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

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 1763 Introduced in House (IH)]

111th CONGRESS
  2d Session
H. RES. 1763

     Directing the Secretary of State to transmit to the House of 
Representatives copies of all classified Department of State documents 
   assessed by the Department to have been unlawfully disclosed and 
            provided to WikiLeaks and public press outlets.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           December 15, 2010

Ms. Ros-Lehtinen submitted the following resolution; which was referred 
                  to the Committee on Foreign Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
     Directing the Secretary of State to transmit to the House of 
Representatives copies of all classified Department of State documents 
   assessed by the Department to have been unlawfully disclosed and 
            provided to WikiLeaks and public press outlets.

    Resolved, That the Secretary of State is directed to transmit to 
the House of Representatives, not later than 7 days after the date of 
the adoption of this resolution, copies of all classified Department of 
State documents assessed by the Department as of the date of the 
adoption of this resolution to have been unlawfully disclosed and 
provided to WikiLeaks and select public press outlets, as referenced in 
the November 27, 2010, letter by the Department of State Legal Adviser, 
Harold Hongju Koh, to Ms. Jennifer Robinson, attorney for Mr. Julian 
Assange, which notes the approximately 250,000 documents that have been 
provided to select press outlets by WikiLeaks.
                                 <all>
```
Angel PORTUONDO, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 17-7371.

Supreme Court of the United States

Feb. 20, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit denied.
Robert B. LYNN, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 16-6803.

Supreme Court of the United States

Jan. 9, 2017.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit denied.
# C_2010051EN.01003702.xml

| 27.2.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 51/37 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.2.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 51/37

---

Action brought on 22 December 2009 — Baena Grupo v OHIM — Neuman and Galdeano del Sel (Designs)

(Case T-513/09)

2010/C 51/72

Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

Parties

Parties

Applicant: José Manuel Baena Grupo, SA (Santa Perpètua de Mogoda, Spain) (represented by: A. Canela Giménez, lawyer)

Applicant:

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

Defendant:

Other parties to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Herbert Neuman and Andoni Galdeano del Sel

Other parties to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | allow the action against the decision of 14 October 2009 of the Third Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (OHIM) in Case R 1323/2008-3; |
| --- | --- |

—

allow the action against the decision of 14 October 2009 of the Third Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (OHIM) in Case R 1323/2008-3;

| — | annul OHIM's decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul OHIM's decision;

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

—

order OHIM to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

Registered Community trade mark in respect of which a declaration of invalidity has been sought: Community registered design No 000 426 895-0002 for ornamentation for T–shirts, ornamentation for caps, ornamentation for stickers, ornamentation for printed material including advertising material.

Registered Community trade mark in respect of which a declaration of invalidity has been sought:

Proprietor of the Community trade mark: the applicant

Proprietor of the Community trade mark:

Applicant for the declaration of invalidity: Herbert Neuman and Andoni Galdeano del Sel

Applicant for the declaration of invalidity:

Trade mark right of applicant for the declaration: figurative Community mark No 1 312 651, for goods in Classes 25, 28 and 32 of the Classification of Nice.

Trade mark right of applicant for the declaration:

Decision of the Cancellation Division of the Designs Department: allow the application and declare the design to be invalid.

Decision of the Cancellation Division of the Designs Department:

Decision of the Board of Appeal: annul the contested decision and, pursuant to the power conferred on it by Article 60(1) of Regulation No 6/2002 on Community designs, decide the appeal on its merits and declare the invalidity of the Community design.

Decision of the Board of Appeal:

Pleas in law: incorrect interpretation of Article 6(1) of Regulation No 6/2002.

Pleas in law:

---
# C_2011269EN.01001701.xml

| 10.9.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 269/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.9.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 269/17

---

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 7 July 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Bacău (Romania)) — Ministerul Justiției și Libertăților Cetățenești v Ștefan Agafiței and Others

(Case C-310/10) (1)

1

(Salary rights of judges - Discrimination on grounds of membership of a socio-professional category or place of work - Conditions for compensation for the harm suffered - Directives 2000/43/EC and 2000/78/EC - Inapplicability - Inadmissibility of the reference for a preliminary ruling)

2011/C 269/27

Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Referring court

Curtea de Apel Bacău

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Ministerul Justiției și Libertăților Cetățenești

Applicant:

Defendants: Ștefan Agafiței, Raluca Apetroaei, Marcel Bărbieru, Sorin Budeanu, Luminița Chiagă, Mihaela Crăciun, Sorin-Vasile Curpăn, Mihaela Dabija, Mia-Cristina Damian, Sorina Danalache, Oana-Alina Dogaru, Geanina Dorneanu, Adina-Cătălina Galavan, Gabriel Grancea, Mădălina Radu (Hobjilă), Nicolae Cătălin Iacobuț, Roxana Lăcătușu, Sergiu Lupașcu, Smaranda Maftei, Silvia Mărmureanu, Maria Oborocianu, Simona Panfil, Oana-Georgeta Pânzaru, Laurențiu Păduraru, Elena Pîrjol-Năstase, Ioana Pocovnicu, Alina Pușcașu, Cezar Ștefănescu, Roxana Ștefănescu, Ciprian Țimiraș, Cristina Vintilă

Defendants:

Re:

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Curtea de Apel Bacău — Interpretation of Article 15 of Council Directive 2000/43/EC of 29 June 2000 implementing the principle of equal treatment between persons irrespective of racial or ethnic origin (OJ 2000 L 180, p. 22) — Interpretation of Article 17 of Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation (OJ 2000 L 303, p. 16) — National legislation providing for a difference in treatment as regards the salary rights of judges and public prosecutors, justified in terms of the specialised nature of the work of the public prosecutors attached to the D.N.A. (National Anti-Corruption Directorate) and the D.I.I.C.O.T. (Directorate for Investigating Organised Crime and Terrorism) — Possible discrimination, in the absence of objective criteria linked to a specific requirement of higher qualifications — Provisions of national law transposing a directive declared unconstitutional in so far as they enable the national courts to annul legislative acts regarded as discriminatory and, by way of judicial remedy, to grant salary rights for which no provision has been made by statute

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The reference for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Bacău (Romania) is inadmissible.

---

(1)  OJ C 234, 28.8.2010.

1

---
In the Matter of DISBARMENT OF Phillip Douglas MILLER.

No. D-2911.

Supreme Court of the United States

Jan. 9, 2017.

Disbarment order entered.
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, petitioner, v. MURPHY OIL USA, INC., et al.

No. 16-307.

Supreme Court of the United States

Jan. 25, 2017.

The following briefing schedule is adopted:

Petitioner in Nos. 16-285 and 16-300 and respondent in No. 16-307 will file opening and reply briefs under the schedule set forth in Rules 25.1 and 25.3. Respondent in Nos. 16-285 and 16-300 and petitioner in No. 16-307 will file response briefs under the schedule set forth in Rule 25.2.
Raymond RAWSON, petitioner, v. Robert Lee STINSON.

No. 17-788.

Supreme Court of the United States

March 26, 2018.

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


<ARTICLE>                     5
<CIK>                         0001076700
<NAME>                        VIRILITEC INDUSTRIES, INC.

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              JUL-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                                 AUG-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                   JUL-31-2000
<CASH>                                         20,117
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  0
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               20,654
<PP&E>                                         3,600
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (2,400)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 29,504
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          7,075
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       472
<OTHER-SE>                                     21,957
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   29,504
<SALES>                                        10,200
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               10,200
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  48,451
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (38,521)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (38,521)
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (38,521)
<EPS-BASIC>                                    (0.010)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (0.010)



</TABLE>
Zachary CHANDLER, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 17-6415.

Supreme Court of the United States

March 19, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit denied.
# C_2011362EN.01002202.xml

| 10.12.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 362/22 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.12.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 362/22

---

Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 13 September 2011 Michail v Commission

(Case F-100/09) (1)

1

(Civil service - Official - Res judicata - Duty to provide assistance - Article 24 of the Staff Regulations - Psychological harassment)

2011/C 362/35

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Christos Michail (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: C. Meïdanis, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Commission (represented by: J. Currall and J. Baquero Cruz, Agents, and by E. Bourtzalas and E. Antypa, lawyers)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Annulment of the defendant’s decision to reject the request for assistance made under Article 24 of the Staff Regulations in respect of the psychological harassment which the applicant claims to have suffered.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Tribunal:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Mr Michail to bear his own costs and those of the Commission. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Mr Michail to bear his own costs and those of the Commission.

---

(1)  OJ C 63, 13.3.2010, p. 52.

1

---
IN THE

TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10

- 18

- 00050

- CV

A

- MEDICAL ADVANTAGE HE ALTHCARE SYSTEMS,

ASSOCIATED, KEVIN WI LLIAMS, M.D., ADVANT AGE

MEDICAL CLINIC, INC. , JOHN ZACHARIAS AND

LINDA RILEY

, Appellant s

v.

JULIA SHWARTS, INDIV IDUALLY AND AS EXECU TOR

OF THE ESTATE OF KAL MAN SHWARTS, AND

KAL SHWARTS, M.D., P .A.

, Appellee s

From the 13th District Court

Navarro County, Texas

Trial Court No. D15

- 24567

- CV

ORDER

Appellants’ Rule 28.1 Motion to Dispense with Briefing is dismissed as moot

.

Appellants’ B rief was filed on March 26, 2018

.

PER CURIAMA

- Med. Advantage Healthcare Sys., Assoc. v. Shwarts Page 2

Before Chief Justice Gray,

Justice Davis , and

Justice Scoggins

Order issued and filed April 18, 2018
Irfan M. JAMEEL, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 16-7170.

Supreme Court of the United States

Jan. 17, 2017.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied.
David WALTER, petitioner, v. Andrei IANCU, Director, United States Patent and Trademark Office.

No. 17-1205.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 2, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit denied.
Michael Devon JARMON, petitioner, v. MINNESOTA.

No. 15-9460.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 3, 2016.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals of Minnesota denied.
Exhibit 31.1


SECTION 302 CERTIFICATION





I, Patrick O. Little, President and Chief Executive Officer, certify that:





1.
I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K/A of Teche Holding Company;





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.








Date:  January 5, 2011

By:
/s/ Patrick O. LittlePatrick O. Little

President and Chief Executive Officer
Francisco E. LOPEZ-NEGRON, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 16-6881.

Supreme Court of the United States

Jan. 9, 2017.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit denied.
David Earl GRAY, petitioner, v. Rick HILL, Warden.

No. 16-6971.

Supreme Court of the United States

Jan. 17, 2017.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.
Ioan PAUNESCU, et ux., petitioners v. Gerhard H. ECKERT, et al.

No. 16-622.

Supreme Court of the United States

Jan. 9, 2017.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals of Washington, Division 2 denied.
964.

#### Boyd *v.*The State.

Accusation of keeping a gaming-house, from city court of Dawson — Judge Edwards. December 16, 1907.

Submitted February 25,

Decided March 16, 1908.

The prosecutor (a bailiff) testified, that he, with a policeman and two other men, went at night to the house of Lavonia Boyd, the accused, and saw a crowd of negroes squatting on the floor, and *59heard them saying, “I’ll bet you a quarter better,” or “half a dollar better.” He heard Lavonia Boyd say “You must pay me.” Some of'the negroes said “There’s the white folks out there.” Somebody outside the house shot a pistol just as the prosecutor’s party were entering the back and front doors of the house, and this seemed to frighten the negroes. Ten of them were arrested and others ran off. The prosecutor saw one of the negroes pick up some small change from a quilt on the floor. None of the witnesses saw any cards or any other indication of gambling than has been stated. There was evidence as to confessions made by the accused, to the effect that the negroes gambled with cards at her house that night, and paid her for the rent of the house.

*58Hill, C. J.

A confession without aliunde proof of the corpus delicti is not sufficient to convict. ' *Judgment reversed.*

*59*Marlin & Hoyl, Baines & Gurr, J. G. Parks,*for plaintiff in error. *M. J. Yeomans, solicitor,*contra.
Discussion of the CFTC’s 

Proposed Rule on 

Electronic Trading Risk Principles

CFTC Technology Advisory Committee

Automated and Modern Trading Markets Subcommittee

July 16, 2020
Definition of Electronic Trading 

“Electronic trading encompasses a wide scope of trading, and should 

be understood, for purposes of this proposed rulemaking, to include all 

trading and order messages submitted by electronic means to the 

DCM’s electronic trading platform. This would include both automated 

and manual order entry.”

• Manual orders, once entered into an automated system pose many of 

the same risks as fully automated orders.

• Risk-based approach will allow DCMs to capture the differences 

between fully automated orders and manual orders entered into 

automated systems.
Market Disruption 

“This rulemaking uses the term “market disruption” to describe the 

disruptive effects to be prevented, detected, and mitigated through 

these Risk Principles. Is it preferable to use the term “trading 

disruption,” “trading operations disruption,” or another alternative 

term instead? If so, which term should be used and why?”

• Sufficiently broad to capture both trading system outages and other 

potential events that could limit market participants’ ability to trade 

and manage risk.
What Constitutes a “Market Disruption” 

“What type of unscheduled halts in trading would constitute “market 

disruptions” that impact the ability of other market participants to 

trade or manage their risk?”

• Outage to critical DCM trading system infrastructure.

• Instances in which trading is not halted, but during which market 

participants cannot trade, manage risk or engage in price discovery 

are difficult to define and depend on the degree of market disruption.

• Market participant system issue or withdrawal of liquidity that does 

not affect other market participants would not be a “market 

disruption.”
Latency as a Measure of Market Disruption 

“What amount of latency to other market participants (measured in 

milliseconds) should be considered a market disruption? How can 

DCMs evaluate changes over time in the amount of latency that should 

be considered a market disruption?”

• Defining a latency measure will not be effective in defining market 

disruptions.

• Latency variability is a natural property of trading systems.

• A specific latency measure may be normal during periods of high 

market activity, but anomalous during a period of lower market 

activity.
Disparity of DCM Rules 

“The Commission recognizes that DCMs may differ in what rules they 

establish to prevent, detect, and mitigate market disruption and system 

anomalies. Would such disparity have a harmful effect on market 

liquidity or integrity?”

• DCM trading systems have different architectures and features. DCMs 

should establish rules specific to their systems in order to most 

effectively prevent and mitigate market disruption.

• Flexibility will allow DCMs to innovate to ensure market resilience. 

Over time, this will strengthen best practices.
## In the

Court of Appeals

Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Worth

No. 02

- 18

- 00112

- CV

D AVID A. S KEELS

, Appellant

V

.

J ONATHAN T. S UDER ; M ICHAEL T.

C OOKE ; AND F RIEDMAN

, S UDER &

C OOKE

, P.C. , Appellees §

§

§

§

§ On Appeal from the 236th District Court

of Tarrant County ( 236

- 284262

- 16 )

October 14 , 2021

Memorandum Opinion by Justice Womack

Dissenting Memorandum Opinion by

Just ice Birdwell

JUDGMENT ON FURTHER REHEARING

After reviewing the parties ’ furthe r motions for re hearing , we deny the

motions. W e deny appellant David A. Skeels ’ s further motion for en banc

reconside ration as mo ot. However, w e withdraw our June 17, 2021 judgment on

rehearing and subst

itute th e following

.

T his court ha s considered the re cord on appeal in this case and holds that there

was error in part of the trial court’ s judgment. We mo dify the trial court ’ s January 7

,

2018 am ended final j udgment (1) to del et e appellee F r i e dman, Suder & C o o ke , P.C. ’ saward of attorne y ’ s fees and cos ts under the U niform Declaratory Judg ments Act and

(2) to de let e the award of sanc tions i n favor of appellees Jonathan T. Suder and

Michael T. Cooke. As modified, we a ffirm the trial court ’ s amended final judgment

.

We affirm the trial cou rt ’ s September 1 1, 2017 declaratory

- jud gment order.

It is further ordered that all parties shall bear their own costs of this appeal, for

which let execution issue.

SEC OND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

By /s/ Dana Womack

Justice D ana Womack