alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Order entered April 11, 2013

In The 

## Court of Appeals **Fifth District of Texas at Dallas**
No. 05
- 13
- 00191
- CV BALTASAR D. CRUZ, Appellant
V. JAMES VAN SICKLE, ET AL . , Appellee s On Appeal from the 160th Judicial District Court Dallas County, Texas Tria l Court Cause No. DC
- 12
- 09275 

### O RDER The Court has before it the parties’ April 9, 2013 agreed motion for extension of time to file appellant’s and appellees’ briefs. The Court GRANTS the motion and ORDERS appellant to file his brief by May 16, 2013. Th e Court further ORDERS appellees to file their briefs within fifty days of the date appellant files his brief.

/s/ ELIZABETH LANG

- MIERS JUSTICE
II-01089

From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

Larry Siegel <lrrysgl@aol.com>

Thursday, December 2, 2010 8:20 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.

Larry Siegel

2113 Fox Rtm Drive

Plainsboro, NJ 8536
Kenneth Russell KRUM, aka Barnyard, aka Big Pimping, aka Yum Yum, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 15-8875.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 3, 2016.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.
<TABLE> <S> <C>



<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS OF THE REGISTRANT AT NOVEMBER 30, 1997 AND
FEBRUARY 28, 1997 AND CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS OF THE REGISTRANT
FOR THE THREE AND NINE MONTH PERIOD ENDED NOVEMBER 30, 1997 AND 1996 AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH STATEMENTS IN THE FORM 10-Q FOR
THE QUARTERLY PERIOD ENDED NOVEMBER 30, 1997.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          FEB-28-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             MAR-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               NOV-30-1997
<CASH>                                       3,498,000
<SECURITIES>                                 3,140,000
<RECEIVABLES>                               12,927,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            30,140,000
<PP&E>                                       5,221,000
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              36,261,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       12,333,000
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        40,000
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                36,261,000
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            44,139,000
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               42,456,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              1,916,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                   766,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          1,150,000
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 1,150,000
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .28
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
|GRAPHIC |                               |  | EXHIBIT 99.5            
|------- | ----------------------------- |  | ------------------------
|        | KPMG LLPChartered Accountants |  |                         
|        | Box 10426 777 Dunsmuir Street |  | Telephone (604) 691-3000
|        | Vancouver BC V7Y 1K3          |  | Telefax (604) 691-3031  
|        | Canada                        |  | www.kpmg.ca             

Comments by Auditor for U.S. Readers on Canada  U.S. Reporting Difference

In
the United States, reporting standards for auditors require the addition of an explanatory paragraph (following the opinion paragraph) when there is a change in accounting principles that has a
material effect on the comparability of the company's financial statements, such as the changes described in Notes 1(j) and 1(r) to the financial statements. Our report to the
shareholders dated February 4, 2003, included herein, is expressed in accordance with Canadian reporting standards which do not require a reference to such a change in accounting principles in
the auditors' report when the change is properly accounted for and adequately disclosed in the financial statements.

GRAPHIC

Chartered
Accountants

Vancouver,
Canada
February 4, 2003

---

QuickLinks
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 Energy

###### Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

          - [Docket No. RP99-466-005]

Take notice that on June 15, 2001, Great Lakes Gas Transmission Limited Partnership (Great Lakes) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff, Second Revised Volume No. 1, Substitute First Revised Sheet No. 29A and Substitute First Revised Sheet No. 50D.

Great Lakes states that these changes are proposed to be effective October 1, 1999 and January 1, 2001, respectively.

                    Great Lakes states that these tariff sheets are being filed to correct pagination errors that occurred when reserving a range of sheets for future use in earlier tariff filings. As a result of those errors, the electronic Great Lakes tariff includes the reserved sheets as currently effective, with outdated text. The instant filing will resolve any inconsistencies in Great Lakes' electronic tariff, and it will conform the affected sheets to the Commission's pagination requirements.                          ( print page 34179)    

Any person desiring to protest said filing should file a protest with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Section 385.211 of the Commission's Rules and Regulations. All such protests must be filed in accordance with Section 154.210 of the Commission's Regulations. Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceedings. Copies of this filing are on file with the Commission and are available for public inspection in the Public Reference Room. This filing may be viewed on the web at http://www.ferc.fed.us/​online/​rims.htm (call 202-208-2222 for assistance).

Comments, protests and interventions may be filed electronically via the internet in lieu of paper. See, 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's web site at http://www.ferc.fed.us/​efi/​doorbell.htm.

David P. Boergers,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 01-16057 Filed 6-26-01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                               5
<LEGEND>
      (Replace this text with the legend)
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                                   0000852447
<NAME>                                  INSTITUTIONAL EQUITY HOLDINGS, INC.
<MULTIPLIER>                            1
<CURRENCY>                              $US

<S>                                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                           3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                       DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                          JAN-1-2000
<PERIOD-END>                            SEP-30-2000
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                         1
<CASH>                                  72,445
<SECURITIES>                            1,833,022
<RECEIVABLES>                           743,383
<ALLOWANCES>                            0
<INVENTORY>                             0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                        2,670,123
<PP&E>                                  759,945
<DEPRECIATION>                          (382,606)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                          4,312,344
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                   3,679,706
<BONDS>                                 0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                   0
<PREFERRED>                             11,350
<COMMON>                                39,232
<OTHER-SE>                              (1,323,758)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>            4,312,343
<SALES>                                 4,833,249
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                        4,833,249
<CGS>                                   0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                           7,793,585
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                        170,320
<LOSS-PROVISION>                        0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                      174,588
<INCOME-PRETAX>                         (3,305,244)
<INCOME-TAX>                            0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                     (3,305,244)
<DISCONTINUED>                          0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                         0
<CHANGES>                               0
<NET-INCOME>                            (3,305,244)
<EPS-BASIC>                             (1.24)
<EPS-DILUTED>                           (1.24)



</TABLE>
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.                  

###### Federal Communications Commission

          - 47 CFR Part 73 
          - [DA 01-1390; MM Docket No. 01-6; RM-10009] 

# AGENCY:

Federal Communications Commission. 

# ACTION:

Final rule. 

# SUMMARY:

                        This document reallots Channel 278B from Steubenville, Ohio, to Burgettstown, Pennsylvania, and modifies the license for Station WOGH(FM) to specify operation on Channel 278B at Burgettstown, Pennsylvania, in response to a petition filed by Keymarket Licenses, LLC.                         *See*66 FR 7872, January 26, 2001. The coordinates for Channel 278B at Burgettstown are 40-20-32 and 80-37-14.                     

# DATES:

Effective July 23, 2001. 

      ( print page 33903)    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Kathleen Scheuerle, Mass Media Bureau, (202) 418-2180. 

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

This is a summary of the Commission's Report and Order, MM Docket No. 01-6, adopted May 30, 2001, and released June 8, 2001. The full text of this Commission decision is available for inspection and copying during normal business hours in the Commission's Reference Center, 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC. The complete text of this decision may also be purchased from the Commission's copy contractors, International Transcription Services, Inc., 1231 20th Street, NW., Washington, DC. 20036, (202) 857-3800, facsimile (202) 857-3805. 

# List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 73

      - Radio broadcasting

Part 73 of title 47 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows: 

# PART 73—RADIO BROADCAST SERVICES 

1. The authority citation for Part 73 continues to read as follows: 

Authority:47 U.S.C. 154, 303, 334 and 336. 

§ 73.202 

2. Section 73.202(b), the Table of FM Allotments under Ohio, is amended by removing Steubenville, Channel 278B. 

3. Section 73.202(b), the Table of FM Allotments under Pennsylvania, is amended by adding Burgettstown, Channel 278B. 

Federal Communications Commission. 

John A. Karousos,

Chief, Allocations Branch, Policy and Rules Division, Mass Media Bureau.

[FR Doc. 01-15977 Filed 6-25-01; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
II-01044

From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

Dittman David N <davedittman@msn.com>

Thursday, December 2, 2010 8:50 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.

Dittman David N

5112 Hurst Rd.

Ellicott City, MD 21043
Morris TALAGA, petitioner, v. WASHINGTON.

No. 15-9297.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 3, 2016.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals of Washington, Division 1 denied.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

DENNIS RENE LANZA-BANEGAS,

AKA Francisco Hernandez-Gomez, AKA

Rene Lamza,

 Petitioner,

 v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 13-70777

Agency No. A205-315-304

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

February 17, 2015** 

Before: O’SCANNLAIN, LEAVY, and FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judges.

Dennis Renee Lanza-Banegas, a native and citizen of Honduras, petitions for

review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal

from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) order granting him pre-conclusion voluntary

FILED

FEB 25 2015

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

 * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

 ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
departure. We dismiss the petition for review. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 

We lack jurisdiction to review Lanza-Banegas’ unexhausted contention that 

his waiver of appeal before the IJ was not knowing and intelligent. See Tijani v.

Holder, 628 F.3d 1071, 1080 (9th Cir. 2010) (no jurisdiction to review legal claims

not presented in the petitioner’s administrative proceedings before the BIA).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED.

2 13-70777
# C_2010317EN.01000901.xml

| 20.11.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 317/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.11.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 317/9

---

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 30 September 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Fövárosi Bíróság — Republic of Hungary) — József Uzonyi v Mezőgazdasági és Vidékfejlesztési Hivatal Központi Szerve

(Case C-133/09) (1)

1

(Agriculture - Common agricultural policy - Support schemes - Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 - Article 143ba - Separate sugar payment - Grant - Decision of the new Member States - Conditions - Objective and non-discriminatory criteria)

2010/C 317/16

Language of the case: Hungarian

Referring court

Referring court

Fövárosi Bíróság

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: József Uzonyi

Applicant:

Defendant: Mezőgazdasági és Vidékfejlesztési Hivatal Központi Szerve

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Fővárosi Bíróság — Interpretation of Article 143ba(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 of 29 September 2003 establishing common rules for direct support schemes under the common agricultural policy and establishing certain support schemes for farmers and amending Regulations (EEC) No 2019/93, (EC) No 1452/2001, (EC) No 1453/2001, (EC) No 1454/2001, (EC) 1868/94, (EC) No 1251/1999, (EC) No 1254/1999, (EC) No 1673/2000, (EEC) No 2358/71 and (EC) No 2529/2001 — Obligation on Member States to grant a separate sugar payment on the basis of objective and non-discriminatory criteria — National legislation reserving that payment to producers holding a supply contract for sugar beet concluded directly with a sugar refinery

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

Article 143ba(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 of 29 September 2003 establishing common rules for direct support schemes under the common agricultural policy and establishing certain support schemes for farmers and amending Regulations (EEC) No 2019/93, (EC) No 1452/2001, (EC) No 1453/2001, (EC) No 1454/2001, (EC) No 1868/94, (EC) No 1251/1999, (EC) No 1254/1999, (EC) No 1673/2000, (EEC) No 2358/71 and (EC) No 2529/2001, as amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 319/2006 of 20 February 2006, must be interpreted as precluding national provisions such as those at issue in the main proceedings which exclude from entitlement to a separate sugar payment a farmer not having delivery rights who delivers sugar beet to a sugar manufacturer through an integrátor which does have such rights, although those provisions grant a separate payment to a farmer having delivery rights who delivers sugar beet direct to a sugar manufacturer, and to a farmer not having delivery rights who is a member of a producer group which does have delivery rights and who delivers sugar beet to a sugar manufacturer through that group.

---

(1)  OJ C 153, 4.7.2009.

1

---
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 1784 Engrossed in House (EH)]

H. Res. 1784

                In the House of Representatives, U. S.,

                                                     December 22, 2010.
    Resolved, That a committee of two Members of the House be appointed to wait 
upon the President of the United States and inform him that the House of 
Representatives has completed its business of the session and is ready to 
adjourn, unless the President has some other communication to make to them.
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```
John STEELMAN, petitioner, v. David B. LONG, Warden.

No. 16-6899.

Supreme Court of the United States

Jan. 23, 2017.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.
Order filed, July 22, 2016.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-16-00231-CR

____________

JORDAN MARQUI GRANT, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the County Criminal Court at Law No 13

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 2054134

ORDER

The reporter’s record in this case was due May 10, 2016. See Tex. R. App. 

P. 35.1. On May 10, 2016, the court reporter filed a motion for extension of time to 

file the record which was granted until June 09, 2016. On June 09, 2016, the 

court reporter filed a second motion for extension of time to file the record which 

was granted until July 08, 2016 with the notation that no further extension will be 

granted absent exceptional circumstances. The court has not received a request to 

extend time for filing the record. The record has not been filed with the court. 
Because the reporter’s record has not been filed timely, we issue the following 

order.

We order Deanne Bridwell, the official court reporter, to file the record in 

this appeal within 30 days of the date of this order. 

PER CURIAM
In re Michael SHENEMAN, petitioner.

No. 16-7050.

Supreme Court of the United States

Jan. 9, 2017.

Petition for writ of habeas corpus denied.
John F. JONES, petitioner, v. Michael FINESILVER.

No. 15-9401.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 3, 2016.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Florida denied.