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

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-26-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             DEC-28-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-27-1999
<CASH>                                           1,291
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    1,849
<ALLOWANCES>                                       173
<INVENTORY>                                     19,423
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                23,771
<PP&E>                                          17,308
<DEPRECIATION>                                   4,441
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  37,604
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           14,663
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        12,322
<OTHER-SE>                                       8,037
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    37,604
<SALES>                                         79,214
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                79,214
<CGS>                                           65,960
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   77,861
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                    57
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 151
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  1,145
<INCOME-TAX>                                       392
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                753
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       753
<EPS-BASIC>                                     0.21
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.21


</TABLE>
H. Res. 1428 

In the House of Representatives, U. S., 

November 16, 2010. 

Whereas Brooklyn Botanic Garden opened to the public in 

1910; 

Whereas the Brooklyn Botanic Garden is a 52-acre urban 

oasis in the heart of Brooklyn, New York, and features 

more than 11,000 different kinds of plants from around 

the world; 

Whereas the Brooklyn Botanic Garden is made up of many 

exquisite and historic specialty gardens, including the 

Japanese-Hill-and-Pond-Garden, the Children’s Garden, 

the Native Flora Garden, the Cranford Rose Garden, the 

Alice Recknagel Ireys Fragrance Garden, and the 

Steinhardt Conservatory; 

Whereas more than 730,000 visitors a year enjoy the Brooklyn Botanic Garden; 

Whereas the Brooklyn Botanic Garden is host to a world renown Cherry Blossom Festival; 

Whereas the Brooklyn Botanic Garden provides premier environmental education for children and adults; 

Whereas the Brooklyn Botanic Garden improves public education in Brooklyn through a partnership with the Brooklyn Academy of Science and the Environment High 

School and has provided valuable training, curriculum de-
2 

•HRES 1428 EH 

velopment, and field study opportunities that would otherwise not be available; 

Whereas the people of Brooklyn enjoy spending time in the 

beautiful gardens, making it a center for socializing, 

recreation, and education; and 

Whereas the Brooklyn Botanic Garden has become an integral part of the cultural life and economic development 

of Brooklyn and provides an invaluable service to residents: Now, therefore, be it 

Resolved, That the House of Representatives recognizes 

the Brooklyn Botanic Gardens on its 100th anniversary as 

the preeminent horticultural attraction in the borough of 

Brooklyn and for its longstanding commitment to environmental stewardship and education for the City of New York. 

Attest: 

Clerk.
# C_2013032EN.01001701.xml

| 2.2.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 32/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.2.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 32/17

---

Judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) of 12 December 2012 — Almamet v Commission

(Case T-410/09) (1)

1

(Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Market for calcium carbide and magnesium for the steel and gas industries in the EEA, with the exception of Ireland, Spain, Portugal and the United Kingdom - Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC - Price-fixing and market-sharing - Rights of the defence - Commission’s powers in inspections - Single and continuous infringement - Fines - Cooperation during the administrative procedure - Proportionality - 2006 Guidelines on the method of setting fines)

2013/C 32/25

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Almamet GmbH Handel mit Spänen und Pulvern aus Metall (Ainring, Germany) (represented by: S. Hautbourg and C. Renner, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: N. Khan, V. Bottka and N. von Lingen, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Application for annulment of Commission Decision C(2009) 5791 final of 22 July 2009 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 [EC] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/39.396 — Calcium carbide and magnesium based reagents for the steel and gas industries), in so far as it concerns the applicant, and, in the alternative, a reduction of the fine imposed on the applicant by that decision.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Almamet GmbH Handel mit Spänen und Pulvern aus Metall to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Almamet GmbH Handel mit Spänen und Pulvern aus Metall to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission.

---

(1)  OJ C 312, 19.12.2009.

1

---
II-00707

From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

Michael Baldwin <m.j.baldwin@comcast.net>

Thursday, December 2, 2010 12:16 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.

Michael Baldwin

1615 10th Ave W

Seattle, WA 98119
<PAGE>

                                                                  EXHIBIT 10.6


                               PAPER WAREHOUSE, INC.
                              7630 EXCELSIOR BOULEVARD
                              MINNEAPOLIS, MN   55426

                                  September 26, 1997


Brent D. Schlosser
Paper Warehouse, Inc.
7630 Excelsior Boulevard
Minneapolis, MN   55426


Dear Brent:

     This letter will confirm that the Compensation amount listed in paragraph
no. 2.1 of your Employment Agreement should be $150,000 (rather than the
$175,000 that was previously listed).

                              Sincerely,


                              s/ Yale T. Dolginow
                              Yale T. Dolginow


Accepted and Agreed to:


 s/ Brent D. Schlosser
------------------------------
Brent D. Schlosser
(NY) 18572/013/VOLCKER/VOLCKER.FUNDS/SIFMA.funds.group.discussion.topics.doc 03/09/11 1:37 PM

SIFMA Volcker Rule Discussion Items

 Customer requirement

 Permitted employee investments

 Employee pension funds1

 Carried interest2

 Selecting initial slate of directors3

 Super 23A4

 Hedging risks of employee deferred compensation plans

 Reach of hedge fund / PE fund definitions5

 Reach of banking entity definition6

 Transition rules

 Exclusion of pre-existing funds from Tier 1 cap

 Illiquid funds7

 

1

For further discussion of this topic, please see SIFMA’s comment letter on the FSOC Study submitted on November 5, 2010, 

available at http://www.sifma.org/issues/item.aspx?id=22125, at 16-17.

2

Id at 20.

3

Id., App. B at 8.

4

Id. at 11-15, 19-20.

5

Id. at 4-11, App. B at 4-8.

6

Id. at 12-14.

7

For further discussion of this topic, please see SIFMA’s comment letter on the conformance rules submitted on December 27, 

2010, available at http://www.sifma.org/issues/item.aspx?id=22813, at 4-12, 16-17.
Lashaun CASEY, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 16-7241.

Supreme Court of the United States

Jan. 23, 2017.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit denied.
<PAGE>


April 23, 1992

Mr. James A. Umphryes
Executive Vice President
Monument Mortgage, Inc.
1850 Mt. Diablo Blvd. Suite 650
Walnut Creek, CA 94596

Dear Mr. Umphryes:

We are  pleased to inform you that  Monument  Mortgage  Inc.  is now an
approved
Fannie Mae lender for first mortgages.  An executed copy of the Mortgage
Selling
and Servicing Contract is enclosed for your records.

The following  Lender  Identification  Number has been assigned to your
firm for
use in your dealings with Fannie Mae.

Lender Identification Number: 22328-000-5

If you need additional  information on our programs,  contact Scottie
Riddell of
our  Lender  Administration   Department  or  Sandy  Stocker  of  our
Marketing
Department.

Our staff  welcomes you as a participant  in our programs and looks forward
to a
pleasant relationship with your firm.

Sincerely,


Laddie A. Schmidtbauer
Vice President
Quality Control/Operations
Western Regional Office

BS: jd
# C_2009069EN.01005002.xml

| 21.3.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 69/50 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.3.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 69/50

---

Action brought on 21 January 2009 — Baid v OHIM (LE GOMMAGE DES FACADES)

(Case T-31/09)

(2009/C 69/110)

Language in which the application was lodged: French

Parties

Applicant: Baid SARL (Paris, France) (represented by M. Grasset, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

Defendant:

Form of order sought

| — | Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 30 October 2008 (Case R 963/2008-1) and alter it to the effect that the action before OHIM brought by the applicant is well founded and, consequently, that the mark applied for is granted; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 30 October 2008 (Case R 963/2008-1) and alter it to the effect that the action before OHIM brought by the applicant is well founded and, consequently, that the mark applied for is granted;

| — | Order OHIM to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order OHIM to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Community trade mark concerned: Word mark ‘LE GOMMAGE DES FACADES’ for goods and services in Classes 3, 19 and 37 — application No 6 071 641

Community trade mark concerned:

Decision of the Examiner: Rejection of the application for registration

Decision of the Examiner:

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal

Decision of the Board of Appeal:

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 7(1)(c) of Council Regulation No 40/94, since the mark applied for is not descriptive; of Article 7(3) of that regulation, since the mark applied for has acquired distinctive character through use and of Article 73 of that regulation, since the contested decision is largely based on references to Internet pages.

Pleas in law:

---
SEC Exhibit













May 9, 2016


Marina Hahn
1155 Park Avenue 
New York, NY 10128  
Dear Marina:
This letter agreement sets out the terms of your continued employment with Flex Innovation Group LLC (the “Company”) and amends that certain offer letter between you and Flex Pharma, Inc. (“Flex Pharma”) dated September 4, 2014, as amended on May 27, 2015 and July 20, 2015 (as amended, the “Offer Letter”), which Offer Letter has been assigned by Flex Pharma to the Company. Capitalized terms used herein not otherwise defined shall have the meanings ascribed to them in the Offer Letter. 
The parties acknowledge and agree that pursuant to that certain Stock Option Grant Notice dated November 10, 2014, including the Option Agreement attached thereto (the “Option Agreement”), and Flex Pharma’s 2014 Equity Incentive Plan (the “Plan”), you were granted an option (the “Option”) by Flex Pharma to purchase 248,855 shares of the Company’s Common Stock, which shares vest over a four year period, subject to your continued employment with the Company. The parties hereby agree that if the Company terminates your employment without Cause prior to December 31, 2016, then effective as of the date of such termination, an additional number of shares of Flex Pharma’s Common Stock subject to the Option shall vest and become exercisable equal to (i) the number of months remaining in calendar year 2016 as of the employment termination date and including the month of termination, multiplied by (ii) 5,185 shares.  Such additional number of vested shares shall be exercisable in accordance with the terms of the Option Agreement and the Plan. Such additional vesting shall be conditioned upon the Company’s receipt of an effective, general release of claims in favor of the Company in a form acceptable to the Company within 30 days following such termination date. 
The Company hereby agrees to waive its right to terminate your employment for Cause for any action, of which the Company is aware, taken by you prior to the date hereof in the conduct of your employment.  You hereby agree to waive your right to terminate your employment with the Company for Good Reason for any action taken by the Company prior to the date hereof. 
All other terms and provisions of the Offer Letter and the Option Agreement not expressly modified hereby shall remain in full force and effect.  This letter may not be modified or amended except by a written agreement signed by the Company and you.  
                


                                











                                
Sincerely,
Flex Innovation Group LLC        
/s/ Robert Hadfield    
Name: Robert Hadfield
Title: General Counsel


AGREED:
/s/ Marina Hahn    
Marina Hahn






Flex Pharma, Inc. 


/s/ Robert Hadfield        
Name: Robert Hadfield
Title: General Counsel
II-00740

From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

David J. Wilson <djwl ls0n@sbcglobal.net>

Thursday, December 2, 2010 11:49 AM

dfadefinitions <dfadefinitions@CFTC.gov>

Re: No loopholes in Dodd-Frank

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

3235-AK65, SEC File Number $7-12-10)

Dear Commissioners Shapiro and Gensler: Don’t let the American Bankers Association (ABA) redefine important terms like

"commercial risk" to keep banks that engage in risky derivatives trading from complying with transparency and business

conduct requirements. Commercial risk should not be expanded to include financial risk. Accepting the ABA argument

would open the door for exemptions for risky hedge funds and insurance companies.

2) Commodities Futures Trading Commission, Re: Position Limits (PIN 3038-AD 17 )

Dear Commissioner Gensler: The CFTC needs to set strong position limits to crack down on the energy and food commodity

speculation that serves no productive purpose. I urge the Commission to define limits that will address not only manipulation,

but also excessive speculation, which will require a stricter approach.

3) U.S. Department of the Treasury, Re: FX Swaps (75 FR 66426 Document Number 2010-27274)

Dear Secretary Geithner: Just say "no" to foreign exchange traders who want to exempt foreign currency derivatives from the

clearing and transparency requirements of the

Dodd-Frank Act. $4 trillion dollars a day is traded in these highly-leveraged swaps and this number may increase to over $10

trillion in a decade. As the head of the Financial

Stability Oversight Board your job is to decrease risk in the system, not encourage off-book trading and opaque markets.

David J. Wilson

11544 Quirk Road

Belleville, MI 48111
[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: 01-15738]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION

[Declaration of Disaster #3349]


State of Florida

    As a result of the President's major disaster declaration on June 
17, 2001, I find that Gadsden, Jefferson, Leon, Liberty, and Wakulla 
Counties in the State of Florida constitute a disaster area due to 
damages caused by Tropical Storm Allison occurring on June 11 and 
continuing through June 15, 2001. Applications for loans for physical 
damage as a result of this disaster may be filed until the close of 
business on August 16, 2001 and for economic injury until the close of 
business on March 18, 2002 at the address listed below or other locally 
announced locations: U.S. Small Business Administration, Disaster Area 
2 Office, One Baltimore Place, Suite 300, Atlanta, GA 30308.
    In addition, applications for economic injury loans from small 
businesses located in the following contiguous counties in Florida may 
be filed until the specified date at the above location: Calhoun, 
Franklin, Gulf, Jackson, Madison, and Taylor; and Brooks, Decatur, 
Grady, Seminole, and Thomas counties in the State of Georgia.
    The interest rates are:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               Percent
------------------------------------------------------------------------
For Physical Damage:
  Homeowners with credit available elsewhere...............        6.625
  Homeowners without credit available elsewhere............        3.312
  Businesses with credit available elsewhere...............        8.000
  Businesses and non-profit organizations without credit           4.000
   available elsewhere.....................................
  Others (including non-profit organizations) with credit          7.125
   available elsewhere.....................................
For Economic Inquiry:
  Businesses and small agricultural cooperatives without           4.000
   credit available elsewhere..............................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The number assigned to this disaster for physical damage is 334908. 
For economic injury the number is 9L9200 for Florida, and 9L9300 for 
Georgia.

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

    Dated: June 18, 2001.
Herbert L. Mitchell,
Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance.
[FR Doc. 01-15738 Filed 6-21-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8025-01-P
# C_2009267EN.01008502.xml

| 7.11.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 267/85 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.11.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 267/85

---

Action brought on 11 September 2009 –Wenig v Commission

(Case F-75/09)

2009/C 267/155

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Fritz Harald Wenig (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: Georges-Albert Dal and Dominique Voillemot, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Defendant:

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

First, application for annulment of the implied decision rejecting the applicant's request of 23 September 2008 for assistance from the European Commission and, second, an application for annulment of the rejection decision of the European Commission of 14 November 2008.

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | annul the implied decision rejecting the applicant's request of 23 September 2008 that the European Commission assist him in relation to the infringement of his rights which he suffered by reason of the publication of an offensive and defamatory article published on 7 September 2008 on the website of the British daily newspaper The Sunday Times and the unlawful actions of its authors; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the implied decision rejecting the applicant's request of 23 September 2008 that the European Commission assist him in relation to the infringement of his rights which he suffered by reason of the publication of an offensive and defamatory article published on 7 September 2008 on the website of the British daily newspaper The Sunday Times and the unlawful actions of its authors;

| — | should that decision be regarded as an express decision refusing the request for assistance made by the applicant, annul the Commission's decision of 14 November 2008 in so far as it rejects the applicant's request for assistance in the context of the organisation of the ‘Worst Conflicts of Interest Award’ calling him into question and infringing his integrity and the presumption of innocence; |
| --- | --- |

—

should that decision be regarded as an express decision refusing the request for assistance made by the applicant, annul the Commission's decision of 14 November 2008 in so far as it rejects the applicant's request for assistance in the context of the organisation of the ‘Worst Conflicts of Interest Award’ calling him into question and infringing his integrity and the presumption of innocence;

| — | order the defendant to pay compensation for the financial and non-material loss suffered; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to pay compensation for the financial and non-material loss suffered;

| — | order the defendant to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to pay the costs.

---