alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Teresa Ward COOPER, et vir, petitioners, v. UNITED STATES, et al.

No. 16-6220.

Supreme Court of the United States

Dec. 5, 2016.

Motion of petitioners for leave to proceed *in forma pauperis* denied. Petitioners allowed until December 27, 2016, within which to pay the docketing fee required by Rule 38(a) and to summit a petition in compliance with Rule 33.1 of the Rules of this Court.
COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02-14-00396-CV

In re Arnulfo Hernandez §

§

§

§

From the 325th District Court

of Tarrant County (325-478228-10)

January 22, 2015

Opinion by Justice Gabriel

JUDGMENT

This court has considered relator Arnulfo Hernandez’s petition for writ of 

habeas corpus and is of the opinion that relief should be granted. Accordingly, 

we vacate the trial court’s December 16, 2014 commitment order, order 

Hernandez discharged from custody, and we order any sureties discharged from 

all obligations on Hernandez’s bond. 

It is ordered that real party in interest Athelia Rooker pay all costs of this 

proceeding, for which let execution issue. 

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS 

By /s/ Lee Gabriel

 Justice Lee Gabriel
----

            COMMISSION DECISION         

of 3 December 2004         

establishing conditions for non-commercial movements of young dogs and cats from third countries into the Community

(notified under document number C(2004) 4546)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2004/839/EC)

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to the Regulation (EC) No 998/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 May 2003 on the animal health requirements applicable to the non-commercial movement of pet animals and amending Council Directive 92/65/EEC (1), and in particular Article 8(3)(c) thereof,

Whereas:

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

Article 1

1.   Member States may authorise the introduction onto their territory of dogs and cats less than three months of age and not vaccinated against rabies from third countries listed respectively in part B and C of Annex II to Regulation (EC) No 998/2003 under conditions at least equivalent to those laid down in in Article 5(2) of that Regulation.

2.   Subsequent movement to another Member State of the animals introduced in accordance with paragraph 1 shall be prohibited, except where the animal is to be moved in accordance with the conditions laid down in in Article 5(1) of Regulation (EC) No 988/2003 to a Member State other than those listed in part A of Annex II to that Regulation.

Subsequent movement to another Member State listed in part A of Annex II to that Regulation of an animal introduced in accordance with paragraph 1 shall take place in accordance with the conditions laid down in Article 6(1) of Regulation (EC) No 998/2003 once the animal concerned has reached more than three months of age.

Article 2

This Decision shall apply from 11 December 2004.

Article 3

This Decision is addressed to the Member States.

Done at Brussels, 3 December 2004.

For the Commission

Markos KYPRIANOU            

Member of the Commission

----

(1)OJ L 146, 13.6.2003, p. 1. Regulation as last amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1994/2004 (OJ L 344, 20.11.2004, p. 17).

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

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
UNUNAUDITED CONSOLIDATED INTERIM FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF AMERICAN GAMING &
ENTERTAINMENT, LTD FOR THE THREE MONTH PERION ENDED MARCH 31, 1998 AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITSW ENTIRETY BY REFFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                         325,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,620,000
<PP&E>                                      12,677,000
<DEPRECIATION>                               4,314,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              10,813,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       66,466,000
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                 14,920,000
<COMMON>                                       126,000
<OTHER-SE>                                (73,876,000)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                10,813,000
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               189,000
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               737,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           1,385,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (1,911,000)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (1,911,000)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (2,378,000)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.19)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.19)
        

</TABLE>
II-00419

From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

Peter Nakashian <peternak@yahoo.com>

Thursday, December 2, 2010 8:23 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.

Peter Nakashian

55 Pebble Woods Dr. N

Doylestown, PA 18901
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 Commerce

###### Foreign-Trade Zones Board

          - [Docket 48-2000]

Notice is hereby given that the application of the Chattanooga Chamber Foundation, grantee of Foreign-Trade Zone 134, for special-purpose subzone status for the manufacturing facilities (construction equipment) of Komatsu America International Company in Chattanooga, Tennessee (Doc. 48-2000, 65 FR 50178, 8/17/2000), has been amended to add a second site (100,000 sq. ft.) in Chattanooga. The additional site is located at 1408 Hamill Street. The application otherwise remains unchanged.

The comment period is reopened until July 5, 2001. Submissions (original and 3 copies) shall be addressed to the Board's Executive Secretary at the address below.

A copy of the application and the amendment and accompanying exhibits are available for public inspection at the following locations: 

Office of the Executive Secretary, Foreign-Trade Zone Board, U.S. Department of Commerce, Room 4008, 14th & Pennsylvania Avenue, NW,Washington, DC 20230.

U.S. Department of Commerce Export Assistance Center, 601 West Summit Hill Drive, Suite 300, Knoxville, TN 37902.

Dated: June 6, 2001.

Dennis Puccinelli,

Executive Secretary.

[FR Doc. 01-15077 Filed 6-14-01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 124 (Wednesday, June 27, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Pages 34161-34164]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-16035]



[[Page 34161]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Office of the Secretary

[Transmittal No. 01-12]


36(b)(1) Arms Sales Notification

AGENCY: Department of Defense, Defense Security Cooperation Agency.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Department of Defense is publishing the unclassified text 
of section 36(b)(1) arms sale notification. This is published to 
fulfill the requirements of section 155 of Public Law 104-164 dated 
July 21, 1996.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. J. Hurd, DSCA/COMPT/RM, (703) 604-
6575.
    The following is a copy of a letter to the Speaker of the House of 
Representatives, Transmittal 01-12 with attached transmittal and policy 
justification.

    Dated: June 21, 2001.
L.M. Bynum,
Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
BILLING CODE 5001-08-M

[[Page 34162]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN27JN01.009


[[Page 34163]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN27JN01.010


[[Page 34164]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN27JN01.011

[FR Doc. 01-16035 Filed 6-26-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 5001-08-C
Joan E. CLEMMONS, petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, et al.

No. 16-7085.

Supreme Court of the United States

Jan. 9, 2017.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit denied.
Fred C. HOLLAND, petitioner, v. DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS.

No. 16-5393.

Supreme Court of the United States

Nov. 28, 2016.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit denied.
Exhibit 10.2
2005 Director Compensation Plan
On March 4, 2005, the Human Resources Committee of the Board approved theterms of the Company’s 2005 Director Compensation Plan as follows:
1.  Cash Compensation
Each non-management Board member other than the Chairman of the Board will bepaid an annual retainer of $20,000 and $500 for attendance at each meeting.The Chairman of the Board will be paid an annual retainer of $27,500 and$2,000 for attendance at each meeting. In addition, the Chairman of the HumanResources Committee and the Chairman of the Audit Committee will each be paida supplemental annual retainer of $5,000. All Board compensation is paidquarterly, as earned.
2.  Equity Compensation:
New Board Members: The number of option shares granted to each newoutside (non-management) director upon joining the Company’s Board willbe 20,000 option shares.
Current Board Members: In 2005, all current non-management members of theBoard are to receive at the last Board meeting of the calendar year a grantof 15,000 option shares. An additional 15,000 option shares will be grantedto such Board members on the three year anniversary of such grant, and eachsucceeding three year anniversary thereafter, based on continuous Boardservice.
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

May 30, 2007 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice
133267 Michael F. Cavanagh Elizabeth A. Weaver Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman, Justices

v SC: 133267 COA: 263214 Saginaw CC: 04-024890-FC MICHAEL ANTHONY BOOKER, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the January 16, 2007 judgment of the Court of Appeals is consid ered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.

t0521 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

May 30, 2007

Clerk
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 6
 

<CIK>     0000744822


<NAME>      Fidelity Investment Trust


<SERIES>

        <NUMBER>        121


        <NAME>      Fidelity Japan Fund


<MULTIPLIER>    1,000


       

<S>

<C>

<PERIOD-TYPE>

6-MOS


<FISCAL-YEAR-END>

OCT-31-1998


<PERIOD-END>

APR-30-1998


<INVESTMENTS-AT-COST>

257,859


<INVESTMENTS-AT-VALUE>

248,833


<RECEIVABLES>

1,651


<ASSETS-OTHER>

350


<OTHER-ITEMS-ASSETS>

0


<TOTAL-ASSETS>

250,834


<PAYABLE-FOR-SECURITIES>

1,168


<SENIOR-LONG-TERM-DEBT>

0


<OTHER-ITEMS-LIABILITIES>

657


<TOTAL-LIABILITIES>

1,825


<SENIOR-EQUITY>

0


<PAID-IN-CAPITAL-COMMON>

334,321


<SHARES-COMMON-STOCK>

24,249


<SHARES-COMMON-PRIOR>

23,018


<ACCUMULATED-NII-CURRENT>

0


<OVERDISTRIBUTION-NII>

5,375


<ACCUMULATED-NET-GAINS>

(70,447)


<OVERDISTRIBUTION-GAINS>

0


<ACCUM-APPREC-OR-DEPREC>

(9,490)


<NET-ASSETS>

249,009


<DIVIDEND-INCOME>

948


<INTEREST-INCOME>

658


<OTHER-INCOME>

(140)


<EXPENSES-NET>

1,791


<NET-INVESTMENT-INCOME>

(325)


<REALIZED-GAINS-CURRENT>

(18,120)


<APPREC-INCREASE-CURRENT>

2,214


<NET-CHANGE-FROM-OPS>

(16,231)


<EQUALIZATION>

0


<DISTRIBUTIONS-OF-INCOME>

3,904


<DISTRIBUTIONS-OF-GAINS>

0


<DISTRIBUTIONS-OTHER>

0


<NUMBER-OF-SHARES-SOLD>

7,897


<NUMBER-OF-SHARES-REDEEMED>

7,036


<SHARES-REINVESTED>

370


<NET-CHANGE-IN-ASSETS>

(6,546)


<ACCUMULATED-NII-PRIOR>

0


<ACCUMULATED-GAINS-PRIOR>

(52,328)


<OVERDISTRIB-NII-PRIOR>

1,145


<OVERDIST-NET-GAINS-PRIOR>

0


<GROSS-ADVISORY-FEES>

1,206


<INTEREST-EXPENSE>

0


<GROSS-EXPENSE>

1,797


<AVERAGE-NET-ASSETS>

238,103


<PER-SHARE-NAV-BEGIN>

11.100


<PER-SHARE-NII>

(.010)


<PER-SHARE-GAIN-APPREC>

(.650)


<PER-SHARE-DIVIDEND>

 .180


<PER-SHARE-DISTRIBUTIONS>

0


<RETURNS-OF-CAPITAL>

0


<PER-SHARE-NAV-END>

10.270


<EXPENSE-RATIO>

154


<AVG-DEBT-OUTSTANDING>

0


<AVG-DEBT-PER-SHARE>

0



        



</TABLE>
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

WESTERN DISTRICT

PHILIP A. IGNELZI, INDIVIDUALLY, 

PHILIP A. IGNELZI AND MARIANNE 

IGNELZI, HUSBAND AND WIFE

v.

OGG, CORDES, MURPHY AND IGNELZI, 

LLP; GARY J. OGG; SAMUEL J. 

CORDES; MICHAEL A. MURPHY, 

INDIVIDUALLY; MICHAEL A. MURPHY 

AND REBECCA MURPHY, HUSBAND 

AND WIFE; OGG, MURPHY, AND 

PERKOSKY, LLP; JOHN D. PERKOSKY; 

AND ESQUIRE REALTY ASSOCIATES

PETITION OF: GARY J. OGG, MICHAEL 

A. MURPHY AND REBECCA MURPHY, 

OGG, MURPHY AND PERKOSKY, LLP 

AND JOHN D. PERKOSKY

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 192 WAL 2017

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from 

the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 28th day of November, 2017, the Petition for Allowance of 

Appeal is DENIED.

Justice Donohue did not participate in the consideration or decision of this 

matter.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA MIDDLE DISTRICT

IN RE: "PETITION FOR OBJECTIONS AND EXCEPTIONS TO UPSET SALE"

IN RE: "OBJECTION AND EXCEPTIONS TO UPSET SALE"

PETITION OF: MILAGROS ABREU : : : : : : : No. 79 MAL 2019

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the Order of the Commonwealth Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 6th day of August, 2019
, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is

DENIED

.
Carl D. WELLS, petitioner, v. CITY OF NEW YORK, NEW YORK, et al.

No. 16-6095.

Supreme Court of the United States

Nov. 28, 2016.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit denied.
Darris Altony NEWSOME, petitioner, v. Harold W. CLARKE, Director, Virginia Department of Corrections.

No. 16-7041.

Supreme Court of the United States

Jan. 9, 2017.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied.
[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 121 (Friday, June 22, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Page 33598]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-15739]


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

SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION

[Declaration of Disaster #3348; Amendment #1]


State of Louisiana

    In accordance with a notice received from the Federal Emergency 
Management Agency, dated June 14, 2001, the above-numbered Declaration 
is hereby amended to include Beauregard, Iberia, Jefferson, Orleans, 
St. Bernard, St. Charles, St. James, St. John the Baptist, St. Mary, 
St. Tammany, Tangipahoa and Washington Parishes in the State of 
Louisiana as disaster areas caused by Tropical Storm Allison occurring 
on June 5, 2001 and continuing.
    In addition, applications for economic injury loans from small 
businesses located in Allen, Calcasieu, Plaquemines and Vernon Parishes 
in the State of Louisiana; Amite, Hancock, Marion, Pearl River, Pike, 
and Walthall in the State of Mississippi; and Newton County in the 
State of Texas may be filed until the specified date at the previously 
designated location. Any counties contiguous to the above named primary 
counties and not listed here have been previously declared.
    The economic injury number assigned is 9L9100 for Texas and 9L9400 
for Mississippi.
    All other information remains the same, i.e., the deadline for 
filing applications for physical damage is August 10, 2001, and for 
loans for economic is March 11, 2002.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 59002 and 
59008)

    Dated: June 18, 2001.
Herbert L. Mitchell,
Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance.
[FR Doc. 01-15739 Filed 6-21-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8025-01-P
II-00687

From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

Mark Dankert <cathylandmarkd@gmail.com>

Thursday, December 2, 2010 12:28 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.

Mark Dankert

32 Placitas West Rd

Placitas, NM 87043
# C_2009205EN.01002102.xml

| 29.8.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 205/21 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.8.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 205/21

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Hamburg (Germany) lodged on 15 June 2009 — Barsoum Chabo v Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Hafen

(Case C-213/09)

2009/C 205/37

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Referring court

Finanzgericht Hamburg

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Barsoum Chabo

Applicant:

Defendant: Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Hafen

Defendant:

Question referred
   (1)

Question referred

1

Is the additional amount arising under the third country and preferential customs rate of EUR 222 per 100 kg of net weight of goods charged on imports of preserved mushrooms of the Agaricus genus (CN heading 2003 10 30) void for infringement of the principle of proportionality?

---

(1)  Concerning Commission Regulation (EC) No 1719/2005 of 27 October 2005 amending Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff (OJ 2005 L 286, p. l).

1

---
#### John Huggins *v.*The State.

Proof of Venue.—The great number of reversals necessitated by want of proof of venue should admonish judges and prosecuting attorneys to the exercise of especial care, when an appeal is taken, in having such proof, if made at the trial, embodied in the statement of facts.

Appeal from the District Court of Webb. Tried below before the Hon. E. Daugherty.

*A. L. McLane,*for the appellant.

*George McCormick,*Assistant Attorney General, for the State.

Ector, P. J.

We have searched in vain in the record to find any proof of venue in this case. The indictment charges the defendant with the theft of two geldings, the property of one Nicholas Sanches, and that the offense was committed in Webb county. The nearest approach to the proof of venue, as shown by the statement of facts, is in the testimony of Ruperto Sanches, a son of Nicholas Sanches. This portion of his testimony we here copy. It says:

> “ That, on the 17th of February, 1877, there were thirty head of horses stolen from his father’s ranch, in their range. They belonged to my father, Nicholas Sanches. On Sunday, the 18th, myself and twelve others took up the trail and followed it to where King Fisher was camped, on Chi con creek, distant some forty odd leagues from the range of the horses,” etc. Near the camp of Fisher they found two horses hobbled, which were a part of the thirty stolen on the 17th. No witness, so far as the statement of facts shows, tells in what county Nicholas Sanches lives, or where his said ranch is situate. After so many decisions made on this point, and when the court must know its materiality, it does seem to us that county attorneys and county and dis*422trict judges would be more particular; and that in preparing a statement of facts they would especially see to it that the proof of venue, if made, should be included.

The judgment of the district court is reversed and the cause remanded.

*Reversed and remanded.*