alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
##### 



EXHIBIT 21
 Life Time Fitness, Inc.
List of Subsidiaries
 Name
    
    State of FormationFCA Real Estate Holdings, LLC
    
    DelawareLTF Club Operations Company, Inc.
    
    MinnesotaBloomingdale LIFE TIME Fitness, L.L.C.
    
    IllinoisLTFMF Real Estate Holdings, LLC
    
    DelawareLTFMF AZ Real Estate, LLC
    
    DelawareLTF Operations Holdings, Inc.
    
    MinnesotaFCA Construction Company, LLC
    
    DelawareFCA Restaurant Company, LLC
    
    DelawareLTF Club Management Company, LLC
    
    DelawareLTF Real Estate Holdings, LLC
    
    DelawareLTF Real Estate Company, Inc.
    
    MinnesotaLTF TIAA Real Estate Holdings, LLC
    
    DelawareLTF Michigan Real Estate Company, LLC
    
    DelawareLTF Minnesota Real Estate Company, LLC
    
    DelawareLTF USA Real Estate Company, LLC
    
    DelawareNon-profit corporation:Life Time Fitness Foundation
    
    Minnesota
 NOTES:
# C_2009090EN.01001902.xml

| 18.4.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 90/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.4.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 90/19

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Regeringsrätten (Sweden) lodged on 26 February 2009 — X v Skatteverket

(Case C-84/09)

2009/C 90/30

Language of the case: Swedish

Referring court

Referring court

Regeringsrätten

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: X

Applicant:

Defendant: Skatteverket

Defendant:

Questions referred

Questions referred

| 1. | Are Articles 138 and 20 of Council Directive [2006/112/EC] on the common system of value added tax (1) to be interpreted as meaning that the transport out of the territory of the State of origin must begin within a certain period of time for the sale to be exempt from tax and for there to be an intra-Community acquisition? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Are Articles 138 and 20 of Council Directive [2006/112/EC] on the common system of value added tax (1) to be interpreted as meaning that the transport out of the territory of the State of origin must begin within a certain period of time for the sale to be exempt from tax and for there to be an intra-Community acquisition?

1

| 2. | Similarly, are those Articles to be interpreted as meaning that the transport must end in the country of destination within a certain period of time for the sale to be exempt from tax and for there to be an intra-Community acquisition? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Similarly, are those Articles to be interpreted as meaning that the transport must end in the country of destination within a certain period of time for the sale to be exempt from tax and for there to be an intra-Community acquisition?

| 3. | Would the answers to questions 1 and 2 be affected if that which is acquired is a new means of transport and the person acquiring the goods is an individual who intends ultimately to use the means of transport in a particular Member State? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Would the answers to questions 1 and 2 be affected if that which is acquired is a new means of transport and the person acquiring the goods is an individual who intends ultimately to use the means of transport in a particular Member State?

| 4. | In connection with an intra-Community acquisition, at which time must the assessment be made as to whether a means of transport is new in accordance with Article 2(2)(b) of Council Directive [2006/112/EC] on the common system of value added tax? |
| --- | --- |

4.

In connection with an intra-Community acquisition, at which time must the assessment be made as to whether a means of transport is new in accordance with Article 2(2)(b) of Council Directive [2006/112/EC] on the common system of value added tax?

---

(1)  Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1)

1

---
Robert Gregory MODRALL, petitioner, v. TENNESSEE COURT OF the JUDICIARY, et al.

No. 15-9573.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 3, 2016.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit denied.
1

Hammar, Julian

From: Mary Johannes <MJohannes@isda.org>

Sent: Thursday, December 08, 2011 3:38 PM

To: Hammar, Julian

Subject: SBS Follow-Up [I]

Attachments: 3204_001 (3).pdf

Julian,

As a follow‐up to your request, please find below suggested language that would provide more clarification to the issue

raised in ISDA’s response to the proposed definition of “swap” and “security‐based swap agreement” ( ISDA Comment

Letter July 22, 2011).   We suggest the language below may be inserted at the end of the discussion in Section F  “Use of

Certain Terms and Conditions in Title VII Instruments” in the attached Federal Register notice.  We trust you find this

responsive to your question.    

That said, changes in the terms of such a swap that are not undertaken primarily to reflect the change or changes in the 

characteristic of the underlying security would not cause the swap to be a security-based swap. For example, a change in 

the fixed rate as a result of recouponing to adjust credit exposure in such a swap would not cause the swap to be a 

security-based swap notwithstanding that the fixed rate has varied over the life of the swap. 

Please call if you have any further questions.

Best regards,

Mary

Mary P. Johannes

Senior Director and Head of US Public Policy

International Swaps and Derivatives Association, Inc.

1101 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW

Suite 600

Washington, DC 20004

Main:   (202)756‐2980

Direct: (202)756‐4541

The information contained in either this email and, if applicable, the attachment, are confidential and are intended only for the recipient. The contents of either the 

email or the attachment may not be disclosed or used by anyone other than the addressee. If you are not the intended recipient(s), any use, disclosure, copying, or

distribution is prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us by e-mail at isda@isda.org 

<mailto:isda@isda.org> then delete the e-mail and all attachments and any copies thereof. This communication is part of an ISDA process and is not intended for 

unauthorized use or distribution.
EXHIBIT 32.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of PW Eagle, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission (the Report), I, Scott Long, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



| | (1) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
| | --- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



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

Dated: May 12, 2006



/s/ Scott LongScott Long Chief Financial Officer
Lei KE, petitioner, v. DREXEL UNIVERSITY, et al.

No. 17-6907.

Supreme Court of the United States

March 5, 2018.

Petition for rehearing denied.
EXHIBIT 32.1


CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
 ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF
 THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
 
 In connection with the Quarterly Report of Fortune Industries, Inc., an Indiana corporation, (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, John F. Fisbeck, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify the following pursuant to Section 18, U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906
                of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002:
 
 1.           The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
 
 2.           The information contained in the report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
   Date:  November 13, 2009
 By:  /s/ John F. Fisbeck
 John F. Fisbeck
 Chief Executive Officer
# C_2009055EN.01005001.xml

| 7.3.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 55/50 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.3.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 55/50

---

Action brought on 21 January 2009 — Biocaps v Commission

(Case T-24/09)

(2009/C 55/89)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Biocaps (Orsay, France) (represented by: Y.-R. Guillou, H. Speyart and T. Verstraeten, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Defendant:

Forms of order sought

| — | annul the constested decision; and |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the constested decision; and

| — | order the Commission to bear its own costs and to pay those of the applicant. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission to bear its own costs and to pay those of the applicant.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant, a legal entity responsible for running the Laboratoire Champagnat Desmoulins Philippakis, seeks the annulment of Commission Decision C(2008) 6524 of 29 October 2008 in which the Commission, pursuant to Article 20(4) of Regulation No 1/2003 (1), ordered that laboratory, and all of the entities controlled directly or indirectly by it, to submit to an inspection concerning their possible participation in and/or implementation of agreements or concerted practices contrary to the provisions of Articles 81 EC and/or 82 EC.

1

That conduct took the form in particular of decisions aimed at preventing pharmacists and/or legal persons from gaining access to the market in bio-medical analysis services, to restrict their activities on that market, or to exclude them from that market.

In support of its action, the applicant puts forward a single plea in law alleging breach of the principle that the decisions of the Community institutions must be addressed to entities having legal personality, as the addressee of the contested decision no longer existed on the date when the decision was adopted.

---

(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 of 16 December 2002 on the implementation of the rules on competition laid down in Articles 81 and 82 of the Treaty (OJ 2003 L 1, p. 1).

1

---
##### 



EXHIBIT 99.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of MigraTEC, Inc. (the Company)
on Form 10-QSB for the period ended March 31, 2003 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the undersigned
certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350 as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (Section 906), that:



| | 1. |  | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and                               
| | -- |  | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
| | 2. |  | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
the Company.

| |  |                                                                                    
| |  | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| |  | /s/ T. Ulrich Brechbühl                                                            
| |  |                                                                                    
| |  | T. Ulrich Brechbühl
Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer
May 9, 2003

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has
been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished
to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
Kody BROWN, et al., petitioners, v. Jeffrey R. BUHMAN.

No. 16-333.

Supreme Court of the United States

Jan. 23, 2017.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit denied.
II-00456

From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

Mary Wilson <aldenponds@aol.com>

Thursday, December 2, 2010 6:11 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.

Mary Wilson

$4895 Getter Drive

Viroqua, WI 54665
Marvel JONES, petitioner, v. NEBRASKA.

No. 17-7518.

Supreme Court of the United States

Feb. 26, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals of Nebraska denied.
In re Luis R. FIGUEROA, petitioner.

No. 16-6632.

Supreme Court of the United States

Nov. 28, 2016.

Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed *in forma pauperis* denied, and petition for writ of habeas corpus dismissed. See Rule 39.8.
Jeff WRIGHT, petitioner, v. Melissa MAYS, et al.

No. 17-666.

Supreme Court of the United States

March 19, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit denied.
Eric GARDNER, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 16-7097.

Supreme Court of the United States

Jan. 9, 2017.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the District of Columbia Court of Appeals denied.
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION
                          302 OF THE SARBANES OXLEY ACT



I, James Clark, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-KSB of Mind2Market, Inc.;

2. Based on my knowledge, this annual 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 annual
report;

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

4. The registrant's other certifying officers and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and have:

a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure that material
information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries,
is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the
period in which this annual report is being prepared;

b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and
procedures as of December 31, 2004; and

c) presented in this annual report our conclusions about the effectiveness of
the disclosure controls and procedures based on our evaluation as of the
Evaluation Date;

5. The registrant's other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our
most recent evaluation, to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of
registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent
functions):

a) all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal controls
which could adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process,
summarize and report financial data and have identified for the registrant's
auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls; and

<PAGE>

b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal controls; and

6. The registrant's other certifying officers and I have indicated in this
annual report whether there were significant changes in internal controls or in
other factors that could significantly affect internal controls subsequent to
the date of our most recent evaluation, including any corrective actions with
regard to significant deficiencies and material weaknesses.

Date: April 19, 2005


/s/James Clark
-----------------------
James Clark, CEO
II-01057

From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

Elizabeth Royte <e@royte.com>

Thursday, December 2, 2010 8:40 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.

Elizabeth Royte

490 Seventh Street

Brooklyn, NY 11215
Antonio AKEL, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR the NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA.

No. 16-5458.

Supreme Court of the United States

Jan. 9, 2017.

Petition for rehearing denied.

Justice KAGAN took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.
II-00546

From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

Lois Jordan <lmjor@aol.com>

Thursday, December 2, 2010 3:08 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.

Lois Jordan

9161 E. Walnut Tree Dr.

Tucson, AZ 85749
|Exhibit 31(b)                                                                                                           
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|ESI TRACTEBEL FUNDING CORP.(the registrant)Rule 13a-14(a)/15d-14(a) Certification                                       
|I, Mark R. Sorensen, Treasurer (equivalent to the Chief Financial Officer) of ESI Tractebel Funding Corp., certify that:
|1.                                                                                                                      
|2.                                                                                                                      
|3.                                                                                                                      
|4.                                                                                                                      
|                                                                                                                        
|                                                                                                                        
|                                                                                                                        
|5.                                                                                                                      
|                                                                                                                        
|                                                                                                                        
|                                                                                                                        
|                                                                                                                        
|Date:  March 30, 2005                                                                                                   
|                                                                                                                        
|                                                                                                                        
|                                                                                                                        
|                                                                                                                        
|