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

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-26-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             DEC-28-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-28-1999
<CASH>                                           5,252
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    1,661
<ALLOWANCES>                                       142
<INVENTORY>                                     18,225
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                26,637
<PP&E>                                          16,935
<DEPRECIATION>                                   4,150
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  40,387
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           17,531
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        12,305
<OTHER-SE>                                       7,541
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    40,387
<SALES>                                         37,987
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                37,987
<CGS>                                           31,601
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   37,443
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                    66
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  52
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    426
<INCOME-TAX>                                       150
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                276
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       276
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.08
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.08
        

</TABLE>
Melvin BLOUGH, petitioner, v. Morris SILBERMAN, et al.

No. 17-1157.

Supreme Court of the United States

March 26, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit denied.
Levon DEAN, Jr., petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 15-9260.

Supreme Court of the United States

Dec. 12, 2016.

Motion of petitioner for appointment of counsel granted, and Alan G. Stoler, Esquire, of Omaha, Nebraska, is appointed to serve as counsel for the petitioner in this case.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                       2,764,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                               41,248,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                   455,000
<INVENTORY>                                 71,402,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                           115,265,000
<PP&E>                                     146,309,000
<DEPRECIATION>                              77,933,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             423,709,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       85,757,000
<BONDS>                                    509,250,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         7,000
<OTHER-SE>                                (253,050,000)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               423,709,000
<SALES>                                     82,388,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            82,388,000
<CGS>                                       53,582,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               53,582,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             4,669,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                58,000
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                          11,471,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              4,039,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                   500,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          3,539,000
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 3,539,000
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
Exhibit 32.1






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


(18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)




In connection with the Yearly Report of Sierra Resource Group, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-K for the year ending December 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Patrick Champney, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 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 Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and


(2)           The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.




Registrant



Date: April 14, 2011

Sierra Resource Group, Inc.



By: /s/ Patrick ChampneyPatrick ChampneyChief Executive Officer (Principal Executive Officer)
# C_2011204EN.01002302.xml

| 9.7.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 204/23 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.7.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 204/23

---

Order of the General Court of 19 May 2011 — Formenti Seleco v Commission

(Case T-210/09) (1)

1

(EEC-Turkey Association Agreement - Importation of colour televisions from Turkey - Application for damages - Statute barred - Inadmissibility)

2011/C 204/42

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Formenti Seleco SpA (Milan, Italy) (represented by: A. Malatesta, G. Terracciano and S. Malatesta, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: T. Scharf and D. Grespan, Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Application for compensation for the damage allegedly suffered by the applicant as a result of the Commission’s failure to take measures preventing the Turkish authorities from infringing the Agreement establishing an Association between the European Economic Community and Turkey when determining the origin of colour televisions imported into the Community from Turkey.

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

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

1.

The action is dismissed as inadmissible;

| 2. | Formenti Seleco SpA is ordered to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Formenti Seleco SpA is ordered to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 167, 18.7.2009.

1

---
# C_2013046EN.01002502.xml

| 16.2.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 46/25 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.2.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 46/25

---

Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 13 December 2012 — Donati v ECB

(Case F-63/09) (1)

1

(Civil service - ECB Staff - Complaint of psychological harassment - Administrative inquiry - Access to the file of the inquiry - Transmission of the case-file to persons impugned in the complaint - Duty of confidentiality - Respect for the rights of the defence)

2013/C 46/45

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Paola Donati (Frankfurt-am-Main, Germany) (represented by: L. Levi and M. Vandenbussche, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Central Bank (represented by: F. Feyerbacher and N. Urban, Agents, and by B. Wägenbaur, lawyer)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Civil service — Annulment of the ECB’s decision not to take further action on claims relating to alleged psychological harassment suffered by the applicant, and compensation for the non-material harm suffered

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Tribunal:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Ms Donati to bear her own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the European Central Bank. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Ms Donati to bear her own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the European Central Bank.

---

(1)  OJ C 205, 29.8.2009, p. 50.

1

---
# C_2011139EN.01001703.xml

| 7.5.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 139/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.5.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 139/17

---

Order of the General Court of 8 March 2011 — Herm. Sprenger v OHIM — Kieffer Sattlerwarenfabrik (Form of a stirrup)

(Case T-463/09) (1)

1

(Community trade mark - Application for a declaration of invalidity - Withdrawal of that application - No need to give judgment)

2011/C 139/34

Language of the case: German

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Herm. Sprenger GmbH & Co. KG (Iserlohn, Germany) (represented by: V. Schiller, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: C. Jenewein and B. Schmidt, Agents)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM intervening before the General Court: Georg Kieffer Sattlerwarenfabrik GmbH (Munich, Germany) (represented by: N. Fischer, lawyer)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM intervening before the General Court:

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 4 September 2009 (Case R 1614/2008-4) relating to invalidity proceedings between Georg Kieffer Sattlerwarenfabrik GmbH and Herm. Sprenger GmbH & Co. KG.

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

| 1. | There is no longer any need to give judgment on the action. |
| --- | --- |

1.

There is no longer any need to give judgment on the action.

| 2. | The applicant and the intervener shall each bear their own costs and half of the defendant’s costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The applicant and the intervener shall each bear their own costs and half of the defendant’s costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 11, 16.1.2010.

1

---
<PAGE>
                                                                   EXHIBIT 99.01

  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 on Form 10-K of Niku Corporation (the
"Company") for the period ended January 31, 2003 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), Joshua Pickus, as
Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, to the best of his knowledge, that:

(1)  The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) 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 results of operations of the Company.

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
     SIGNATURE                           TITLE                         DATE
     ---------                           -----                         ----

<S>                             <C>                               <C>
   /s/ Joshua Pickus
______________________          Chief Executive Officer           April 15, 2003
     Joshua Pickus
</TABLE>

This certification accompanies this Report pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of
Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to Niku Corporation and will be retained by Niku Corporation and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
In Re Christopher Wayne WEBB, petitioner.

No. 17-7338.

Supreme Court of the United States

March 19, 2018.

Petition for writ of mandamus and/or prohibition denied.
II-00884

From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

William Noble <wnoble@teague.com>

Thursday, December 2, 2010 10:21 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 Noble

19814 80 pl w

Edmonds, WA 98026
# C_2012151EN.01002701.xml

| 26.5.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 151/27 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.5.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 151/27

---

Order of the General Court of 22 March 2012 — Viasat Broadcasting UK v European Commission

(Case T-114/09) (1)

1

(State aid - Repayment of the aid - No further interest in bringing proceedings - No need to adjudicate)

2012/C 151/42

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Viasat Broadcasting UK Ltd (West Drayton, Middlesex, United Kingdom) (represented by: S. Kalsmose Hjelmborg and M. Honoré, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission (represented initially by: N. Khan and B. Martenczuken, and subsequently by B. Stromsky and L. Flynn, agents)

Defendant:

supported by

Kingdom of Denmark, (represented initially by: J. Bering Liisberg, subsequently by C. Vang, acting as Agents, assisted by P. Biering and K. Lundgaard Hansen, lawyers); and by TV2 Danmark A/S, (Odense C, Denmark (represented by O. Koktvedgaard, lawyer)

Re:

Re:

APPLICATION for the annulment of Commission Decision C(2008) 4224 final of 4 August 2008 in Case N 287/2008, concerning rescue aid granted to TV2 Danmark A/S

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

| 1. | There is no need to adjudicate on this action. |
| --- | --- |

1.

There is no need to adjudicate on this action.

| 2. | Viasat Broadcasting UK Ltd, the European Commission, the Kingdom of Denmark and TV2 Danmark A/S shall bear their own costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Viasat Broadcasting UK Ltd, the European Commission, the Kingdom of Denmark and TV2 Danmark A/S shall bear their own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 141, 20.6.2009.

1

---
FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION 

WASHINGTON, D. C. 20426 

OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL 

February 9, 2009 

David Stawick, Secretary of the Commission 

Commodity Futures Trading Commission 

Three Lafayette Centre 

1155 21st Street, NW 

Washington, DC 20581 COMMENT 

Re: Comment File: 08-012. Proposed Rules on Significant Price Discovery 

Contracts on Exempt Commercial Markets 

Comments of the Staff of the Federal Energy Regulatoty Commission 

Dear Mr. Stawick: 

On December 2, 2008, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission 

(CFTC) issued a notice of proposed rulemaking, soliciting comments on proposed 

rules relating to significant price discovery contracts on exempt commercial 

markets (the Proposed Rules). 1 These are the comments of the staff of the Federal 

Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) on the Proposed Rules. 

The Proposed Rules would implement the CFTC Reauthorization Act of 2008, 

specifically the CFTC's regulatory authority over agreements, contracts or 

transactions in exempt commodities (including "energy products") executed on an 

electronic trading facility by certain eligible commercial entities on a principal-toprincipal basis if the CFTC determines, in its discretion, that any such agreement, 

contract or transaction performs a significant price discovery function. A CFTC 

determination that an agreement, contract or transaction performs a significant 

price discovery function will cause the electronic trading facility on which the 

agreement, contract or transaction is traded to be subject to regulation by the 

1 Significant Price Discovery Contracts on Exr:!mpt Commercial Markets, 

73 Fed. Reg. 75888 (December 12, 2008). 
2 

CFTC pursuant to nine "core principles" set forth in the Proposed Rules. On their 

face, the Proposed Rules appear consistent with or do not conflict with FERC's 

exclusive jurisdiction over certain energy and natural gas transactions, including 

transactions involving the electronic trading facilities of regional transmission 

organizations and independent system operators regulated by the FERC. We 

anticipate that, in implementing the new rules, the CFTC will be cognizant of the 

FERC's exclusive jurisdiction with respect to such transactions and therefore will 

not take actions that would conflict with such jurisdiction. 

The FERC staff thanks the CFTC for soliciting comments on the Proposed 

Rules. Any questions or comments on this submission may be directed to: 

The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 

Office of the General Counsel 

888 First Street, NE 

Washington, DC 20426 

Attention: Andrew F. MacDonald 

Phone: 202-502-6541 

Sincerely, 

~().~ Cynthia A. Marlette 

General Counsel 

Cc: Jon Wellinghoff, Acting Chairman 

Joseph T. Kelliher, Commissioner 

Suedeen G. Kelly, Commissioner 

Phillip D. Moeller, Commissioner 

Marc L. Spitzer, Commissioner
Melissa JORDAN, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 16-9490.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 2, 2017.

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

Justice GORSUCH took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.
Exhibit 99.2




In connection with the CNB Florida  Bancshares,  Inc. (the "Company")  Quarterly
Report on Form 10-Q for the  period  ending  March  31,  2003 as filed  with the
Securities and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof,  (the  "Report"),  I, G.
Thomas  Frankland,  Executive Vice President and Chief Financial  Officer of the
Company,  certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18
U.S.C. Section 1350, that:



         1.  The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
             15(d) of the  Securities  Exchange  Act of 1934 (15  U.S.C.  78m or
             78o(d)); and


         2.  The  information  contained in the Report fairly  presents,  in all
             material   respects,   the  financial   condition  and  results  of
             operations of the Company.



                                                    /s/  G. Thomas Frankland
                                                    ----------------------------
                                                    G. Thomas Frankland
                                                    Executive Vice President and
                                                    Chief Financial Officer
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED AUGUST 31, 2023

NO. 03-22-00630-CR

Dwayne Chance Chadwick, Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

APPEAL FROM THE 51ST DISTRICT COURT OF TOM GREEN COUNTY

BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE BYRNE, JUSTICES KELLY AND THEOFANIS

AFFIRMED -- OPINION BY CHIEF JUSTICE BYRNE

This is an appeal from the judgment of conviction entered by the trial court. Having reviewed 

the record and the parties’ arguments, the Court holds that there was no reversible error in the 

trial court’s judgment of conviction. Therefore, the Court affirms the trial court’s judgment of 

conviction. Because appellant is indigent and unable to pay costs, no adjudication of costs 

is made.
**Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 13 October 2011 – Commission v Italy**

**(Case C-454/09)**

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – State aid – Aid for New Interline SpA – Recovery

1.                     *Actions for failure to fulfil obligations – Failure to comply with a Commission decision concerning State aid – Duty to recover
the aid granted – Period within which the aid is to be recovered (Arts 88(2) EC, 226 EC and 249 EC) (see paras 34, 37)*

2.                     *State aid – Recovery of unlawful aid – Recipient undertakings that become bankrupt – Aid entered in the schedule of liabilities
in order to restore the status quo ante (Art. 88(2) EC) (see paras 35-36)*

3.                     *Actions for failure to fulfil obligations – Failure to comply with a Commission decision concerning State aid – Defences –
Legality of the decision called in question – Inadmissibility – Limits – Non-existent measure (Arts 88(2), second para., EC,
226 EC, 227 EC, 230 EC and 232 EC) (see para. 41)*

**Re:**

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Failure to adopt, within the prescribed period, all the measures necessary to comply with Articles 2, 3 and 4 of Commission Decision 2008/697/EC of 16 April 2008 on State Aid C 13/07 (ex NN 15/06 and N 734/06) implemented by Italy for New Interline (notified under document number C(2008) 1321). |

**Operative part**

The Court:

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 1. | | Declares that, by failing to adopt, within the prescribed period, all the measures necessary to ensure implementation of Commission Decision 2008/697/EC of 16 April 2008 on State Aid C 13/07 (ex NN 15/06 and N 734/06) implemented by Italy for New Interline, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under the fourth paragraph of Article 249 EC and Articles 2 and 3 of that decision; |

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 2. | | Orders the Italian Republic to pay the costs. |
Mark MAZER, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 15-1528.

Supreme Court of the United States

Jan. 23, 2017.

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

No. 17-7948.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 2, 2018.

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