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UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-2138

RICHARD MARTIN,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

HOWARD J. WALSH, III, Esq.,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

Maryland, at Greenbelt. George J. Hazel, District Judge. 

(8:15-cv-2302-GJH)

Submitted: February 4, 2016 Decided: March 29, 2016

Before GREGORY and FLOYD, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Richard Martin, Appellant Pro Se. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Richard Martin seeks to appeal the district court’s order 

dismissing his civil action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) 

(2012). Parties to a civil action have 30 days following the 

entry of the district court’s final order or judgment in which 

to file a notice of appeal. Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(a)(1)(A). 

However, the district court may extend the time to file a notice 

of appeal if a party moves for an extension of the appeal period 

within 30 days after the expiration of the original appeal 

period and demonstrates excusable neglect or good cause to 

warrant an extension. Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5); see Washington 

v. Bumgarner, 882 F.2d 899, 900-01 (4th Cir. 1989). “[T]he 

timely filing of a notice of appeal in a civil case is a 

jurisdictional requirement.” Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S. 205, 

214 (2007). 

The district court’s final judgment was entered on 

August 21, 2015. Martin filed a pleading construed as a notice 

of appeal on September 22, 2015, after the expiration of the 30-

day appeal period but within the excusable neglect period. 

Martin’s notice of appeal contained language that we liberally 

construe as a request for an extension of time to appeal. 

Accordingly, we remand this case to the district court for the 

limited purpose of determining whether Martin has demonstrated 

excusable neglect or good cause warranting an extension of the 
3

30-day appeal period. The record, as supplemented, will then be 

returned to this court for further consideration. 

We deny Martin’s motions to seal and to compel.

REMANDED
II-00168

From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

Shelley Ottenbrite <tiddas@hotmail.com>

Saturday, December 4, 2010 4:22 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.

Shelley Ottenbrite

1809 W Grace St

Richmond, VA 23220
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                       1,870,066
<SECURITIES>                                   474,144
<RECEIVABLES>                                  435,270
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     24,093
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             2,874,312
<PP&E>                                       1,018,808
<DEPRECIATION>                                 448,510
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               4,091,083
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,118,916
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           152
<OTHER-SE>                                   2,763,317
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 4,091,083
<SALES>                                      1,185,866
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,185,866
<CGS>                                        1,120,732
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                3,364,834
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                              (77,119)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (2,101,849)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (2,101,849)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (2,101,849)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (1.43)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (1.43)
        

</TABLE>
# C_2010037EN.01000202.xml

| 13.2.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 37/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.2.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 37/2

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Najwyższy (Republic of Poland), lodged on 11 November 2009 — Zakład Ubezpieczeń Społecznych v Stanisława Tomaszewska

(Case C-440/09)

2010/C 37/03

Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Referring court

Sąd Najwyższy

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Zakład Ubezpieczeń Społecznych

Appellant:

Respondent: Stanisława Tomaszewska

Respondent:

Question referred

Question referred

Is Article 45(1) 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 members of their families moving within the Community (OJ, English Special Edition 1971 (II), p. 416), in conjunction with Article 15(1)(a) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 574/72 of 21 March 1972 fixing the procedure for implementing Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons, to self-employed persons and to members of their families moving within the Community (OJ, English Special Edition 1972 (I), p. 159), to be interpreted as meaning that the competent institution of a Member State is required — on establishing that a worker has failed to satisfy the condition of having completed in that Member State a period of insurance which is sufficient under the law of that State for acquisition of entitlement to a retirement pension — to take account of a period of insurance completed in another Member State in such a way that it must recalculate the period of insurance on which acquisition of entitlement depends by applying the rules arising from national law and treating the period completed in the other Member State as a period completed in its own State, or must it add the period completed in the other Member State to the national period calculated previously on the basis of the rules in question?

---
# C_2012331EN.01000201.xml

| 27.10.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 331/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.10.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 331/2

---

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 5 September 2012 — European Parliament v Council of the European Union

(Case C-355/10) (1)

(Schengen Borders Code - Decision 2010/252/EU - Surveillance of the sea external borders - Introduction of additional rules governing border surveillance - Commission’s implementing powers - Scope - Application for annulment)

(2012/C 331/02)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: European Parliament (represented by: M. Dean, A. Auersperger Matić and K. Bradley, Agents)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: Z. Kupčová and R. Szostak, Agents)

Intervener in support of the defendant: European Commission (represented by: C. O’Reilly and M. Wilderspin, Agents)

Re:

Annulment of Council Decision 2010/252/EU of 26 April 2010 supplementing the Schengen Borders Code as regards the surveillance of the sea external borders in the context of operational cooperation coordinated by the European Agency for the Management of Operational Cooperation at the External Borders of the Member States of the European Union (OJ 2010 L 111, p. 20) — Additional measures governing surveillance — Introduction of rules exceeding the extent of the Council’s implementing powers

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls Council Decision 2010/252/EU of 26 April 2010 supplementing the Schengen Borders Code as regards the surveillance of the sea external borders in the context of operational cooperation coordinated by the European Agency for the Management of Operational Cooperation at the External Borders of the Member States of the European Union; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls Council Decision 2010/252/EU of 26 April 2010 supplementing the Schengen Borders Code as regards the surveillance of the sea external borders in the context of operational cooperation coordinated by the European Agency for the Management of Operational Cooperation at the External Borders of the Member States of the European Union;

| 2. | Maintains the effects of Decision 2010/252 until the entry into force of new rules within a reasonable time; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Maintains the effects of Decision 2010/252 until the entry into force of new rules within a reasonable time;

| 3. | Orders the Council of the European Union to pay the costs; |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the Council of the European Union to pay the costs;

| 4. | Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 246, 11.9.2010.

---
EX-4.2



 Exhibit 4.2 
  

 
 



 
 Puxin Limited Certificate Number INCORPORATED IN THE CAYMAN ISLANDS UNDER THE COMPANIES LAW Number of Shares [Number] (AS AMENDED OR
REVISED FROM TIME TO TIME) [Number] THE AUTHORISED CAPITAL OF THE COMPANY IS USD 50,000.00 DIVIDED INTO 1,000,000,000 ORDINARY SHARES OF PAR VALUE USD 0.00005 EACH THIS CERTIFIES THAT [Name] OF [Address] IS THE OWNER OF [Number] fully paid ORDINARY
shares of USD 0.00005 each IN THE COMPANY Puxin Limited (the “Company”) transferable on the books of the Company by the holder hereof in person or by a duly authorised attorney upon surrender of this certificate to the Company. This
certificate and the shares represented are issued and shall be held subject to the provisions of the Memorandum and Articles of Association of the Company. EXECUTED on behalf of the Company this day of Director
II-00958

From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

Lily Hou <lhou@verizon.net>

Thursday, December 2, 2010 9:40 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.

Lily Hou

55 Leroy Street

New York, NY 10014
II-00345

From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

Charles McCarthy <c.mccarthy@sbcglobal.net>

Friday, December 3, 2010 12:15 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.

Charles McCarthy

1701 E. Dunedin Rd.

Columbus, OH 43224
# C_2009102EN.01001802.xml

| 1.5.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 102/18 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.5.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 102/18

---

Action brought on 9 February 2009 — Deutsche Behindertenhilfe — Aktion Mensch v OHIM

(Case T-47/09)

2009/C 102/29

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Deutsche Behindertenhilfe — Aktion Mensch (Mainz, Germany) (represented by V. Töbelmann and A. Piltz, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 27 November 2008 in Case R 1094/2008-1; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 27 November 2008 in Case R 1094/2008-1;

| — | order the defendant to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

Community trade mark concerned: Word mark ‘diegesellschafter.de’ for services in Classes 35 and 41 (application No 4 606 372)

Community trade mark concerned:

Decision of the Examiner: Rejection of the application

Decision of the Examiner:

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal

Decision of the Board of Appeal:

Pleas in law: Breach of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) NO 40/94, (1) since the marks cited have the required distinctive character and there is no requirement to keep the mark free.

Pleas in law:

1

---

(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark (OJ 1994 L 11, p. 1).

1

---
Eric Scott BRANCH, petitioner, v. FLORIDA.

No. 17-7758 (17A865).

Supreme Court of the United States

Feb. 22, 2018.

Application for stay of execution of sentence of death presented to Justice THOMAS and by him referred to the Court denied. Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Florida denied.
Exhibit 31.1
 Section 302 Certification
  1.
    
    I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of A. H. Belo Corporation;2.
    
    Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material
fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the
circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the
period covered by this report;3.
    
    Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included
in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of
operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this
report;4.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing and
maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e)
and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:
 a)
    
    designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure
controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material
information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made
known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which
this report is being prepared;b)
    
    evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and
procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the
disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report
based on such evaluation; andc)
    
    disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control over
financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter
(the registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has
materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants
internal control over financial reporting; and
 5.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most
recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants auditors
and the audit committee of the registrants board of directors (or persons performing the
equivalent functions):
 a)
    
    all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation
of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely
affect the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial
information; andb)
    
    any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees
who have a significant role in the registrants internal control over financial
reporting.
  /s/ Robert W. DecherdRobert W. DecherdChairman of the Board, President and Chief Executive Officer
Daniel Arturo Macias JAQUEZ, petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS, III, Attorney General.

No. 17-971.

Supreme Court of the United States

March 5, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied.
II-00146

From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

Matt Kraai <kraai@ftbfs.org>

Saturday, December 4, 2010 3:27 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.

Matt Kraai

116 Euclid Place

Upland, CA 91786
Bloomberg’s Trading Options 

October 4th, 2010
EXISTING TRADING OPTIONS ON 

BLOOMBERG

RFQ ALLQ Single-Dealer

Name BBTI<GO> ALLQ<GO> IFIT<GO>O i verv ew E dn

d-users request i a pr ce E d

U E d dt 

from 3 participating dealers

E

n

d-Users can compare 

& trade live streaming prices from multiple dealers. These are aggregated prices pulled from single dealer pages

E

n

d-users see an

d t

on a live streaming dealer price on a deadedicated page. 

from single dealer pages

Protocol  Request-For-Quote 

(RFQ)

 User will select 3 

dealers in swaps or 5 in 

h

 An end user selects a 

particular bond

 Bloomberg compares all 

the executable prices th t il bl f

 Dealers stream live 

prices to their dedipage

 An end user can v

cas

h lti l d l

 Dealer specify time their 

price is ‘firm’

th

at are available for 

that bond

multi

ple 

dealer pag

and select the levebest suits

Products Cash and Derivatives Cash Bonds Only Cash and Derivative

Dealers Dealers: 27 in cash, 13 in 

Derivatives

Dealers: 100+ in cash, 0in derivatives

Dealers: 100+ in casin Derivatives

Usage  Heavy usage in cash 

(1000+ users)

 Heavy usage in cash 

(3600 users)

 Low usage in cash Heavy usage in

(1000+ users)

 Low usage in 

derivatives (30 users)

(3600 users)

 Not available for 

derivatives

 Heavy usage in

derivatives (300 us
MARKET UTILIZATION of TRADING OPTIONS

Exchange/CLOB RFQ ALLQ Single Dealer Pages

More

Liquid

RFQ ALLQ Single

Dealer

Percentage of Electronic Markets Traded via these Methods

UST 95% 5% -

Cor

porate - 100% -

Bonds

IRS 10% - 90%

C S

%

C

D

S - - 100

%