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

<ARTICLE> 9
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM FORM 10-Q
AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FORM 10-Q.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                      54,405,783
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                       5,169,062
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                     0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                227,964,017
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                      89,548,462
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                        86,976,511
<LOANS>                                  1,757,476,803
<ALLOWANCE>                                (7,663,526)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                           2,246,060,864
<DEPOSITS>                               1,620,707,025
<SHORT-TERM>                               162,475,000
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                         21,340,379
<LONG-TERM>                                308,457,767
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                    36,534,227
<OTHER-SE>                                  96,546,466
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>           2,246,060,864
<INTEREST-LOAN>                             33,134,873
<INTEREST-INVEST>                            6,104,051
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                     0
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                            39,230,924
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                          17,313,220
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                          24,239,656
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                       14,999,268
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                  111,775
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                             14,564,691
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              8,789,542
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                   5,665,369
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 5,665,369
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.31
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.30
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    7.63
<LOANS-NON>                                    889,000
<LOANS-PAST>                                         0
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                              2,000,000
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                             7,231,941
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                  264,246
<RECOVERIES>                                         0
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                            7,663,529
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                         7,663,529
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0


</TABLE>
Akeem METTS, petitioner, v. PENNSYLVANIA.

No. 16-6669.

Supreme Court of the United States

Jan. 9, 2017.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Superior Court of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia Office denied.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
     THIS SCHEDULE  CONTAINS SUMMARY  FINANCIAL  INFORMATION  EXTRACTED FROM THE
UNAUDITED  CONSOLIDATED  INTERIM  FINANCIAL  STATEMENTS  OF  AMERICAN  GAMING  &
ENTERTAINMENT,  LTD. FOR THE NINE MONTH PERIOD ENDED  SEPTEMBER  30, 1996 AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>                  1
<CURRENCY>                    U.S. DOLLARS
       
<S>                            <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                        9-MOS
<PERIOD-START>                JAN-01-1996
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>              DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                   SEP-30-1996
<EXCHANGE-RATE>               1
<CASH>                             50,000
<SECURITIES>                             0
<RECEIVABLES>                            0
<ALLOWANCES>                             0
<INVENTORY>                              0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                   920,000
<PP&E>                          13,888,000
<DEPRECIATION>                   2,600,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                  14,841,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>           55,755,000
<BONDS>                            104,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                    0
<PREFERRED>                     13,019,000
<COMMON>                           126,000
<OTHER-SE>                    (56,664,000)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>    14,841,000
<SALES>                                  0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                     9,000
<CGS>                                    0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                            0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                 3,869,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                         0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>               4,781,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                 (8,628,000)
<INCOME-TAX>                             0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>             (8,628,000)
<DISCONTINUED>                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                          0
<CHANGES>                                0
<NET-INCOME>                    (9,095,000)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                        (0.73)
<EPS-DILUTED>                        (0.73)
        

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


<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THE SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM SECURITY
ASSOCIATES INTERNATIONAL, INC.'S BALANCE SHEET AT SEPTEMBER 30, 1997 AND
STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS FOR NINE MONTHS ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 1997.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1
<CURRENCY> 0
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                         527,233
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                2,345,515
<ALLOWANCES>                                   354,029
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             2,735,862
<PP&E>                                       1,041,147
<DEPRECIATION>                                 431,709
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              22,819,055
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        4,786,868
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                  3,846,380
<COMMON>                                         4,199
<OTHER-SE>                                   4,349,189
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                22,819,055
<SALES>                                      7,417,014
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             7,417,014
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                8,488,281
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               172,040
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           1,313,857
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (2,385,124)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (2,385,124)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (2,385,124)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.67)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
Eladio CRUZ, petitioner, v. Jan R. JURDEN, President Judge, Superior Court of Delaware.

No. 16-6337.

Supreme Court of the United States

Dec. 12, 2016.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Delaware denied.
# C_2010328EN.01000701.xml

| 4.12.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 328/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.12.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 328/7

---

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 7 October 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny (Republic of Poland)) — Kronospan Mielec sp. z o.o. v Dyrektor Izby Skarbowej w Rzeszowie

(Case C-222/09) (1)

1

(Sixth VAT Directive - Article 9(2)(c) and (e) - Research and development work carried out by engineers - Determination of the place where services are supplied)

2010/C 328/10

Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Referring court

Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Kronospan Mielec sp. z o.o.

Applicant:

Defendant: Dyrektor Izby Skarbowej w Rzeszowie

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Naczelncy Sąd Administracyjny — Interpretation of the first indent of Article 9(2)(c) and of the third indent of Article 9(2)(e) of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment (OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1), and of Articles 52(a) and 56(1)(c) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1) — Determination, for taxation purposes, of the place where services are supplied — Research and development services provided to a taxable person established in the European Community but outside the Member State in which those services were physically carried out — Classification of those services as either ‘scientific activities’ or ‘services of engineers’

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

Services consisting of research and development work relating to the environment and technology, carried out by engineers established in one Member State on a contract basis for the benefit of a recipient established in another Member State, must be classified as ‘services of engineers’ within the meaning of Article 9(2)(e) of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment.

---

(1)  OJ C 220, 12.9.2009.

1

---
[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 122 (Monday, June 25, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Page 33668]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-15786]


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

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Office of the Secretary


Defense Science Board

AGENCY: Department of Defense.

ACTION: Notice of Advisory Committee Meetings.

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

SUMMARY: The Defense Science Board (DSB) Task Force on E-Commerce will 
meet in closed session on September 25-26, 2001, and October 23, 2001, 
at SAIC, Inc., 4001 N. Fairfax Drive, Arlington, VA. This Task Force 
will review the DoD's current implementation status of e-commerce tools 
and make any appropriate recommendations that might enhance 
opportunities for cost reduction, capital and manpower efficiency.
    The mission of the Defense Science Board is to advise the Secretary 
of Defense and the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, 
Technology & Logistics on scientific and technical matters as they 
affect the perceived needs of the Department of Defense. At these 
meetings, the Defense Science Board Task Force will review and evaluate 
the Department's new procurement approaches and its current 
implementation status in light of the fact that the Department has one 
of the largest acquisition systems in the world for both goods and 
services.
    In accordance with Section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee 
Act, P.L. No. 92-463, as amended (5 U.S.C. App. II), it has been 
determined that these Defense Science Board meetings concern matters 
listed in 5 U.S.C. Sec. 552b(c)(4), and that accordingly these meetings 
will be closed to the public.

    Dated: June 18, 2001.
Patricia L. Toppings,
Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
[FR Doc. 01-15786 Filed 6-22-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 5001-08-M
II-00907

From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

Coral Russell <nownewstrue@gmail. corn>

Thursday, December 2, 2010 10:09 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.

Coral Russell

11332 David Carrasco

E1 Paso, TX 79936
Douglas WEISSERT, petitioner, v. Carmen PALMER, Warden.

No. 17-7278.

Supreme Court of the United States

Feb. 20, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit denied.
# C_2010037EN.01001801.xml

| 13.2.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 37/18 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.2.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 37/18

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de Cassation (France) lodged on 25 November 2009 — Charles Defossez v Christian Wiart, liquidator of Sotimon SARL, Office national de l’emploi, CGEA de Lille

(Case C-477/09)

2010/C 37/19

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Referring court

Cour de Cassation

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Charles Defossez

Applicant:

Defendant: Christian Wiart, liquidator of Sotimon SARL; Office national de l’emploi (fonds de fermeture d’entreprises); CGEA de Lille

Defendant:

Question referred

Question referred

Is the reference to the Court of Justice of the European Communities for a ruling on whether Article 8a of Council Directive 80/987/EEC of 20 October 1980 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the protection of employees in the event of the insolvency of their employer, (1) as amended by Directive 2002/74/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 September 2002, (2) which provides, in paragraph 1 thereof, that when an undertaking with activities in the territories of at least two Member States is in a state of insolvency, the institution responsible for meeting employees’ outstanding claims is to be that in the Member State in whose territory they work or habitually work and, in paragraph 2 thereof, that the extent of employees’ rights is to be determined by the law governing the competent guarantee institution, is to be interpreted as designating the competent institution to the exclusion of any other, or whether, having regard to the purpose of the Directive, which is to strengthen the rights of workers exercising their right to freedom of movement, and to the first paragraph of Article 9 of the Directive, under which the Directive is not to affect the option of Member States to apply or introduce laws, regulations or administrative provisions which are more favourable to employees, it is to be interpreted as not depriving the employee of the right to take advantage, in the place of that institution’s guarantee, of a more favourable guarantee from the institution with which his employer is insured and to which it makes contributions under national law?

1

2

---

(1)  OJ L 283, p. 23.

1

(2)  OJ L 270, p. 10.

2

---
Fatmata KANU, petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS, III, Attorney General.

No. 16-9271.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 2, 2017.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit denied.
II-Ol031

From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

Margaret Broughton <phoenixrise3 @verizon.net>

Thursday, December 2, 2010 8:57 AM

dfadefinitions <dfadefinitions@CFTC.gov>

Re: No loopholes in Dodd-Frank

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

Margaret Broughton

980 Terracina Dr.

Santa Paula, CA 93060
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
THE SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL  INFORMATION  EXTRACTED FROM THE BALANCE
SHEET AS OF SEPTEMBER 30, 2000 AND FROM THE STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS FOR THE NINE
MONTHS ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 2000 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO
SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

<S>                                            <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                  9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                   SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                         1,537,128
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  69,246
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               0<F1>
<PP&E>                                         18,898,356
<DEPRECIATION>                                 0<F2>
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 21,156,278
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          0<F1>
<BONDS>                                        11,910,212
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       0
<OTHER-SE>                                     8,087,094
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   21,156,278
<SALES>                                        3,035,387
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               3,168,061
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  2,617,422
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             613,344
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (62,705)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (62,705)
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (62,705)
<EPS-BASIC>                                    0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  0
<FN>
<F1>THE PARTNERSHIP HAS AN UNCLASSSIFIED BALANCE SHEET, THEREFORE THE VALUE IS
$0.
<F2>THIS INFORMATION IS NOT DISCLOSED IN THE PARTNERSHIP'S FORM 10-Q FILING.
</FN>


</TABLE>
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 1779 Engrossed in House (EH)]

H. Res. 1779

                In the House of Representatives, U. S.,

                                                     December 22, 2010.
Whereas, on May 4, 1961, a Greyhound bus left Washington, DC with black and 
        white passengers and traveled South to challenge discriminatory racial 
        segregation laws;
Whereas, while the travels of these passengers were initially called a Journey 
        of Reconciliation, their efforts would come to be known as the Freedom 
        Rides;
Whereas these Southern-bound passengers, known as the Freedom Riders, were 
        united by their commitment to end segregation and ongoing racial 
        discrimination;
Whereas the Freedom Riders traveled into states where Jim Crow laws were still 
        prevalent, thus challenging the Federal Government to enforce its 
        decision to overturn them by non-violently integrating the bus routes 
        and rest stops;
Whereas, on their journeys during the Summer of 1961, the Freedom Riders would 
        stop at locations in Virginia, North Carolina, Tennessee, South 
        Carolina, Georgia, Florida, Alabama, Mississippi, Arkansas, and 
        Louisiana;
Whereas, at many times during the Freedom Rides, the Riders encountered 
        antagonism, verbal abuse, acts of violence, and incarceration, yet never 
        gave up their commitment to equality and social justice;
Whereas, led by James Farmer and the Congress of Racial Equality, the Freedom 
        Riders were successful in part due to their role-playing preparation and 
        practice in non-violence and Gandhian principles;
Whereas the Freedom Riders' non-violent actions would help expose to the Nation 
        and the world the cruelty and injustice of Jim Crow laws; and
Whereas the Freedom Rides would spur the Kennedy Administration to enforce laws 
        and judicial rulings that guaranteed the rights and safety of all 
        passengers, regardless of race, gender, or religious background, to sit 
        wherever they desired on bus routes and at rest stops: Now, therefore, 
        be it
    Resolved, That the House of Representatives--
            (1) honors the 50th anniversary of the Freedom Rides; and
            (2) recognizes the extraordinary leadership and sacrifice of the 
        Freedom Riders in their commitment to ending racial segregation in 
        America.
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```
James E. CLEMONS, petitioner, v. Wendy KELLEY, Director, Arkansas Department of Correction.

No. 16-6228.

Supreme Court of the United States

Nov. 28, 2016.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eight Circuit denied.
Michael Allyn KENNEDY, petitioner, v. TEXAS.

No. 15-9355.

Supreme Court of the United States

Jan. 9, 2017.

Petition for rehearing denied.