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

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          APR-30-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               OCT-31-1999
<CASH>                                      27,993,000
<SECURITIES>                                 2,700,000
<RECEIVABLES>                                4,009,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                 1,121,000
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                       6,664,000
<DEPRECIATION>                               3,188,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              84,465,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       934,000
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                84,465,000
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             4,415,000
<CGS>                                        5,034,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               13,952,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (14,571,000)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (14,571,000)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (14,571,000)
<EPS-BASIC>                                       (.17)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     (.17)


</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-2001
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                         514,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  233,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               810,000
<PP&E>                                         350,000
<DEPRECIATION>                                 273,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 887,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        3,549,000
<BONDS>                                      1,000,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       497,000
<OTHER-SE>                                 (4,159,000)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   887,000
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               120,000
<CGS>                                            4,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             1,382,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                            (19,000)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (1,285,000)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (1,285,000)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (1,285,000)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (.03)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.03)


</TABLE>
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-6011

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus MICHAEL DELANEY ROBERTS, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. William M. Nickerson, District Judge. (CR-96-291-WMN, CA-99-511-WMN) Submitted: March 9, 2000 Decided: March 16, 2000 Before WILKINS, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Cheryl Johns Sturm, Westtown, Pennsylvania, for Appellant. JohnFrancis Purcell, Jr., OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Michael D. Roberts seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp.1999). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. See United States v. Roberts , Nos. CR-96-291- WMN, CA-99-511-WMN (D. Md. Nov. 8, 1999). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Elizabeth A. Weaver

Maura D. Corrigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

 _________________________________________ 

 Clerk

April 27, 2010 

0419 

Order 

 

April 27, 2010 

140231 

NADINE MAE CHAMBERS, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 140231 

 COA: 293422 

Lapeer CC: 91-016435-DO 

MERLE K. CHAMBERS, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

 On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the November 6, 2009 

order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the question presented should be reviewed by this Court.
**Judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) of 10 March 2010 – Baid v OHIM (LE GOMMAGE DES FACADES)**

**(Case T-31/09)**

Community trade mark – Application for the Community word mark LE GOMMAGE DES FACADES – Absolute ground for refusal – Descriptive character – Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009) – Duty to state reasons – First sentence of Article 73 of Regulation No 40/94 (now the first sentence of Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009)

Community trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark – Absolute grounds for refusal – Marks composed exclusively of signs or indications which may serve to designate the characteristics of goods (Council Regulation
No 40/94, Art. 7(1)(c)) (see paras 28, 33-34)

**Re:**

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 30 October 2008 (Case R 963/2008-1), concerning an application to register the word sign LE GOMMAGE DES FACADES as a Community trade mark. |

**Information relating to the case**

| | |
| --- | --- |
| Applicant for the Community trade mark: | Baid SARL |
| Community trade mark sought: | Word mark LE GOMMAGE DES FACADES for goods and services in Classes 3, 19 and 37 – application No 6071641 |
| Decision of the Examiner: | Registration refused |
| Decision of the Board of Appeal: | Appeal dismissed |

**Operative part**

The Court:

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

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 2. | | Orders Baid SARL to pay the costs. |
EXHIBIT 3.10



CERTIFICATE OF ELIMINATION OF



SERIES A JUNIOR PARTICIPATING PREFERRED STOCK



($0.01 Par Value)

of



AVATECH SOLUTIONS, INC.



---



Pursuant to Section 151 of the

General Corporation Law of the State of Delaware



---



Avatech Solutions, Inc., a corporation organized and existing under the General Corporation Law of the State of Delaware (the Corporation), in
accordance with the provisions of Section 103 thereof, DOES HEREBY CERTIFY:



FIRST: That the Corporation did designate a series of preferred stock known as Series A Junior Participating Preferred Stock on March 11, 2002; and



SECOND: Pursuant to the authority conferred upon the Board of Directors by the Amended and Restated Certificate of
Incorporation of the Corporation, the Board of Directors of the Corporation adopted the following resolution, eliminating the Corporations Series A Junior Participating Preferred Stock, par value $0.01, no such shares having been issued, no
rights to purchase such shares remain outstanding, and none shall be issued subject to the certificate of designations previously filed with respect to the Series A Junior Participating Preferred Stock:



RESOLVED: That pursuant to the authority vested in
the Board of Directors of this Corporation in accordance with the provisions of Article SIXTH, Section 2 of the Corporations Amended and Restated Certificate of Incorporation, the number of shares designated as Series A Junior Participating
Preferred Stock shall be reduced to zero (0), such shares having never been issued and all rights to purchase such shares having been terminated, and that the Chief Executive Officer and the Secretary of the Corporation be, and they hereby are,
authorized and directed, in the name and on behalf of the Corporation, to file and amendment





---

to the Certificate of Designations of Series A Junior Participating Preferred Stock in substantially the form attached hereto as Exhibit A and in
accordance with the provisions of the Delaware General Corporation Law, and to take such actions as they may deem necessary or appropriate to carry out the intent of the foregoing.



THIRD: That the aforesaid resolution was duly and validly adopted in accordance with the applicable provisions of
Section 151 of the General Corporation Law of the State of Delaware and the Amended and Restated Certificate of Incorporation and the By-Laws of the Corporation.



FOURTH: That the aforesaid amendment shall become effective upon the filing of this Certificate with the office of
the Secretary of State of the State of Delaware.



IN WITNESS
WHEREOF, said Avatech Solutions, Inc. has caused this Certificate to be executed and attested, this 23rd day of December, 2003.



AVATECH SOLUTIONS, INC.By:

/s/Donald R. Walsh Chief Executive Officer






ATTEST:/s/Beth O. MacLaughlin, Secretary
Timothy Lewis SHEROD, petitioner, v. GEORGIA.

No. 15-9181.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 3, 2016.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals of Georgia denied.
[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 120 (Thursday, June 21, 2001)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 33208-33209]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-15563]


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

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 64

[CC Docket Nos. 00-257 and 94-129; FCC 01-156]


2000 Biennial Review-Review of Policies and Rules Concerning 
Unauthorized Changes of Consumers Long Distance Carriers

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Final rule; announcement of effective date.

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

SUMMARY: This document announces the effective date of certain carrier 
change authorization and verification rules adopted in the First Report 
and Order in CC Docket No. 00-257 and Fourth Report and Order in CC 
Docket No. 94-129 (Order) in our slamming proceeding. A summary of the 
Order was published in the Federal Register on May 22, 2001 and a 
correction to that summary was published in the Federal Register on 
June 6, 2001.

DATES: The amendments to 47 CFR 64.1120(e) published at 66 FR 28117 
(May 22, 2001) become effective on June 21, 2001.

[[Page 33209]]


FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michele Walters, Associate Chief, 
Accounting Policy Division, Common Carrier Bureau, (202) 418-7400.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the Order, released May 15, 2001, the 
Commission adopted streamlined procedures to replace the burdensome 
waiver process for the carrier-to-carrier sale or transfer of 
subscriber bases. The Commission's new procedures provide for an 
acquiring carrier to simply self-certify to the Commission, in advance 
of the transfer, that the carrier will follow the required procedures. 
This will protect the interests of the affected subscribers by giving 
them adequate advance notice of the carrier change and ensuring that 
the change will not cause them financial harm. A summary of the Order 
was published in the Federal Register. 66 FR 28117 (May 22, 2001). The 
subject heading in the summary was corrected in a document published in 
the Federal Register. 66 FR 30334 (June 6, 2001). The Office of 
Management and Budget (OMB) approved the information collections 
contained in section 64.1120(e) on June 7, 2001. OMB. No. 3060-0973. 
The rules adopted in the Order will take effect on June 21, 2001.

Federal Communications Commission.
Magalie Roman Salas,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 01-15563 Filed 6-20-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
Exhibit 31.1



CERTIFICATION



I, Donald R. Walsh, certify that:



1. I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Avatech Solutions, Inc.;



2. Based on my knowledge, this 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 report;



3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this 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 report;



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



(a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, 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 report is being prepared;



(b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the Registrants disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the
effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and



(c) Disclosed in this report any change in the Registrants internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the Registrants most
recent fiscal quarter (the Registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the Registrants internal control over financial reporting; and



5. The Registrants other certifying officer and I have
disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the Registrants auditors and the audit committee of Registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent function):



(a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in
the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the Registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and



(b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in the Registrants internal control over financial reporting.



|                        |  |  |  |                        
|----------------------- |  |  |  | -----------------------
|Date: November 15, 2004 |  |  |  | /s/ Donald R. Walsh    
|                        |  |  |  | Donald R. Walsh        
|                        |  |  |  | Chief Executive Officer



24
<PAGE>

                                                                    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 K&F Industries, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2005 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Dirkson
R. Charles, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 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.

/s/ DIRKSON R. CHARLES
----------------------
Dirkson R. Charles
Executive Vice President and
Chief Financial Officer
August 15, 2005
II-00464

From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

Lee Frank <bg214@sbcglobal.net>

Thursday, December 2, 2010 6:12 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.

Lee Frank

14648 Tustin St.

Sherman Oaks, CA 91403
Iashia KNOX, petitioner, v. Anthony STEWART, Warden.

No. 16-6964.

Supreme Court of the United States

Jan. 23, 2017.

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

COURTOFAPPEAL,FIRSTCIRCUIT JARRELL ARLINE, SR. VERSUS 

### LOUISIANA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY AND CORRECTIONS NO. 

### 2022 CW 0340 JULY 5, 2022
In Re: Jarrell 

### Arline, Sr., 

### applying 

### for supervisory writs,



### 19th Judicial District Court, Parish of East Baton Rouge, No. 

### 710189. BEFORE: McCLENDON, WELCH, AND HESTER, JJ.

WRIT GRANTED. 

### The district court 

### is ordered to act on the petition for 

### judicial review 

## filed by relator, Jarrell Arline, Sr., 

### within 60 days. Pmc JEW CHH

COURT OFAPPEAL, FIRST CIRCUIT


### DEPUTY CLERK OF COURT FOR THE COURT
```

                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.2

                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

  Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. ss.1350)

In connection with the Amended and Restated Annual Report of Form 10-K/A for the
period ended December 31, 2004 (the "Report") filed by Everlast  Worldwide Inc.,
a  Delaware  corporation  (the  "Company")  with  the  Securities  and  Exchange
Commission,  the undersigned,  Gary J. Dailey,  Chief Financial Officer of, does
hereby  certify,  to his  knowledge,  that  pursuant to 18 U.S.C.  ss. 1350,  as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities  Exchange Act of 1934, as amended,  and the information  contained in
the Report fairly presents,  in all material respects,  the financial  condition
and results of operations of the Company.

                                   /s/ Gary J. Dailey
                                   ------------------------------------
                                   Gary J. Dailey
                                   Chief Financial Officer
                                   November 28, 2005

A signed  original of this  written  statement  required by Section 906 has been
provided to Everlast  Worldwide Inc. and will be retained by Everlast  Worldwide
Inc and furnished to the  Securities  and Exchange  Commission or its staff upon
request.
```
II-00649

From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

Timothy Schutte <kc8hr@sbcglobal.net>

Thursday, December 2, 2010 12:55 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.

Timothy Schutte

1448 West River Park Drive

Inkster, MI 48141
Warren DAILEY, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 17-821.

Supreme Court of the United States

Feb. 20, 2018.

Petition for rehearing denied.