for 2004.

---
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-7605

EARL SYLVESTER STEWART, Petitioner - Appellant, versus EVELYN SEIFERT, Respondent - Appellee.Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Wheeling. Frederick P. Stamp, Jr., Chief District Judge. (CA-99-110-5) Submitted: January 18, 2001 Decided: January 25, 2001 Before WIDENER and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Earl Sylvester Stewart, Appellant Pro Se. Darrell V. McGraw, Jr.,Dawn Ellen Warfield, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF WEST VIRGINIA, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Earl Sylvester Stewart seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254(West 1994 & Supp. 2000). We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because Stewart’s notice of appeal was not timely filed. Parties are accorded thirty days after entry of the district court’s final judgment or order to note an appeal, see Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1), unless the district court extends the appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5) or reopens the appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6). This appeal period is “mandatory and jurisdictional.” Browder v. Director, Dep’t of Corrections , 434 U.S. 257, 264 (1978) (quoting United States v. Robinson , 361 U.S. 220, 229 (1960)).The district court’s order was entered on the docket on September 20, 2000. Stewart’s notice of appeal was filed on November 1, 2000. Because he failed to file a timely notice of appeal or to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, 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
Order entered March 11, 2022

In The 

### Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05

- 21

- 01005

- CV

GREG GUTMAN , Appellant

V.

JOE JAMESON , Appellee

On Appeal from the County Court at Law N o. 4

Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. CC

- 20

- 05078

- D

O RDER

Before the Court is appellee’s March 9, 2022 first partially opposed motion

for extension of time to file his brief

. We GRANT the motion and ORDER the

brief be filed no later than April 11, 2022.

/s/ CRAIG SMITH JUSTICE
**EXHIBIT 32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION**

**PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**

**AS ADOPTED BY SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

I, Paul D.Melnuk, as Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer of ThermadyneHoldings Corporation (the “Company”) certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.§ 1350, as adopted by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, thatto my knowledge:

 

(1) theaccompanying Form 10-Q report for the period ending September  30, 2004 as filed with the U.S. Securitiesand Exchange Commission (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements ofSection 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

 

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

 

 
| Dated:  November 9, 2004 |   |   |
|--------------------------|--------|--------|
|                     |   |   |
|                     | By:    |   | /s/ Paul D.  Melnuk |   |
|                     |   |   |   |
|                     |   |   | Paul D.  Melnuk |
|                     |   |   | Chief  Executive Officer |
|                     |   |   | (Principal Executive Officer) |

** **

----
II-00340

From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

John Armstrong <calotus@msn.com>

Friday, December 3, 2010 12:22 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.

John Armstrong

3450 E. Marshall Gulch Place

Tucson, AZ 85718
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 1491 Engrossed in House (EH)]

H. Res. 1491

                In the House of Representatives, U. S.,

                                                         July 20, 2010.
Whereas, on June 29, 2010, the University of South Carolina Gamecocks won the 
        2010 NCAA Division I College World Series in Rosenblatt Stadium in 
        Omaha, Nebraska;
Whereas a base hit to right field drove in the final run for the University of 
        South Carolina Gamecocks to win 2-1 against the UCLA Bruins in the 
        bottom of the 11th inning;
Whereas the University of South Carolina Gamecocks showed great skill, patience, 
        and will by withstanding a first-round loss and then winning 6 
        consecutive games for the national title;
Whereas the University of South Carolina Gamecocks won their first NCAA baseball 
        title; and
Whereas head coach Ray Tanner and the University of South Carolina Gamecocks 
        bring great pride and honor to the fans and residents of South Carolina 
        with this victory: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved, That the House of Representatives congratulates the University of 
South Carolina Gamecocks on the outstanding accomplishment of winning the 2010 
NCAA Division I College World Series.
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```
# C_2011319EN.01001502.xml

| 29.10.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 319/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.10.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 319/15

---

Judgment of the General Court of 21 September 2011 — Rügen Fisch v OHIM — Schwaaner Fischwaren (SCOMBER MIX)

(Case T-201/09) (1)

1

(Community trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - Community word mark SCOMBER MIX - Absolute grounds of refusal - Descriptive Character - Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation EC No 40/94 (now Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

2011/C 319/29

Language of the case: German

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Rügen Fisch AG (Sassnitz, Germany) (represented by: O. Spuhler and M. Geitz, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: G. Schneider, Agent)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervening before the General Court: Schwaaner Fischwaren GmbH (Schwaan, Germany) (represented by: A. Jaeger-Lenz, lawyer)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervening before the General Court:

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 20 March 2009 (Case R 230/2007-4), relating to invalidity proceedings between Rügen Fisch AG and Schwaaner Fischwaren GmbH.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Rügen Fisch AG to bear the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Rügen Fisch AG to bear the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 180, 1.8.2009.

1

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

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the Form
10-Q as of September 30, 1997 and for the nine months then ended, and is
qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial statements and
footnotes.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                       2,589,079
<SECURITIES>                                31,688,125
<RECEIVABLES>                                3,543,529
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                  8,368,379
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            46,635,977
<PP&E>                                       5,580,194
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              64,257,167
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        6,260,911
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                   141,007,347
<OTHER-SE>                                (83,132,697)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                64,257,167
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             7,584,101
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                3,276,289
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            25,053,915
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              29,150
<INCOME-PRETAX>                           (18,818,254)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                       (18,818,254)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                              (18,818,254)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (1.33)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.00
        

</TABLE>
NEW YORK, et al., petitioners, v. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, et al.

No. 17-418.

Supreme Court of the United States

Feb. 26, 2018.

*1165Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit denied.
II-00728

From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

Bruce Jenkins <bjenksp@yahoo.com>

Thursday, December 2, 2010 11:57 AM

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.

Bruce Jenkins

907 Tanager Ct

Sunnyvale, CA 94087