alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Page 1 

Commodity Futures Trading Commission 

CEA CASES 

NAME: A. E. MOOERS CO., INC., AND FRANK H. TOTMAN, SR. 

DOCKET NUMBER: 190 

DOCUMENT TYPE: ISSUANCE OF COMPLAINT 

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Commodity Exchange Authority 

Washington, D. C. 20250 

ISSUANCE OF COMPLAINT - CEA DOCKET NO. 190 

(Administrative Hearing Under the Commodity Exchange Act) 

A complaint and notice of hearing has been signed by the Assistant Secretary 

of Agriculture charging violation of the Commodity Exchange Act by: 

A. E. Mooers Co., Inc., 

and Frank H. Totman, Sr. 

(Houlton, Maine) 

The complaint charges that during the period June 30, 1969, through July 26, 

1971, the respondent corporation, while acting as a futures commission merchant 

under the Act, failed to meet minimum financial requirements prescribed for 

futures commission merchants. It further charges that the respondents concealed 

such failure by submitting to the Commodity Exchange Authority false financial 

reports on behalf of the respondent corporation. 

The issuance of a complaint under the Commodity Exchange Act does not 

constitute proof of violation of the law. Such violation is established only 

when the Judicial Officer of the Department has made a determination that the 

evidence substantiates allegations in the complaint. Complaints are filed in 

the Office of the Hearing Clerk of the Department of Agriculture and are a 

matter of public record. Pending disposition by the Judicial Officer, it is the 

policy of the Commodity Exchange Authority not to comment or elaborate on 

charges contained in complaints or to discuss evidence on which they are based. 

A public hearing on the complaint is scheduled to be held before a referee at 

10:00 a.m., local time, on July 11, 1972, in Houlton, Maine. 

LOAD-DATE: June 16, 2008 
Page 2
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

## FILED July 2, 2003 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 03-10026 Summary Calendar

WINDELL EUGENE HENRY; ET AL., Plaintiffs, WINDELL EUGENE HENRY, Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus WAYNE SCOTT, Director; TOM BAKER, Director; ALLEN POLANSKY, Defendants-Appellees.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 3:01-CV-1585-G

-------------------- Before REAVLEY, SMITH and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Windell Eugene Henry, formerly Texas prisoner # 935525, appeals the district court’s dismissal without prejudice of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil-rights suit in which Henry alleged that four prison law libraries were inadequate and deprived inmates of their constitutional right of access to court. The districtNo. 03-10026 -2- court dismissed the suit on the defendants’ motion pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1997e for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. It is unnecessary to address the exhaustion issues that Henry asserts on appeal because Henry has stated, and the record reflects, that he was released from custody during the pendency of this suit. Accordingly, Henry’s conditions-of-confinement suit, which sought only declaratory and injunctive relief, is moot, and the appeal must be dismissed accordingly. See Dailey v. Vought Aircraft Co. , 141 F.3d 224, 227 (5th Cir. 1998); Rocky v. King , 900 F.2d 864, 867 (5th Cir. 1990). It is irrelevant that Henry filed his lawsuit as a purported class action, because he never sought class certification in the district court. See Rocky , 900 F.2d at 869 (purported class action is moot when the named plaintiff’s individual claim became moot before class certification).
APPEAL DISMISSED AS MOOT.
Rodney Lee RIGGINS, petitioner, v. Amy MILLER, Warden, et al.

No. 16-5834.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 31, 2016.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.
Arika MATELYAN, aka Arika Hayes Matelyan, petitioner, v. SUPREME COURT OF the UNITED STATES.

No. 16-6024.

Supreme Court of the United States

Jan. 9, 2017.

Petition for rehearing denied.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

JERREL JAYNES,

Petitioner :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 115 MAL 2020

Petition for Allowance of Appeal

from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 1st day of June, 2020

, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is

DENIED

.
Issac SCOTT, petitioner, v. Grady PERRY, Warden.

No. 16-6291.

Supreme Court of the United States

Dec. 5, 2016.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit denied.
ntri-ex101_155.htm



 

Exhibit 10.1

NutriSystem, Inc.

Compensation Policy For Non-Employee Directors


EQUITY COMPENSATION:

Annual Equity Retainer Grant


	
 
	
·
	
On an annual basis, each non-employee director will receive shares of common stock with a value of $100,000 on a grant date to be determined in advance by the Board of Directors. Shares will be fully vested on the date of grant, but may not be sold until the first anniversary of the date of grant. The number of common shares granted shall be determined by dividing $100,000 by the closing price per common share on the date of grant. 




CASH COMPENSATION:

Annual Cash Retainer Fee


	
 
	
·
	
$50,000 annual cash retainer for each non-employee director, payable in the amount of $12,500 per quarter in arrears.




Annual Cash Retainer for Non-Executive Chairman of the Board


	
 
	
·
	
$40,000 annual cash retainer for the non-executive Chairman of the Board, payable in the amount of $10,000 quarterly in arrears.




Annual Cash Retainers for Committee Service - Chair


	
 
	
·
	
$20,000 annual cash retainer for the chair of the Audit Committee, payable in the amount of $5,000 quarterly in arrears.





	
 
	
·
	
$15,000 annual cash retainer for the chair of the Compensation Committee, payable in the amount of $3,750 quarterly in arrears.





	
 
	
·
	
$10,000 annual cash retainer for the chair of the Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee, payable in the amount of $2,500 quarterly in arrears.




Annual Cash Retainers for Committee Service - Non-Chair


	
 
	
·
	
$10,000 annual cash retainer for the non-chair members of the Audit Committee, payable in the amount of $2,500 quarterly in arrears. 





	
 
	
·
	
$7,500 annual cash retainer for the non-chair members of the Compensation Committee, payable in the amount of $1,875 quarterly in arrears.





	
 
	
·
	
$5,000 annual cash retainer for the non-chair members of the Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee, payable in the amount of $1,250 quarterly in arrears.




 

Effective:  January 1, 2016
Ronnie Wayne JACKSON, petitioner, v. Lorie DAVIS, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division.

No. 16-5843.

Supreme Court of the United States

Nov. 7, 2016.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied.
I 

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 3644 

To amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to extend the Independence 

at Home medical practice demonstration program under the Medicare 

program. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JULY 9, 2019 

Mr. BURGESS (for himself, Mrs. DINGELL, Mr. MARCHANT, and Mr. THOMPSON of California) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Ways and Means, and in addition to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, for a period to be subsequently determined by the 

Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within 

the jurisdiction of the committee concerned 

A BILL 

To amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to extend 

the Independence at Home medical practice demonstration program under the Medicare program. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Independence at Home 

5 Demonstration Act of 2019’’. 


pamtmann on DSKBFK8HB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 3644 IH

1 SEC. 2. EXTENDING THE INDEPENDENCE AT HOME MED2 ICAL PRACTICE DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM 

3 UNDER THE MEDICARE PROGRAM. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 1866E(e)(1) of the Social 

5 Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395cc–5(e)(1)) is amended by 

6 striking ‘‘7-year’’ and inserting ‘‘10-year’’. 

7 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

8 subsection (a) shall take effect as if included in the enact9 ment of Public Law 111–148. 

Æ 


pamtmann on DSKBFK8HB2PROD with BILLS
# C_2011204EN.01000602.xml

| 9.7.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 204/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.7.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 204/6

---

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 12 May 2011 — Grand Duchy of Luxembourg v European Parliament and Council of the European Union

(Case C-176/09) (1)

1

(Action for annulment - Directive 2009/12/EC - Airport charges - Scope - Airports whose annual traffic is over 5 million passenger movements per year and those with the highest passenger movements in each Member State - Validity - Principles of equal treatment, proportionality and subsidiarity)

2011/C 204/11

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (represented by: C. Schiltz, acting as Agent, and by P. Kinsch, avocat)

Applicant:

Intervener in support of the applicant: Slovak Republic (represented by: B. Ricziová, acting as Agent)

Intervener in support of the applicant:

Defendants: European Parliament (represented by: A. Troupiotis and A. Neergaard, acting as Agents), Council of the European Union (represented by: E. Karlsson and M. Moore, acting as Agents)

Defendants:

Intervener in support of the defendant: European Commission (represented by: K. Simonsson and C. Vrignon, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the defendant:

Re:

Re:

Action for annulment — Annulment of the end of Article 1(2) of Directive 2009/12/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 March 2009 on airport charges (OJ 2009 L 70, p. 11) — Application of the directive to airports with the highest passenger movement in each Member State — Luxembourg-Findel airport — Breach of the principles of equal treatment, subsidiarity and proportionality

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs;

| 3. | Orders the Slovak Republic and the European Commission to bear their own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the Slovak Republic and the European Commission to bear their own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 180, 1.8.2009.

1

---
<PAGE>   1

                                                                      EXHIBIT 21

                         SUBSIDIARIES OF THE REGISTRANT
                              AS OF MARCH 31, 1998




1.       Just Like Home, Inc., a Florida corporation

2.       Just Like Family, Inc., a Florida corporation

3.       Just Like Home IV, Inc., a Florida corporation (Inactive)

4.       Project Market Decisions, Inc., a Nevada corporation

5.       Just Like Home Corporate Center, Inc., a Florida corporation

6.       JLH Series I, Inc., a Florida corporation

7.       JLH Management Corp., a Florida corporation

8.       JLH Franchising Corp., a Florida corporation

9.       Edgewood Double Drive, Inc., a Florida corporation

10.      JLH Realty, Inc., an Ohio corporation

11.      Charis Place, Inc., a Florida corporation
# C_2011055EN.01001101.xml

| 19.2.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 55/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.2.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 55/11

---

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 9 December 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van Cassatie van België — Belgium) — Vlaamse Gemeenschap v Maurits Baesen

(Case C-296/09) (1)

1

(Social security - Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 - Article 13(2)(d) - Concept of ‘persons treated as’ civil servants - Employment contract with a public authority)

2011/C 55/17

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Referring court

Hof van Cassatie van België

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Vlaamse Gemeenschap

Applicant:

Defendant: Maurits Baesen

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Hof van Cassatie van België — Interpretation of Article 13(2)(a) and (d) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons, to self-employed persons and to their families moving within the Community (OJ, English Special Edition 1971(II), p. 416.) — Civil servants and persons treated as such — Concept — Person who has concluded an employment contract with a public authority

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The meaning of ‘civil servants’ and ‘persons to be treated as such’, as referred to in Article 13(2)(d) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons and their families moving within the Community, as amended by Council Regulation (EEC) No 1390/81 of 12 May 1981, is to be determined solely by reference to the national law of the Member State to which the administration employing the person concerned is subject and a person in the situation of the respondent in the main proceedings, who, in a Member State, is subject partly to the social security scheme for civil servants and partly to the social security scheme for employed persons, may thus be subject, in accordance with the provision made by Article 13(2)(d) of Regulation No 1408/71, only to the legislation of the Member State to which the administration employing that person is subject.

---

(1)  OJ C 267, 7.11.2009.

1

---
EXHIBIT 99.19





CERTIFICATIONS 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 Strategic Solutions Group, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-QSB for the period ending June 30, 2002, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
(the Report), I, Ernest Wagner, President of the Company and serving a function equivalent to that of Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify that to the best of my knowledge and belief:





(1)  The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities and 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/    ERNEST WAGNERErnest Wagner President Strategic Solutions Group, Inc.





August 14, 2002





In connection with the Quarterly Report of Strategic Solutions Group, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-QSB for the period ending
June 30, 2002, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Barbara Seubott, Accounting Manager of the Company and the highest ranking accounting officer of the Company, since the Company has
not designated a Chief Financial Officer or Comptroller, certify that to the best of my knowledge and belief:





(1)  The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities and 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/    BARBARA SEUBOTTBarbara Seubott Accounting Manager Strategic Solutions Group, Inc.





August 14, 2002
# C_2010221EN.01001501.xml

| 14.8.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 221/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.8.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 221/15

---

Appeal brought on 7 December 2009 by Goldman Management AD against the judgment delivered on 16 November 2009 in Case T-354/09

(Case C-507/09 P)

()

2010/C 221/24

Language of the case: Bulgarian

Parties

Parties

Appellant: Goldman Management AD (represented by: I. Lilkova, advokat)

Appellant:

Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission, Republic of Bulgaria

Other parties to the proceedings:

By Order of 6 May 2010, the Court of Justice (Seventh Chamber) declared the appeal manifestly inadmissible.

---
H. Res. 1640 

In the House of Representatives, U. S., 

September 23, 2010. 

Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution, it shall 

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

5297) to create the Small Business Lending Fund Program 

to direct the Secretary of the Treasury to make capital investments in eligible institutions in order to increase the 

availability of credit for small businesses, to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide tax incentives for small 

business job creation, and for other purposes, with 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 Financial Services or his designee 

that the House concur in 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 Financial Services, the chair and ranking 

minority member of the Committee on Small Business, and 

the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on 
2 

•HRES 1640 EH 

Ways and Means. The previous question shall be considered 

as ordered on the motion to final adoption without intervening motion. 

SEC. 2. It shall be in order at any time through the legislative day of October 1, 2010, for the Speaker to entertain 

motions that the House suspend the rules. The Speaker or 

her designee shall consult with the Minority Leader or his 

designee on the designation of any matter for consideration 

pursuant to this section. 

SEC. 3. 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 October 1, 2010. 

Attest: 

Clerk.
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 167 Engrossed in House (EH)]

H. Res. 167

                In the House of Representatives, U. S.,

                                                       October 6, 2009.
Whereas each year, States across the Nation formally proclaim September as 
        Campus Fire Safety Month;
Whereas since January 2000, at least 129 people including students, parents, and 
        children, have died in student housing fires, many of which were 
        preventable;
Whereas over 80 percent of these deaths have occurred in off-campus occupancies;
Whereas a majority of the students across the Nation live in off-campus 
        occupancies;
Whereas a number of fatal fires have occurred in buildings where the fire safety 
        systems have been compromised or disabled by the occupants;
Whereas it is recognized that automatic fire alarm systems provide the necessary 
        early warning to occupants and the fire department of a fire so that 
        appropriate action can be taken;
Whereas it is recognized that automatic fire sprinkler systems are a highly 
        effective method of controlling or extinguishing a fire in its early 
        stages, protecting the lives of a building's occupants;
Whereas many students are living in off-campus occupancies, Greek housing, and 
        residence halls that are not adequately protected with automatic fire 
        sprinkler systems and automatic fire alarm systems;
Whereas it is recognized that fire safety education is an effective method of 
        reducing the occurrence of fires and reducing the resulting loss of life 
        and property damage;
Whereas students are not routinely receiving effective fire safety education 
        throughout their entire college career;
Whereas it is vital to educate the future generations of our Nation about the 
        importance of fire safety behavior so that these behaviors can help to 
        ensure their safety during their college years and beyond; and
Whereas by developing a generation of firesafe adults, future loss of life from 
        fires can be significantly reduced: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved, That the House of Representatives--
            (1) supports the goals and ideals of Campus Fire Safety Month;
            (2) encourages administrators and municipalities across the country 
        to provide educational programs to all students during September and 
        throughout the school year; and
            (3) encourages administrators and municipalities to evaluate the 
        level of fire safety being provided in both on- and off-campus student 
        housing and take the necessary steps to ensure firesafe living 
        environments through fire safety education, installation of fire 
        suppression and detection systems, and the development and enforcement 
        of applicable codes relating to fire safety.
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```
Antoine MAYES, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 16-6729.

Supreme Court of the United States

Dec. 12, 2016.

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

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                       2,882,035
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                5,767,337
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             8,951,110
<PP&E>                                          24,428
<DEPRECIATION>                                   5,310
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              15,551,075
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,289,013
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       149,564
<OTHER-SE>                                  14,112,498
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                15,551,075
<SALES>                                      9,215,117
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             9,215,117
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                6,222,988
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             1,256,731
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           (357,164)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              2,092,562
<INCOME-TAX>                                   687,100
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          1,405,462
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 1,405,462
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    $0.09
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    $0.09


</TABLE>