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

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                           2,701
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                          19,245
<DEPRECIATION>                                   3,862
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  18,779
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                         15,574
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                       2,230
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    18,779
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 4,468
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    3,399
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   119
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 653
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    297
<INCOME-TAX>                                         5
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                292
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       292
<EPS-BASIC>                                      15.48<F1>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    15.48<F1>
<FN>
<F1>Net income per limited partner unit.
</FN>


</TABLE>
II-00854

From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

William Brough <aasbizstats@gmail.com>

Thursday, December 2, 2010 10:43 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.

William Brough

2037 Needmore Rd. #200

Dayton, OH 45414
Eugene DAVIS, petitioner, v. M. Eliot SPEARMAN, Warden.

No. 17-7550.

Supreme Court of the United States

March 19, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.
David JOHNSON, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 17-7672.

Supreme Court of the United States

March 5, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit denied.
Dustin VANHALST, petitioner, v. TEXAS.

No. 17-7120.

Supreme Court of the United States

Feb. 20, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals of Texas, Sixth District denied.
Rogelio ORTIZ-MARTINEZ, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 17-7395.

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.
# C_2012243EN.01001601.xml

| 11.8.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 243/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.8.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 243/16

---

Judgment of the General Court of 29 June 2012 — GDF Suez v Commission

(Case T-370/09) (1)

1

(Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - German and French markets for natural gas - Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC - Market sharing - Duration of the infringement - Fines)

2012/C 243/29

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: GDF Suez (Paris, France) (represented by: J. P. Gunther and C. Breuvart, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: V. Di Bucci, A. Bouquet and R. Sauer, Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Application for partial annulment of Commission Decision C(2009) 5355 final of 8 July 2009 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 [EC] (Case COMP/39.401 — E.ON/GDF), and, in the alternative, for annulment or reduction of the fine imposed on the applicant.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls Article 1 of Commission Decision C(2009) 5355 final of 8 July 2009 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 [EC] (Case COMP/39.401 — E.ON/GDF), first, inasmuch as it found that the duration of the infringement was from 1 January 1980 until at least 24 April 1998 as regards the infringement committed in Germany and, secondly, inasmuch as it found that an infringement was committed in France from 13 August 2004 to 30 September 2005; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls Article 1 of Commission Decision C(2009) 5355 final of 8 July 2009 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 [EC] (Case COMP/39.401 — E.ON/GDF), first, inasmuch as it found that the duration of the infringement was from 1 January 1980 until at least 24 April 1998 as regards the infringement committed in Germany and, secondly, inasmuch as it found that an infringement was committed in France from 13 August 2004 to 30 September 2005;

| 2. | Sets the amount of the fine imposed on GDF Suez SA in Article 2(b) of Decision C(2009) 5355 final at EUR 320 million; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Sets the amount of the fine imposed on GDF Suez SA in Article 2(b) of Decision C(2009) 5355 final at EUR 320 million;

| 3. | Dismisses the action as to the remainder; |
| --- | --- |

3.

Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

| 4. | Orders each party to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Orders each party to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 282, 21.11.2009.

1

---
Michael McCLOUD, petitioner, v. A.M. FUNAIOCK, et al.

No. 16-9484.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 2, 2017.

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

###### Department of Energy

###### Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

          - [Docket No. EL01-92-000]

Take notice that on June 15, 2001, Bangor Hydro-Electric Company (Bangor Hydro) tendered for filing a complaint in which Bangor Hydro petitions the Commission to issue an order directing that ISO New England Inc. (ISO-NE or the ISO) recalculate  the market clearing prices affected by the design flaw in the Electronic Dispatch software from when the software was implemented on December 9, 2000 through late March 2001.

Any person desiring to be heard or to protest this filing should file a motion to intervene or protest with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). All such motions or protests must be filed on or before July 5, 2001. 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 proceeding. 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 also be viewed on the Internet at http://www.ferc.fed.us/​online/​rims.htm (call 202-208-2222) for assistance. Answers to the complaint shall also be due on or before July 5, 2001. 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. 01-15956  Filed 6-25-01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
Eduardo PABON-MANDRELL, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 17-7269.

Supreme Court of the United States

Feb. 20, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit denied.
[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 121 (Friday, June 22, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Page 33535]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-15695]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RP99-176-036]


Natural Gas Pipeline Company of America; Notice of Negotiated 
Rate

June 18, 2001.
    Take notice that on June 14, 2001, Natural Gas Pipeline Company of 
America (Natural) tendered for filing to become part of its FERC Gas 
Tariff, Sixth Revised Volume No. 1, Second Revised Sheet No. 26J, to be 
effective June 14, 2001.
    Natural states that the purpose of this filing is to implement an 
amendment to a negotiated rate transaction. Also, Natural tenders for 
filing copies of the amendment.
    Natural states that copies of the filing are being mailed to all 
parties set out on the Commission's official service list in Docket No. 
RP99-176.
    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, NE., Washington, DC 20426, in 
accordance with Secs. 385.214 or 385.211 of the Commission's rules and 
regulations. All such motions or protests must be filed in accordance 
with Sec. 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. 01-15695 Filed 6-21-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
<Page>






                                                                      EXHIBIT 21





SUBSIDIARIES OF THE REGISTRANT

Name                                           Jurisdiction of Incorporation
----                                           -----------------------------

dELiA*s Operating Company                      Delaware
dELiA*s Distribution Company                   Delaware
dELiA*s Retail Company                         Delaware
dELiA*s Group Inc.                             Delaware
dELiA*s Properties Inc.                        Delaware
dELiA*s Foreign Sales Corporation              Barbados
iTurf Finance Company                          Delaware
OnTap.com Inc.                                 New Jersey
Caveman Disposition Corp.                      Massachusetts
Screeem! Inc.                                  Delaware
SBH Restructuring Corp.                        Delaware
TSI Soccer Restructuring Corp.                 North Carolina
TSI Retail Restructuring Corp.                 Delaware
II-00752

From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

Benita Campbell <b_j_campbell@yahoo.com>

Thursday, December 2, 2010 11:40 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.

Benita Campbell

23 Hindman Avenue

Burgettstown, PA 15021
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE PEPSI
BOTTLING GROUP, INC. CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR THE YEAR ENDED
DECEMBER 25, 1999 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0001076405
<NAME> THE PEPSI BOTTLING GROUP, INC.
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-25-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-25-1999
<CASH>                                             190
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      875
<ALLOWANCES>                                        48
<INVENTORY>                                        293
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 1,493
<PP&E>                                           4,789
<DEPRECIATION>                                   2,571
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   7,619
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                              947
<BONDS>                                          3,268
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             2
<OTHER-SE>                                       1,561
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     7,619
<SALES>                                          7,505
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 7,505
<CGS>                                            4,296
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    4,296
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     6
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 202
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    188
<INCOME-TAX>                                        70
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                118
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       118
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .92
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .92


</TABLE>
Floyd Dewaine SCOTT, petitioner, v. J. PALMER, et al.

No. 17-7704.

Supreme Court of the United States

March 19, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.
Ivan SPEED, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 17-7537.

Supreme Court of the United States

Feb. 26, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.
Tamny Denise WESTBROOKS, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 17-5112.

Supreme Court of the United States

March 26, 2018.

On petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed *in forma pauperis* and petition for writ of certiorari granted. Judgment vacated, and case remanded to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit for further consideration in light of *Marinello v. United States,* 584 U.S. ----, 138 S.Ct. 1101, --- L.Ed.2d ---- (2018).
# C_2012058EN.01000902.xml

| 25.2.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 58/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.2.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 58/9

---

Order of the General Court of 9 January 2012 — Neubrandenburger Wohnungsgesellschaft v Commission

(Case T-407/09) (1)

1

(Action for annulment - State aid - Contracts for the sale of apartments as part of the privatisation of publicly-owned apartments in Neubrandenburg - Complaint - Act not subject to review - Inadmissibility - Action for failure to act)

2012/C 58/16

Language of the case: German

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Neubrandenburger Wohnungsgesellschaft mbH (Neubrandenburg, Germany) (represented by M. Núñez-Müller and J. Dammann, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission (represented by B. Martenczuk and K. Gross, agents)

Defendant:

Interveners in support of the defendant: Bavaria Immobilien Beteiligungsgesellschaft mbH & Co. Objekte Neubrandenburg KG (Berlin, Germany); and Bavaria Immobilien Trading GmbH & Co. Immobilien Leasing Objekt Neubrandenburg KG (Berlin) (represented by C. von Donat, lawyer)

Interveners in support of the defendant

Re:

Re:

Action, first, for annulment of the Commission decision claimed to be contained in the letter of 29 July 2009 declaring that some contracts concluded by the applicant regarding the sale of apartments as part of the privatisation of publicly-owned apartments in Neubrandenburg did not fall within the scope of Article 87(1) EC and, second, for a declaration of the Commission’s failure to act, under Article 232 EC, since the Commission did not define its position on those contracts on the basis of Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 of 22 March 1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article (88 EC) (OJ 1999 L 83, p. 1).

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The action is dismissed as being inadmissible. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The action is dismissed as being inadmissible.

| 2. | Neubrandenburger Wohnungsgesellschaft mbH shall bear its own costs and pay the costs incurred by the Commission and by Bavaria Immobilien Beteiligungsgesellschaft mbH & Co. Objekte Neubrandenburg KG and Bavaria Immobilien Trading GmbH & Co. Immobilien Leasing Objekt Neubrandenburg KG. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Neubrandenburger Wohnungsgesellschaft mbH shall bear its own costs and pay the costs incurred by the Commission and by Bavaria Immobilien Beteiligungsgesellschaft mbH & Co. Objekte Neubrandenburg KG and Bavaria Immobilien Trading GmbH & Co. Immobilien Leasing Objekt Neubrandenburg KG.

---

(1)  OJ C 312, 19.12.2009.

1

---
Robert West CARTER, petitioner, v. Megan J. BRENNAN, Postmaster General.

No. 16-6888.

Supreme Court of the United States

Jan. 9, 2017.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit denied.
Terrance DeAngelo HAMLIN, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 17-7726.

Supreme Court of the United States

March 19, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied.
Raymond J. LUCIA, et al., petitioners, v. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION.

No. 17-130.

Supreme Court of the United States

Feb. 20, 2018.

Motion of petitioners to dispense with printing the joint appendix granted.
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.2

                                  CERTIFICATION
            PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsection (a) and
(b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code), the
undersigned officer of The Pepsi Bottling Group, Inc. (the "Company") certifies
to his knowledge that:

      (1)   The Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the year ended
            December 27, 2003 (the "Form 10-K") fully complies with the
            requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange
            Act of 1934 (the "Act"); and

      (2)   The information contained in the Form 10-K fairly presents, in all
            material respects, the financial conditions and results of
            operations of the Company as of the dates and for the periods
            referred to in the Form 10-K.

                                                    /s/ Alfred H. Drewes
                                                    --------------------------
                                                    Alfred H. Drewes
                                                    Senior Vice President and
                                                    Chief Financial Officer
                                                    March 10, 2004

The foregoing certification (the "Certification") is being furnished solely
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsection (a) and
(b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code).

A signed original of the Certification has been provided to the Company and will
be retained by the Company in accordance with Rule 12b-11(d) of the Act and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.