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

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                          13,025
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   11,890
<ALLOWANCES>                                   (1,895)
<INVENTORY>                                        368
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                23,953
<PP&E>                                          37,482
<DEPRECIATION>                                (25,738)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  49,792
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           16,775
<BONDS>                                          9,307
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       114,118
<OTHER-SE>                                    (90,421)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    49,792
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                41,270
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   29,410
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 1,310
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               3,014
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (30,237)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (30,237)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (30,237)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (1.97)<F1>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (1.97)
<FN>
<F1>For Purposes of This Exhibit, Primary Means Basic
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
Jeffrey Maurice YOUNG-BEY, petitioner, v. Tijuana YOUNG.

No. 15-9370.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 3, 2016.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the District of Columbia Court of Appeals denied.
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 1764 Reported in House (RH)]

                                                 House Calendar No. 253
111th CONGRESS
  2d Session
H. RES. 1764

                          [Report No. 111-681]

 Providing for consideration of the Senate amendment to the bill (H.R. 
    2965) to amend the Small Business Act with respect to the Small 
Business Innovation Research Program and the Small Business Technology 
               Transfer Program, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           December 15, 2010

    Ms. Pingree of Maine, from the Committee on Rules, reported the 
  following resolution; which was referred to the House Calendar and 
                         ordered to be printed

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
 Providing for consideration of the Senate amendment to the bill (H.R. 
    2965) to amend the Small Business Act with respect to the Small 
Business Innovation Research Program and the Small Business Technology 
               Transfer Program, and for other purposes.

    Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in 
order to take from the Speaker's table the bill (H.R. 2965) to amend 
the Small Business Act with respect to the Small Business Innovation 
Research Program and the Small Business Technology Transfer Program, 
and for other purposes, with the Senate amendment thereto, and to 
consider in the House, without intervention of any point of order 
except those arising under clause 10 of rule XXI, a motion offered by 
the Majority Leader or his designee that the House concur in the Senate 
amendment with the amendment printed in the report of the Committee on 
Rules accompanying this resolution. The Senate amendment and the motion 
shall be considered as read. The motion shall be debatable for one hour 
equally divided and controlled by the Majority Leader and Minority 
Leader or their respective designees. The previous question shall be 
considered as ordered on the motion to final adoption without 
intervening motion.
                                                 House Calendar No. 253

111th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                              H. RES. 1764

                          [Report No. 111-681]

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 Providing for consideration of the Senate amendment to the bill (H.R. 
    2965) to amend the Small Business Act with respect to the Small 
Business Innovation Research Program and the Small Business Technology 
               Transfer Program, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                           December 15, 2010

        Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed
```
ANTHONY E. BROOKS

,

Appellant,

v.

WASTE PRO OF FLORIDA/

LIBERTY MUTUAL

INSURANCE

,

Appellee s

. IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D 15

- 850

_____________________________/

Opinion filed October 9, 2015.

An appeal from an order of the Judge of Compensation Claims.

Diane B. Beck , Judge

.

Date of Accident: July 12, 2012.

Anthony E. Brooks, pro se, Appellant.

Juan Carlos Garcia , Tampa, and Annie Kwong of Quin t airos, Prieto, Wood & Boyer,

P.A., Orlando , for Appellee s

.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

ROBERTS, C.J., MARSTILLER and MAKAR, JJ., CONCUR.
Demetrius GREEN, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 16-6609.

Supreme Court of the United States

Dec. 12, 2016.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit denied.
Eric WILEY, petitioner, v. Julie L. JONES, Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections.

No. 17-7142.

Supreme Court of the United States

Feb. 20, 2018.

*1008Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Florida denied.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                          17,425
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  134,359
<ALLOWANCES>                                    12,065
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               160,521
<PP&E>                                         112,908
<DEPRECIATION>                                  54,193
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 824,757
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          139,864
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           211
<OTHER-SE>                                     185,048
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   824,757
<SALES>                                        233,201
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               233,201
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  228,125
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               9,173
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (3,563)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (1,810)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (1,753)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (1,753)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.08)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.08)
        

</TABLE>
COPE, aka Citizens for Objective Public Education, Inc., et al., petitioners, v. KANSAS STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION, et al.

No. 16-229.

Supreme Court of the United States

Nov. 14, 2016.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit denied.
II-00924

From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

W. Little <littleor0@earthlink.net>

Thursday, December 2, 2010 10:02 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.

W. Little

Cherry Creek Dr South

Denver, CO 80231
# C_2009082EN.01001901.xml

| 4.4.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 82/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.4.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 82/19

---

Appeal brought on 2 February 2009 by Lego Juris A/S against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 12 November 2008 in Case T-270/06 Lego Juris A/S v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM), Other party before the Board of Appeal, intervener before the Court of First Instance Mega Brands, Inc.

(Case C-48/09 P)

(2009/C 82/34)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Lego Juris A/S (represented by: V. von Bomhard, Rechtsanwältin, T. Dolde, A. Renck, Rechtsanwälte)

Appellant:

Other parties to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Megabrands, Inc.

Other parties to the proceedings:

Form of order sought

The appellant claim that the Court should:

| — | set aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance, because it violates Article 71(1)(e)(ii)CTMR (1) |
| --- | --- |

—

set aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance, because it violates Article 71(1)(e)(ii)CTMR (1)

1

Pleas in law and main arguments

The appellant submits that the contested judgment infringes art. 7(1)(e)(ii) of the Community Trade Mark Regulation. The appellant maintains that the Court of First Instance:

| a) | interpreted art. 7(1)(e)(ii) CTMR in such a way as to effectively preclude any shape which performs a function from trade mark protection, independently of whether the criteria of art. 7(1)(e)(ii) CTMR as defined by the Court in the Philips/Remington decision (2) are fulfilled or not. |
| --- | --- |

a)

interpreted art. 7(1)(e)(ii) CTMR in such a way as to effectively preclude any shape which performs a function from trade mark protection, independently of whether the criteria of art. 7(1)(e)(ii) CTMR as defined by the Court in the Philips/Remington decision (2) are fulfilled or not.

2

| b) | applied the wrong criteria in the identification of the essential characteristics of a three-dimensional trade mark: and |
| --- | --- |

b)

applied the wrong criteria in the identification of the essential characteristics of a three-dimensional trade mark: and

| c) | applied an incorrect functionality test in that it i) did not limit its assessment to the essential characteristics of the trade mark at issues and, ii) did not define the appropriate criteria for assessing whether a characteristic of a shape is functional and, in particular, refused to take into account any potential a lternative designs. |
| --- | --- |

c)

applied an incorrect functionality test in that it i) did not limit its assessment to the essential characteristics of the trade mark at issues and, ii) did not define the appropriate criteria for assessing whether a characteristic of a shape is functional and, in particular, refused to take into account any potential a lternative designs.

---

(1)  OJ L 11, p. 1.

1

(2)  Case C-299/99 Philips [2002] ECR I-5475.

2

Philips

---
# C_2011063EN.01000602.xml

| 26.2.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 63/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.2.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 63/6

---

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 22 December 2010 — European Commission v Italian Republic

(Case C-304/09) (1)

1

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - State aid - Aid for newly listed companies - Recovery)

2011/C 63/11

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: L. Flynn, E. Righini and V. Di Bucci, Agents)

Applicant:

Defendant: Italian Republic (represented by: G. Palmieri, Agent, assisted by P. Gentili, avvocato dello Stato)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Failure to take, within the period prescribed, the measures necessary to comply with Articles 2, 3 and 4 of Commission Decision 2006/261/EC of 16 March 2005 on aid scheme C 8/2004 (ex NN 164/2003) implemented by Italy in favour of newly listed companies (notified under document No C(2005) 591) (OJ 2006 L 94, p. 42).

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Declares that, by failing to adopt, within the time-limits laid down, all the measures necessary to abolish the aid scheme which was declared unlawful and incompatible with the common market by Commission Decision 2006/261/EC of 16 March 2005 on aid scheme C 8/2004 (ex NN 164/2003) implemented by Italy in favour of newly listed companies and to recover from the beneficiaries the aid granted under that scheme, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 2 and 3 of that decision. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Declares that, by failing to adopt, within the time-limits laid down, all the measures necessary to abolish the aid scheme which was declared unlawful and incompatible with the common market by Commission Decision 2006/261/EC of 16 March 2005 on aid scheme C 8/2004 (ex NN 164/2003) implemented by Italy in favour of newly listed companies and to recover from the beneficiaries the aid granted under that scheme, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 2 and 3 of that decision.

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

2.

Orders the Italian Republic to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 256, 24.10.2009.

1

---
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Labor

###### Employment and Training Administration

          - [NAFTA-4874]

Pursuant to Title V of the North American Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act (P.L. 103-182) concerning transitional adjustment assistance, hereinafter called NAFTA-TAA and in accordance with Section 250(a), Subchapter D, Chapter 2, Title II, of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended (19 U.S.C. 2331), an investigation was initiated on May 9, 2001, in response to a petition filed on behalf of workers at Leggett and Platt, Inc., Plastics Division, Forest City, North Carolina.

The petitioners filed their petition more than one year after the subject facility had closed and they had been separated from employment. In accordance with Section 223(b) of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, no certification may apply to any worker whose last total or partial separation from the subject firm occurred one year prior to the date of the petition. Consequently, further investigation in this case would serve no purpose, and the investigation has been terminated.

Signed in Washington, DC this 6th day of June, 2001.

Linda G. Poole,

Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.

[FR Doc. 01-16074  Filed 6-26-01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4510-30-M
CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
                       PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

In connection with the accompanying annual report on Form 10-KSB of Roanoke
Technology Corp. for the period ended October 31, 2004, David L. Smith, Chief
Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of Roanoke Technology Corp. hereby
certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of my knowledge and belief, that:

     1.   Such annual Report on Form 10-KSB for the period ended October 31,
          2004, 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 such annual Report on Form 10-KSB for the
          period ended October 31, 2003, fairly presents, in all material
          respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Roanoke
          Technology Corp..

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

ROANOKE TECHNOLOGY CORP.

Dated:  February 23, 2005

/s/ David L. Smith
----------------------------------------
David L. Smith
Chief Executive Officer,
Chief Financial Officer
II-00296

From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

RANDY BOYD <randyb5300@comcast.net>

Thursday, December 2, 2010 2:19 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.

RANDY BOYD

9852 Crawford Ave.

Skokie, IL 60076
# C_2013325EN.01002101.xml

| 9.11.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 325/21 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.11.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 325/21

---

Judgment of the General Court of 16 September 2013 — GL2006 Europe Ltd v Commission

(Case T-435/09) (1)

1

(Arbitration clause - Contracts for financial assistance concluded in the context of the Fifth and Sixth Framework Programmes for Community activities in the field of research and technological development and in the context of the eTEN Programme - Highway, J WeB, Care Paths, Cocoon, Secure-Justice, Qualeg, Lensis, E-Pharm Up, Liric, Grace, Clinic and E2SP projects - Termination of contracts - Reimbursement of amounts paid - Debit notes - Counterclaim - Representation of the applicant)

2013/C 325/34

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: GL2006 Europe Ltd (Birmingham, United Kingdom) (represented by: M. Gardenal and E. Bélinguier-Raiz, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission (represented initially by: S. Delaude and N. Bambara, and subsequently by S. Delaude, Agents, and by R. Van der Hout, lawyer)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Action brought by GL2006 Europe Ltd pursuant to Article 238 EC, on the basis of arbitration clauses, whereby the applicant disputes the checks carried out by OLAF at its premises in December 2008, the decision in the letter of 10 July 2009 whereby the Commission terminated the applicant’s participation in two research and technological development projects, and 12 debit notes issued by the Commission on 7 August 2009, seeking the reimbursement of the sums paid by the Commission to the applicant for its participation in 12 research and development projects, and a counterclaim for the reimbursement of those sums

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Declares that there is no longer any need to adjudicate on the action brought by GL2006 Europe Ltd; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Declares that there is no longer any need to adjudicate on the action brought by GL2006 Europe Ltd;

| 2. | Orders GL2006 Europe to pay to the European Commission the sum of EUR 2 258 456,31, along with interest calculated from the time-limits set out in the debit notes of 7 August 2009; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders GL2006 Europe to pay to the European Commission the sum of EUR 2 258 456,31, along with interest calculated from the time-limits set out in the debit notes of 7 August 2009;

| 3. | Orders GL2006 Europe to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders GL2006 Europe to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 11, 16.1.2010.

1

---