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

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1
       
<S>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>           3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                   DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                        MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                               12,003,200
<SECURITIES>                                  0
<RECEIVABLES>                                 0
<ALLOWANCES>                                  0
<INVENTORY>                                   0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                     20,005,929
<PP&E>                                        0
<DEPRECIATION>                                0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                       20,005,929
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                   557,268
<BONDS>                                       0
<COMMON>                                      0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                         0
<PREFERRED>                                   0
<OTHER-SE>                                    0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>         20,005,929
<SALES>                                       0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                      1,969,482
<CGS>                                         0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                 0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                        861,361
<LOSS-PROVISION>                              0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                            0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                       1,108,121
<INCOME-TAX>                                  0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                   1,108,121
<DISCONTINUED>                                0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                               0
<CHANGES>                                     0
<NET-INCOME>                          1,108,121
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                74.14
<EPS-DILUTED>                                74.14
        

</TABLE>
Cary PICKETT, petitioner, v. NEVADA BOARD OF PAROLE COMMISSIONERS, et al.

No. 16-6700.

Supreme Court of the United States

Jan. 9, 2017.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

192 

CA 16-01269 

PRESENT: WHALEN, P.J., CENTRA, DEJOSEPH, NEMOYER, AND TROUTMAN, JJ. 

 

ASHTON BLAIR MCEVOY, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT, 

V ORDER

MULDOON & GETZ AND JON P. GETZ, 

DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS. 

 

BARCLAY DAMON, LLP, BUFFALO (TYSON PRINCE OF COUNSEL), FOR

DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS. 

VIOLA, CUMMINGS & LINDSAY, LLP, NIAGARA FALLS (MICHAEL J. SKONEY OF

COUNSEL), FOR PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT. 

 

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Niagara County (Mark

A. Montour, J.), entered May 2, 2016. The order denied defendants’

motion for summary judgment dismissing plaintiff’s complaint. 

Now, upon the stipulation of discontinuance signed by the

attorneys for the parties on August 17, 2016, and filed in the Niagara

County Clerk’s Office on September 29, 2016,

It is hereby ORDERED that said appeal is unanimously dismissed 

without costs upon stipulation.

Entered: February 3, 2017 Frances E. Cafarell

Clerk of the Court
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA 

MIDDLE DISTRICT 

BRANDON HETRICK, EXECUTOR OF 

THE ESTATE OF: WILLIAM 

WASHINGTON, DECEASED,

Respondent

v.

MANORCARE OF CARLISLE PA, LLC 

D/B/A MANORCARE HEALTH 

SERVICES, CARLISLE, AND HCR 

MANORCARE, INC., AND MANORCARE, 

INC., AND HCR HEALTHCARE, LLC, 

AND HCR II HEALTHCARE, LLC, AND 

HCR III HEALTHCARE, LLC, AND HCR IV 

HEALTHCARE, LLC,

Petitioners

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 506 MAL 2015

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from 

the Unpublished Memorandum and 

Order of the Superior Court at No. 266 

MDA 2014 entered on June 3, 2015, 

affirming the Order Entered of the 

Cumberland County Court of Common 

Pleas at No. 11-7979 entered on 

January 10, 2014

ORDER 

PER CURIAM 

AND NOW, this 15th day of November, 2016, the Petition for Allowance of 

Appeal is GRANTED, the order of the Superior Court is VACATED, and this matter is 

REMANDED to the Superior Court for further proceedings in light of Taylor v. 

Extendicare Health Facilities, Inc., et. al., __ A.3d __, 2016 WL 5630669 (Pa. filed Sept. 

28, 2016). 

DECIDED: November 15, 2016
Kajuan D. HALE, petitioner, v. Sherry BURT, Warden.

No. 16-5604.

Supreme Court of the United States

Jan. 9, 2017.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit denied.
# C_2009297EN.01001902.xml

| 5.12.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 297/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.12.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 297/19

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Augstākās tiesas Senāta Administratīvo lietu departaments lodged on 28 September 2009 — Stils Met SIA v Valsts ieņēmumu dienests

(Case C-382/09)

2009/C 297/26

Language of the case: Latvian

Referring court

Referring court

Augstākās tiesas Senāta Administratīvo lietu departaments

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Stils Met SIA

Applicant:

Defendant: Valsts ieņēmumu dienests

Defendant:

Questions referred

Questions referred

| 1. | Are TARIC codes 7312108219, 7312108419 and 7312108619 to be interpreted as meaning that, in 2004 and 2005, steel articles –ropes and cables not coated or only plated or coated with zinc– and, in particular, alloy steel not consigned from Moldova or Morocco, ought to have been classified under these codes, depending on their cross-sectional dimensions, irrespective of their chemical composition (excluding stainless steel)? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Are TARIC codes 7312108219, 7312108419 and 7312108619 to be interpreted as meaning that, in 2004 and 2005, steel articles –ropes and cables not coated or only plated or coated with zinc– and, in particular, alloy steel not consigned from Moldova or Morocco, ought to have been classified under these codes, depending on their cross-sectional dimensions, irrespective of their chemical composition (excluding stainless steel)?

| 2. | Is Article 14(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 384/96 of 22 December 1995 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community to be interpreted as precluding a penalty (fine) calculated on the amount of anti-dumping duties which is imposed on the basis of national legislation (Article 32(2) of the Law ‘Par nodokļiem un nodevām’) governing breaches of tax law? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Is Article 14(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 384/96 of 22 December 1995 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community to be interpreted as precluding a penalty (fine) calculated on the amount of anti-dumping duties which is imposed on the basis of national legislation (Article 32(2) of the Law ‘Par nodokļiem un nodevām’) governing breaches of tax law?

---
# C_2009267EN.01002404.xml

| 7.11.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 267/24 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.11.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 267/24

---

Appeal brought on 21 January 2009 by Daniela Marinova against the order of the Court of First Instance (Sixth Chamber) delivered on 05 November 2008 in Case T-213/08: Marinova/Université Libre de Bruxelles and Commission

(Case C-29/09 P)

2009/C 267/44

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Appellant: Daniela Marinova (represented by: G. Georgiev, advocate)

Appellant:

Other parties to the proceedings: Université Libre de Bruxelles, Commission of the European Communities

Other parties to the proceedings:

By order of 1 July 2009 the Court of Justice (Eight Chamber) held that the appeal was inadmissible.

---
Lakesha BRYANT, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE.

No. 16-6974.

Supreme Court of the United States

Jan. 9, 2017.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit denied.
II-00504

From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

Ruth Silverman <sylvye@gate.net>

Thursday, December 2, 2010 4:14 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.

Ruth Silverman

100 Woodland Pond Circle

New Paltz, NY 12561
ORIGINAL 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 

DA 23-0212 

IN RE THE PARENTING OF 

M.B., A minor child. 

UMBERTO FERRI, 

Petitioner and Appellee. 

and 

ANNELIESE N. BROWN. 

Respondent and Appellant. 

JUN 2 0 2023 

Bovvan u,-,anwood 

Clerk ot SL:p, erne Court 

State of Montana 

ORDER 

Appellant Anneliese N. Brown, via counsel, moves pursuant to M. R. App. P. 

22(2)(a) for relief from an order of the Eleventh Judicial District Court, Flathead County, 

that denied her Motion to Stay Order Pending Appeal. Brown alleges that if the District 

Court's Order Re: Interim Parenting Plan is not stayed until this appeal is resolved, the 

child M.B., who is subject to the parenting plan, will be irreparably harmed. Appellee 

Umberto Ferri objects to Brown's motion for relief, arguing this Court should allow the 

District Court's denial of stay to stand because Brown has not demonstrated the requisite 

good cause for this Court to provide relief from the District Court's denial of stay. 

Under M. R. App. P. 22(1), a party must first move the district court for a stay of its 

judgment or order pending appeal. M. R. App. P. 22(1)(d) requires that court to promptly 

enter a written order "and include in findings of fact and conclusions of law, or in a 

supporting rationale, the relevant facts and legal authority on which the district court's 

order is based." After the district court issues its ruling, a party may move for relief from 

that order under M. R. App. P. 22(2), which this Court will grant only upon a demonstration 

of good cause, among other considerations. 

06/20/2023

Case Number: DA 23-0212
In this case, the District Court issued an Order Denying Motion to Stay Order 

Pending Appeal and Deferring Reimbursement Request that summarily denied Brown's 

motion to stay without providing findings of fact, conclusions of law, or a supporting 

rationale as Rule 22(1)(d) requires. Without an explanation of the District Court's reasons 

for denying Brown's motion to stay, we cannot determine if good cause exists for relief 

from that order. 

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the District Court shall enter an amended order 

that complies with M. R. App. P. 22(1)(d) and shall transmit such order to this Court within 

30 days of the date of this Order. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Appellant's motion for relief is HELD IN 

ABEYANCE pending this Court's receipt and consideration of the District Court's 

amended order. 

The Clerk is direCted to provide copies of this order to all counsel of record, to the 

Clerk of the Flathead County District Court, and to the Hon. Robert B. Allison. 

14/4N. 

DATED this (--b day of June, 2023. 

Justices
II-00976

From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

Diana Harper <yourharper@aol.com>

Thursday, December 2, 2010 9:32 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.

Diana Harper

717 Overland Way

San Jose, CA 95111
# C_2010134EN.01005102.xml

| 22.5.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 134/51 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.5.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 134/51

---

Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 9 March 2010 — N v Parliament

(Case F-26/09) (1)

1

(Staff cases - Officials - Action for damages - Admissibility - Psychological harassment - Duty of care - Non-material damage)

2010/C 134/85

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: N (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: É. Boigelot, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: K. Zejdová and R. Ignătescu, Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

An order that the Parliament pay the applicant the sum of EUR 12 000 by way of compensation for the harm suffered, first, on account of the psychological and professional harassment to which she was subject and, secondly, on account of there being no internal administrative investigation by an independent body.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Tribunal:

| 1. | Orders the European Parliament to pay N compensation in the amount of EUR 2 000; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Orders the European Parliament to pay N compensation in the amount of EUR 2 000;

| 2. | For the rest, dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

2.

For the rest, dismisses the action;

| 3. | Orders the European Parliament to bear its own costs and to pay three quarters of N's cost |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the European Parliament to bear its own costs and to pay three quarters of N's cost

| 4. | Orders N to bear one quarter of her own costs. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Orders N to bear one quarter of her own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 153 of 04. 07. 2009, p. 51.

1

---
H. Res. 1606 

In the House of Representatives, U. S., 

August 10, 2010. 

Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution, it shall 

be in order to take from the Speaker’s table the bill (H.R. 

1586) to modernize the air traffic control system, improve 

the safety, reliability, and availability of transportation by air 

in the United States, provide for modernization of the air 

traffic control system, reauthorize the Federal Aviation Administration, and for other purposes, with the Senate amendment to the House amendment to the Senate amendment 

thereto, and to consider in the House, without intervention of 

any point of order, a motion offered by the chair of the Committee on Appropriations or his designee that the House concur in the Senate amendment to the House amendment to 

the Senate amendment. The Senate amendment and the motion shall be considered as read. The motion shall be debatable for one hour equally divided among and controlled by the 

chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Appropriations, the chair and ranking minority member of the 

Committee on Ways and Means, and the chair and ranking 
2 

•HRES 1606 EH 

minority member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce. The previous question shall be considered as ordered 

on the motion to final adoption without intervening motion. 

SEC. 2. The requirement of clause 6(a) of rule XIII for 

a two-thirds vote to consider a report from the Committee on 

Rules on the same day it is presented to the House is waived 

with respect to any resolution reported through the legislative 

day of August 11, 2010. 

Attest: 

Clerk.
II-00616

From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

Richard Karpinski <dick@cfcl.com>

Thursday, December 2, 2010 1:29 PM

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.

It is NOT a net benefit to the USA that the financial sector takes roughly forty percent of the money for themselves. Leaving

this unfixed is asking for major upheavals from the people who are suffering because the rich are taking not only the money

but the joy and the hope from those who deserve both. You can fix it more efficiently than we can.

Richard Karpinski

6521 Raymond St.

Oakland, CA 94609
Regina PEEL, petitioner, v. Scott KERNAN, Secretary, California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation.

No. 16-6334.

Supreme Court of the United States

Nov. 28, 2016.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-7538

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

DONOVAN ANTHONY STAFFORD, a/k/a Donnavan

Brown,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western

District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Graham C. Mullen, Senior

District Judge. (3:03-cr-00112-GCM; 3:06-cv-00309-GCM)

Submitted: February 5, 2008 Decided: February 15, 2008

Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Donovan Anthony Stafford, Appellant Pro Se. Amy Elizabeth Ray,

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Asheville, North Carolina,

for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Donovan Anthony Stafford seeks to appeal the district

court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion.

The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge

issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)

(2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a

substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28

U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by

demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that any

assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is

debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by

the district court is likewise debatable. Miller-El v. Cockrell,

537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484

(2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have

independently reviewed the record and conclude that Stafford has

not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate

of appealability and dismiss the appeal. 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
[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 122 (Monday, June 25, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Page 33674]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-15860]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RP96-389-024]


Columbia Gulf Transmission Company; Notice of Negotiated Rate 
Filing

June 19, 2001.
    Take notice that on June 13, 2001, Columbia Gulf Transmission 
Company (Columbia Gulf) tendered for filing to the Commission the 
following contract for disclosure of a recently negotiated rate 
transaction:

FTS-1 Service Agreement No. 70692 between Columbia Gulf Transmission 
Company and Warren Power, LLC, dated June 6, 2001

    Columbia Gulf requests that the Commission accept the FTS-1 service 
agreement to be effective within thirty (30) days of the filing date of 
such service agreement.
    Columbia Gulf states that copies of the filing have been served on 
all parties on the official service list created by the Secretary in 
this proceeding.
    Any person desiring to be heard or to protest said filing should 
file a motion to intervene or a protest with the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, N.E., Washington, D.C. 20426, 
in accordance with Sections 385.214 or 385.211 of the Commission's 
Rules and Regulations. All such motions or 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. Any person wishing to become a party must 
file a motion to intervene. 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.

Linwood A. Watson, Jr.,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. 01-15860 Filed 6-22-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M