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

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

November 26, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

130031 & (78)(83) Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

Robert P. Young, Jr. PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Stephen J. Markman, Plaintiff-Appellee/ Justices 

Cross-Appellant, 

v SC: 130031 

 COA: 256767 

Oakland CC: 01-177766-FC 

LARRY A. MCGHEE,

Defendant-Appellant/ 

Cross-Appellee.
 

_________________________________________/ 

By order of April 13, 2007, the parties were directed to file supplemental briefs. 

On order of the Court, the supplemental briefs having been received, the application for 

leave to appeal the November 8, 2005 judgment of the Court of Appeals and the 

application for leave to appeal as cross-appellant are again considered, and they are 

DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed 

by this Court. 

s1119 

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. 

November 26, 2008 

 Clerk
Joan YUKINS, Warden, petitioner, v. Hattie TANNER.

No. 17-729.

Supreme Court of the United States

March 19, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit denied.
Raymond L. ROGERS, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 16-6834.

Supreme Court of the United States

Jan. 9, 2017.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit denied.
II-00552

From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

Mark Mendoza <mendozms@muohio.edu>

Thursday, December 2, 2010 3:01 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.

Mark Mendoza

325 West High St, #13

Oxford, OH 45056
Exhibit 13(a)1

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER 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 Annual Report of CDC Corporation (the Company) on Form 20-F for
the period ended December 31, 2007, as amended by this Amendment No. 1 or Form 20-F/A, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Form 20-F/A), I, Peter Yip, chief executive officer of the Company,
certify that:

(1) The Form 20-F/A 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 Form 20-F/A fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.



|                        
|------------------------
|Date: September 15, 2008
|                        
|/s/ Peter Yip           
|Peter Yip               
|Chief Executive Officer 

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating,
acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to CDC Corporation and will be retained by CDC Corporation and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
Alexander DRAIN, petitioner, v. Jay LANE, Superintendent, State Correctional Institution at Fayette.

No. 16-6158.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 31, 2016.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit denied.
# C_2010063EN.01002102.xml

| 13.3.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 63/21 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.3.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 63/21

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof (Germany) lodged on 3 December 2009 — Finanzamt Burgdorf v Manfred Bog

(Case C-497/09)

2010/C 63/34

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Referring court

Bundesfinanzhof

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Finanzamt Burgdorf

Applicant:

Defendant: Manfred Bog

Defendant:

Questions referred

Questions referred

| 1. | Does the sale of dishes or meals prepared for immediate consumption constitute a supply of goods within the meaning of Article 5 of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC (1) of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Does the sale of dishes or meals prepared for immediate consumption constitute a supply of goods within the meaning of Article 5 of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC (1) of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes?

1

| 2. | Does the answer to Question 1 depend on whether additional service elements are supplied (the provision of facilities for consumption)? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Does the answer to Question 1 depend on whether additional service elements are supplied (the provision of facilities for consumption)?

| 3. | In the event that Question 1 is answered in the affirmative: is the term ‘foodstuffs for human consumption’ in Category 1 of Annex H to Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes to be interpreted as covering only ‘take away’ foodstuffs as typically sold in the grocery business, or does it also cover dishes and meals which have been prepared by boiling, grilling, roasting, baking or other means for immediate consumption? |
| --- | --- |

3.

In the event that Question 1 is answered in the affirmative: is the term ‘foodstuffs for human consumption’ in Category 1 of Annex H to Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes to be interpreted as covering only ‘take away’ foodstuffs as typically sold in the grocery business, or does it also cover dishes and meals which have been prepared by boiling, grilling, roasting, baking or other means for immediate consumption?

---

(1)  OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1.

1

---
-

0 

0 

~ 

La 

CLJ \ ~ 

\ 

en 

I 

~ \ 

'01' 

" 

I 

\ 

co 

I 

0 \ 

0 

Ill 

I 

\ 

N 

I 

~ \ 

N 

I. I 

\ ~e I. 

I 

\ 

~e 

I 

\ 

0 I 

\ 0 

D. I 

\ D. \ iii I 

\ "G .~ I 

\ 

I 

\ 

·~ 

~I 

\ 

.CI 

\ .c 

Q.l 

'D. 

I 

\ 

I 

\ 

I 

\ 

I 

\ 

I 

\ 

I 

\ 

I 

\ 

I 

\ 

I 

I 

I \ 

\ 

\ 

\ 

\ I. 

\ 

Q) 

\ 

U'} 

~8 ~ l 

CLJ 

r 

u D. 

La 

La iii 

CLJ 

::s u 

·~ 

E 

0 

.c 

0 

U'} 

D. 

.... CLJ 

~ ~ 

> ::s 

u en La 

CLJ ..... c R'J 

w c.. 

·-u 

·- R'J I"' 

Q) c La 

tn 

::s w ~ 

>< ::E :I: 

L c. CLJ IU 

z ~ (I) 

L _j
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Federal Reserve System

                    The companies listed in this notice have applied to the Board for approval, pursuant to the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 (12 U.S.C. 1841*et seq.*) (BHC Act), Regulation Y (12 CFR Part 225), and all other applicable statutes and regulations to become a bank holding company and/or to acquire the assets or the ownership of, control of, or the power to vote shares of a bank or bank holding company and all of the banks and nonbanking companies owned by the bank holding company, including the companies listed below.                

The applications listed below, as well as other related filings required by the Board, are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated.  The application also will be available for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors.  Interested persons may express their views in writing on the standards enumerated in the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1842(c)).  If the proposal also involves the acquisition of a nonbanking company, the review also includes whether the acquisition of the nonbanking company complies with the standards in section 4 of the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1843).  Unless otherwise noted, nonbanking activities will be conducted throughout the United States.  Additional information on all bank holding companies may be obtained from the National Information Center website at www.ffiec.gov/​nic/​.

Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding each of these applications must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of Governors not later than July 20, 2001.

**A.  Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago**                     (Phillip Jackson, Applications Officer) 230 South LaSalle Street, Chicago, Illinois 60690-1414:                

*1.  Speer Bancshares, Inc.*, Speer, Illinois; to become a bank holding company by acquiring 100 percent of the voting shares of State Bank of Speer, Speer, Illinois.                

Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, June 21, 2001.

Robert deV. Frierson

Associate Secretary of the Board.

[FR Doc. 01-16013 Filed 6-25-01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6210-01-S
# C_2010113EN.01004402.xml

| 1.5.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 113/44 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.5.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 113/44

---

Judgment of the General Court of 9 March 2010 — hofherr communikation GmbH v OHIM (NATURE WATCH)

(Case T-77/09) (1)

1

(Community trade mark - International registration designating the European Community - Word mark NATURE WATCH - 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))

2010/C 113/71

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: hofherr communikation GmbH (Innsbruck, Austria) (represented by: S. Warbek, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (represented by: J. Crespo Carrillo, Agent)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 4 December 2008 (Case R 1410/2008-1) concerning the international registration, designating the European Community, of the word sign NATURE WATCH.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action.

| 2. | Orders hofherr communikation GmbH to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders hofherr communikation GmbH to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 90, 18.4.2009.

1

---
James Wesley SCOTT, petitioner, v. MISSISSIPPI.

No. 17-7837.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 16, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Mississippi denied.
II-00343

From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

Patricia Orlinski <bikerpat@mindspring.com>

Friday, December 3, 2010 12:20 AM

dfadefinitions <dfadefinitions@CFTC.gov>

Re: No loopholes in Dodd-Frank

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

Patricia Orlinski

10511 W. Kingswood Circle

Sun City, AZ 85351
Charles Albert MASSEY, III, petitioner, v. VIRGINIA.

No. 17-1115.

Supreme Court of the United States

March 19, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Virginia denied.
CERTIFICATIONS

In  connection with the  Report of International Commercial Television Inc. (the
"Company")  on Form 10-KSB for the period ending December 31, 2006 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), Kelvin
Claney, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and Karl Redekopp,
Chief  Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as
adopted  pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the
best  of  our  knowledge  and  belief:

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 result of operations of the Company.

          Date:  March 30, 2007
                                    Signed:  /s/ Kelvin Claney
                                           -------------------------------------
                                           President and Chief Executive Officer

                                    Signed:  /s/ Karl Redekopp
                                           -------------------------------------
                                           Chief Financial Officer
Henry PLATSKY, petitioner, v. NATIONAL SECURITY AGENCY, et al.

No. 17-6863.

Supreme Court of the United States

Feb. 20, 2018.

*1043Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit denied.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 9
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                          11,621
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                          11,190
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                 5,750
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                     43,417
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                          11,007
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                            10,657
<LOANS>                                        216,856
<ALLOWANCE>                                      2,170
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 314,816
<DEPOSITS>                                     263,408
<SHORT-TERM>                                     6,212
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                              2,481
<LONG-TERM>                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            61
<OTHER-SE>                                      42,654
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                 314,816
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                  9,027
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                1,681
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                   643
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                11,351
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                               4,290
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               4,417
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                            6,934
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                      510
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                  5,503
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  2,351
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                       1,533
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,533
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.26
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.26
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    4.86
<LOANS-NON>                                        650
<LOANS-PAST>                                        47
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                 1,875
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                      298
<RECOVERIES>                                        83
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                2,170
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                             2,170
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0


</TABLE>
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-07-00195-CV

Allstate Texas Lloyd’s, Appellant

v.

Texas Department of Insurance; Mike Geeslin, as Commissioner of Insurance;

and Office of Public Insurance Counsel, Appellees

FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY, 53RD JUDICIAL DISTRICT

NO. D-1-GN-06-002824, HONORABLE DARLENE BYRNE, JUDGE PRESIDING 

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

The parties to this case have filed a joint agreed motion to dismiss the appeal based

on a settlement. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.1(a). The motion informs the Court that an order entered

by the Commissioner of Insurance on May 12, 2008, has resolved the dispute. We grant the motion

and dismiss the appeal. Id.

 

W. Kenneth Law, Chief Justice

Before Chief Justice Law, Justices Pemberton and Waldrop

Dismissed on Joint Motion

Filed: May 28, 2008
Jesus QUINONES-CHAVEZ, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 15-9552.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 3, 2016.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.
NYMEX POSITION LIMIT EXEMPTIONS AND SUMMARY INFORMATION FOR MAJOR ENERGY 

MARKETS

AS OF JULY 21, 2009 

Contract Number of

Exemptions

Average Size of

Exemption

Maximum

Exemption

Minimum

Exemption

Crude Oil 37 5,693 13,000 3,000

Heating Oil 36 2,445 4,000 1,000

Gasoline 37 2,578 4,000 1,000

Natural Gas 43 2,930 6,000 1,000

NYMEX spot month speculative position limits

• 3,000 contracts for Crude Oil

• 1,000 contracts for others

• Applies during last three days of trading
Jesus Ivan ARANDA-LUNA, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 17-7293.

Supreme Court of the United States

Feb. 20, 2018.

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

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

AUGUST 14, 2007

THOMAS K. KAHN

CLERK

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 05-14631

 

(D.C. Docket No. 03-00083-CR)

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

EDDIE MILTON GAREY, JR., 

a.k.a. Miles Garey,

a.k.a. Milton Garey,

a.k.a. Eddie Garey,

Defendant-Appellant. 

 

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

On Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the Middle District of Georgia

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

(Opinion April 11, 2007, 483 F.3rd 1159, 11 Cir. 2007) th

(August 14, 2007)

Before EDMONDSON, Chief Judge, TJOFLAT, ANDERSON, BIRCH, DUBINA, BLACK, CARNES,

BARKETT, HULL, MARCUS, WILSON and PRYOR, Circuit Judges.

B Y T H E C O U R T :

A member of this Court in active service having requested a poll on the suggestions of rehearing en

banc and a majority of the judges in this Court in active service having voted in favor of granting a rehearing en

banc,

IT IS ORDERED that the above cause shall be reheard by this court en banc. The previous panel's

opinion is hereby VACATED.