alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
| Company                                                                 |   | Country      of Formation             |
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|---------------------------------------|
| Capital      Future Developments Limited                                |   | British      Virgin Islands           |
| Zhejiang      Yong Xin Digital Technology Company, Limited              |   | People’s      Republic of China |
| Yiwu      Yong Xin Communication Limited                                |   | People’s      Republic of China |
| Hangzhou      Wang Da Electronics Company, Limited                      |   | People’s      Republic of China |
| Hangzhou      Sanhe Electronic Technology, Limited                      |   | People’s      Republic of China |
| Shanghai      Joy & Harmony Electronic Development Company, Limited |   | People’s      Republic of China |
| Hangzhou      Letong Digital Technology Company, Limited                |   | People’s      Republic of China |
| Jinhua      Baofa Logistic, Limited                                     |   | People’s      Republic of China |

----
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE FORM
10-K AT DECEMBER 31, 1999 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                       4,416,300
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                6,758,600
<ALLOWANCES>                                   150,000
<INVENTORY>                                  3,811,200
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            15,471,100
<PP&E>                                       5,144,900
<DEPRECIATION>                                 519,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              20,689,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        7,614,400
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        10,100
<OTHER-SE>                                   9,725,900
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                20,689,000
<SALES>                                    104,938,700
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                           104,938,700
<CGS>                                       96,454,800
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               96,454,800
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             6,801,800
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             269,800
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              1,384,800
<INCOME-TAX>                                   557,500
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            827,300
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   827,300
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .08
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .08


</TABLE>
#### DONOVAN v. JEFFCOTT et al.

No. 10741.

Circuit Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Jan. 8, 1945.

Lesley B. Allen, of Tucson, Ariz., for appellant.

Darnell & Robertson, of Tucson, Ariz., for appellees.

Before WILBUR, DENMAN, and MATHEWS, Circuit Judges.

MATHEWS, Circuit Judge.

In Jeffcott v. Donovan, 9 Cir., 135 F.2d 213, we reversed a judgment of the District Court of the United States for the District of Arizona and remanded this case to that court for further proceedings.

Our mandate was issued on August 3, 1943. On August 27, 1943, plaintiff, Edward J. Donovan, moved the District Court for leave to amend his amended complaint. An order denying the motion was entered on September 23, 1943. On September 27, 1943, judgment was entered as follows:

“It is Hereby Ordered, Adjudged and Decreed that plaintiff herein recover nothing against the said defendants [David C. Jeffcott and Elsie Jeffcott], or either of them, and that the said defendants recover of plaintiff the sum of Eight Hundred Sixty-four and 72/100 Dollars ($864.72) costs taxed and allowed by said Circuit Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, and that said defendants have execution therefor.”

That judgment was a final decision, within the meaning of § 128(a) of the Judicial Code, 28 U.S.C.A. § 225(a), and hence was appealable, but no appeal was taken therefrom.

On October 1, 1943, plaintiff moved the District Court to vacate the judgment of September 27, 1943, and to rehear the *199motion of August 27, 1943. An order denying the motion of October 1, 1943, was entered on December 13, 1943. From that order plaintiff has appealed.

That order was not a final decision, within the meaning of § 128(a) of the Judicial Code, 28 U.S.C.A. § 225(a), and was not appealable. Republic Supply Co. v. Richfield Oil Co., *9*Cir., 74 F.2d 909, 910; Lack v. Western Loan & Building Co., 9 Cir., 146 F.2d 852. See, also, International Bank v. Securities Corporation, 59 App.D.C. 72, 32 F.2d 968; Smith v. United States, 7 Cir., 52 F.2d 848; Glinski v. United States, 7 Cir., 93 F.2d 418, 419; Andris v. DuPont Cellophane Co., 7 Cir., 93 F.2d 421; In re Colwell, 7 Cir., 93 F.2d 946, 948.

Appeal dismissed.
# United States Court **of Appeals**  **f or the Fifth Circuit** 

No. 20

- 40309

**Ashley Charles Burrell,**

Petitioner

— Appellant **,**

versus
**Bobby Lumpkin,** Director **,** Texas Department of Criminal Justice , Correctional Institutions Division **,** Respondent

— Appellee

**.**

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas USDC No. 1:15

- CV

- 266

Before **Dennis, Southwick,** and **Engelhardt,** Circuit Judges

**. Per Curiam**  **:** * Ashley Charles Burrell, Texas prisoner # 1760733, was convicted by a jury of aggravated robbery and sentenced to 74 years in prison. He current ly appeals the district court ’s deni al of his motion under Federal Rule of

* Pursuant to **5th Circuit Rule** 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 **5th Circuit Rule** 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED April 20, 2021 Lyle W. Cay ce Clerk Case: 20-40309 Document: 00515829692 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/20/2021No. 20

- 40309

2 Appellate Procedure 4(a)(6) and Feder al Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(6) to reopen the appeal period for the denial of his federal habeas app lication

. Because Burrell’s motion to reopen was filed under Federal Rule s Civil Procedure 4(a)(6) and 60(b), Burrell’s motion for a certificate of
appe alability (COA) is denied as unnecessary. See Ochoa Canales v. Quarterman , 507 F.3d 884, 888 (5th Cir. 2007) ; Dunn v. Cockrell , 302 F.3d 491, 492 (5th Cir. 2002) ; Gibbs v. Thaler , 459 F. App’x 336, 337 (5th Cir. 2012)

. We dispense with further briefing b ecause this appeal may be resolved on the available record.

The district court did not abuse it s discretion when it denied Burrell’s motion to reopen

. See Dunn , 302 F.3d at 492; In re Jones , 970 F.2d 36, 39 (5th Cir. 1992). First, Burrell does not satisfy the requirements for reopening the time to file an appeal under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a) (6) because Burrell’s counsel received notice of the denial of his application withi n 21 days of the judgment’s date of entry , see **Fed. R. App. P.** 4(a)(6) (A), and because Burrell filed his motion to reopen more than 180 days after the entry of the judgment he seeks to appeal and more than 14 days after his counsel received notice of that judgment, see **Fed. R. App. P**

**.** 4(a)(6)(B). A dditionally, Burrell may not use a motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 60(b) to circumvent the time limits for appealing under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4

. See Dunn , 302 F.3d at 492

- 93;

s ee also Bowles v. Russell , 551 U.S. 205, 214 (2007); Perez v. Stephens , 745 F.3d 174, 177

- 79 (5th Cir. 2014).

**MOTION DENIED**  ; **AFFIRMED**

. Case: 20-40309 Document: 00515829692 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/20/2021
[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 123 (Tuesday, June 26, 2001)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 33902]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-15975]


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

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 73

[DA 01-1438; MM Docket No. 00-160; RM-9928]


Radio Broadcasting Services; Pana, Taylorville, and Macon, IL

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Commission, at the joint request of Kaskaskia 
Broadcasting, Inc. and Miller Communications, Inc., reallots Channel 
265A from Pana to Macon, Illinois, and modifies Station WEGY(FM)'s 
license accordingly. We also reallot Channel 232A from Taylorville to 
Pana, Illinois, and modify Station WMKR(FM)'s license accordingly. See 
65 FR 55930, September 15, 2000. Channel 265A can be reallotted to 
Macon in compliance with the Commission's minimum distance separation 
requirements with a site restriction of 6.9 kilometers (4.3 miles) 
south at Station WEGY(FM)'s requested site. The coordinates for Channel 
265A at Macon are 39-41-08 North Latitude and 88-55-29 West Longitude. 
Additionally, Channel 232A can be reallotted to Pana in compliance with 
the Commission's minimum distance separation requirements with a site 
restriction of 11.7 kilometers (7.3 miles) west at Station WMKR(FM)'s 
requested site. The coordinates for Channel 232A at Pana are 39-22-56 
North Latitude and 89-12-56 West Longitude.

DATES: Effective July 30, 2001.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sharon P. McDonald, Mass Media Bureau, 
(202) 418-2180.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a synopsis of the Commission's 
Report and Order, MM Docket No. 00-160, adopted June 6, 2001, released 
June 15, 2001. The full text of this Commission decision is available 
for inspection and copying during normal business hours in the FCC 
Reference Information Center (Room CY-A257), 445 12th Street, SW, 
Washington, DC. The complete text of this decision may also be 
purchased from the Commission's copy contractors, International 
Transcription Service, Inc., (202) 857-3800, 1231 20th Street, NW., 
Washington, DC 20036.

List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 73

    Radio broadcasting.


    Part 73 of title 47 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended 
as follows:

PART 73--RADIO BROADCAST SERVICES

    1. The authority citation for part 73 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 47 U.S.C. 54, 303, 334, and 336.


Sec. 73.202  [Amended]

    2. Section 73.202(b), the Table of FM Allotments under Illinois, is 
amended by adding Macon, Channel 265A; and removing Channel 265A at 
Pana; and by adding Channel 232A at Pana; and removing Channel 232A at 
Taylorville.

Federal Communications Commission.
John A. Karousos,
Chief, Allocations Branch, Policy and Rules Division, Mass Media 
Bureau.
[FR Doc. 01-15975 Filed 6-25-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
# C_2010063EN.01004401.xml

| 13.3.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 63/44 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.3.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 63/44

---

Order of the President of the Eighth Chamber of the Court of 12 November 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Hellenic Republic

(Case C-44/09) (1)

1

2010/C 63/71

Language of the case: Greek

Language of the case: Greek

The President of the Eighth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 69, 21.3.2009.

1

---
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
<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>                                          12,498
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                             142
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                 1,300
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                     79,469
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                               0
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                                 0
<LOANS>                                        232,190
<ALLOWANCE>                                      4,412
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 327,594
<DEPOSITS>                                     266,227
<SHORT-TERM>                                     1,819
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                              2,756
<LONG-TERM>                                     14,500
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        21,307
<OTHER-SE>                                      20,985
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                 327,594
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                 10,389
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                2,527
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                   126
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                13,042
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                               5,690
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               6,274
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                            6,768
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                      447
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                 (34)
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                  4,883
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  2,715
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                       2,715
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,683
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .45
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .44
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    4.52
<LOANS-NON>                                      1,122
<LOANS-PAST>                                         0
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                    392
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                 4,062
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                      176
<RECOVERIES>                                        79
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                4,412
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                             3,426
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                            986


</TABLE>
<PAGE>
EXHIBIT 5.5

PowerSource Corp.
3660 Wilshire Blvd., Ste.1104
Los Angeles, CA 90010

April 29, 2002

Dear (Title) (FirstName) (LastName),

You invested $(AmountInvested) on the date of (Month) (Day), 2001 for 10%
corporate bonds of PowerSource Corporation. PowerSource was originally set up as
an electric energy marketer in the state of California. During the energy crisis
of 2001, which saw one major electric company file for bankruptcy protection,
the State of California passed legislation that ended the deregulation and
closing our business opportunity.

PowerSource has obtained clearance to trade on the OTC:BB exchange, and is
actively seeking a private merger candidate who will trade under our symbol and
add tremendous value to your shares. Several candidates have expressed an
interest, and we feel a merger will be completed in the coming months.

Using a formula of 10% interest up to (Month) (Day), 2002, the company is
offering to convert your bonds into common shares of stock. Under this offer,
you will receive (NumberOfShares) shares of common stock. Please sign and return
the conversion documents as soon as possible, so we can expedite your stock
certificate. If you have any questions, please call the company at 213-383-4443.

Please forward a contact phone number and any special instructions for
registration of your stock certificate

Sincerely,

/s/ E. Douglas Mitchell

E. Douglas Mitchell
President, PowerSource Corp.
**EXHIBIT
      32.1**





CERTIFICATION
      PURSUANT TO


18
      U.S.C.
      SECTION 1350,


AS
      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION
      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In
      connection with the Annual Report of ROO Group, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form
      10-KSB for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities
      and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Robert Petty,
      Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section
      906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:





(1)
      The
      Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
      Securities and 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.





A
      signed
      original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided
      to
      the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities
      and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.





April
              2,
              2007
            
            /s/ Robert PettyRobert
              PettyChief
              Executive Officer
Rasene MYTON, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 16-7075.

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.
# C_2011030EN.01001301.xml

| 29.1.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 30/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.1.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 30/13

---

Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 29 September 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Breda (Netherlands)) — VAV-Autovermietung GmbH v Inspecteur van de Belastingsdienst/Douane Zuid/kantoor Roosendaal

(Case C-91/10) (1)

1

(First subparagraph of Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure - Freedom to provide services - Articles 49 EC to 55 EC - Motor vehicles - Use in one Member State of a motor vehicle registered and hired in another Member State - Taxation of that vehicle in the first Member State upon its first use on the national road network)

2011/C 30/19

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Referring court

Rechtbank Breda (Netherlands)

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: VAV-Autovermietung GmbH

Applicant:

Defendant: Inspecteur van de Belastingsdienst/Douane Zuid/kantoor Roosendaal

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Rechtbank Breda — Interpretation of Articles 56 TFEU to 62 TFEU — National legislation providing for the levy of a registration tax upon the first use of a vehicle on the national road network

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

Articles 49 EC to 55 EC must be interpreted as meaning that they preclude national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, pursuant to which a person residing or established in one Member State who uses, in that Member State, a motor vehicle registered and hired in another Member State must, upon the first use of that vehicle on the road network of the first Member State, pay in full a tax the balance of which, calculated according to the duration of use of the vehicle on the network, is reimbursed, without interest, after that use has ended.

---

(1)  OJ C 113, 1.5.2010.

1

---
II-00237

From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

Trushar Mody <trmody@comcast.net>

Friday, December 3, 2010 12:33 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.

Trushar Mody

3432 Spindletop Way

Kennesaw, GA 30144
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA

August 16, 2024

SC-2024-0429

Ex parte John Wilson Johnson PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI 

TO THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS (In re: John Wilson Johnson 

v. State of Alabama) (Jefferson Circuit Court: CC-90-1004.61; Criminal 

Appeals: CR-2023-0791.

CERTIFICATE OF JUDGMENT

WHEREAS, the petition for writ of certiorari in the above 

referenced cause has been duly submitted and considered by the 

Supreme Court of Alabama and the judgment indicated below was 

entered in this cause on August 16, 2024:

Writ Denied. No Opinion. Bryan, J. -- Parker, C.J., and Shaw, 

Mendheim, and Mitchell, JJ., concur.

NOW, THEREFORE, pursuant to Rule 41, Ala. R. App. P., IT IS 

HEREBY ORDERED that this Court's judgment in this cause is certified 

on this date. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, unless otherwise ordered 

by this Court or agreed upon by the parties, the costs of this cause are 

hereby taxed as provided by Rule 35, Ala. R. App. P.

I, Megan B. Rhodebeck, certify that this is the record of the judgment of the Court, witness 

my hand and seal.

Clerk, Supreme Court of Alabama