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

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                       3,710,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                               37,717,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                   335,000
<INVENTORY>                                 69,757,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                           112,951,000
<PP&E>                                     140,027,000
<DEPRECIATION>                              71,552,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             416,593,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       71,287,000
<BONDS>                                    277,500,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                     10,000
<COMMON>                                        11,000
<OTHER-SE>                                (22,134,000)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               416,593,000
<SALES>                                    146,174,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                           146,174,000
<CGS>                                       92,667,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               92,667,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             8,719,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                          15,707,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             14,639,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                 1,577,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                         13,062,000
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                              1,713,000
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                11,349,000
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
# C_2013336EN.01001502.xml

| 16.11.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 336/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.11.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 336/15

---

Judgment of the General Court of 16 September 2013 — Müller-Boré & Partner v OHIM — Popp and Others (MBP)

(Case T-338/09) (1)

1

(Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community word mark MBP - Earlier Community word mark ip_law@mbp./email - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009) - National sign used in the course of trade mbp.de - Article 8(4) of Regulation No 40/94 (now Article 8(4) of Regulation 207/2009)

2013/C 336/30

Language of the case: German

Parties

Parties

Applicant: M Müller-Boré & Partner Patentanwälte. Rechtsanwälte (Munich, Germany) (represented by: C. Osterrieth and T. Schmitz, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented: initially by S. Schäffner, then A. Pohlmann, Agents)

Defendant:

Other parties to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Eugen Popp (Munich, Germany); Wolf E. Sajda (Munich); Johannes Bohnenberger (Munich); and Volkmar Kruspig (Munich) (represented by: C. Rohnke, M. Jacob and J. Herrlinger, lawyers)

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

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 23 June 2009 (Case R 1176/2007-4), relating to opposition proceedings between Eugen Popp, Wolf E. Sajda, Johannes Bohnenberger, Volkmar Kruspig and Müller-Boré & Partner Rechtsanwälte. Patentanwälte.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Müller-Boré & Partner Patentanwälte. Rechtsanwälte to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Müller-Boré & Partner Patentanwälte. Rechtsanwälte to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 267, 7.11.2009.

1

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

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 9
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                           9,773
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                             110
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                 6,750
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                     60,037
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                           9,145
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                             8,854
<LOANS>                                        156,342
<ALLOWANCE>                                      1,557
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 254,936
<DEPOSITS>                                     224,394
<SHORT-TERM>                                     5,608
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                              2,045
<LONG-TERM>                                      2,050
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            19
<OTHER-SE>                                      20,820
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                 254,936
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                  7,088
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                2,105
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                   246
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                 9,439
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                               3,995
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               4,212
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                            5,227
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                      260
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                  3,845
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  2,175
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                       1,421
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,421
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.73
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.73
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    4.53
<LOANS-NON>                                        956
<LOANS-PAST>                                       246
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                 1,396
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                      130
<RECOVERIES>                                        31
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                1,557
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                             1,557
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0
        

</TABLE>
Peter VISICH, petitioner, v. John WALSH, Superintendent, Sullivan Correctional Facility.

No. 16-6758.

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.
Jerry WIZAR, petitioner, v. Stu SHERMAN, Warden.

No. 17-7509.

Supreme Court of the United States

March 26, 2018.

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

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 16-1858

___________________________

Berta Alicia Lopez-Morales

lllllllllllllllllllllPetitioner

v.

Loretta E. Lynch, Attorney General of the United States

lllllllllllllllllllllRespondent

____________

Petition for Review of an Order of the

 Board of Immigration Appeals

____________

 Submitted: January 25, 2017

Filed: January 30, 2017

[Unpublished]

____________

Before LOKEN, BOWMAN, and KELLY, Circuit Judges.

____________

PER CURIAM.

Berta Alicia Lopez-Morales, a native and citizen of Guatemala, conceded

removability but petitioned for asylum under 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(1), withholding of

removal under 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3)(A), and relief under the Convention Against

Torture (CAT) under 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(c), claiming that she had suffered past

persecution and had a well-founded fear of future persecution because she witnessed
a gang leader run over two people with a car and reported what she had witnessed to

the police. An immigration judge denied her petition on all three grounds, and the

Board of Immigration Appeals dismissed her appeal. Lopez-Morales now petitions

for review.

We review for substantial evidence in the record as a whole. Garcia v. Holder,

746 F.3d 869, 872 (8th Cir. 2014). Lopez-Morales alleged thatshe faced or may face

persecution because of her membership in a particular social group comprised of

witnessesto gang violence who have been targeted because of perceived cooperation

with the police. She failed, however, to present evidence showing her proposed

group is socially distinct or identifiable within Guatemalan society. See Gonzalez

Cano v. Lynch, 809 F.3d 1056, 1058 (8th Cir. 2016) (“For a particular social group

to be cognizable, the group must share a common, immutable characteristic, must be

defined with particularity, and must be socially distinct such that it is identified as a

group by the society of which it is a part.”); see also Ngugi v. Lynch, 826 F.3d 1132,

1138 (8th Cir. 2016) (rejecting a claim that witnesses who testify against gang

members in public proceedings qualify as a protected group absent evidence that the

group is socially recognized in some way).

Because Lopez-Morales failed to demonstrate eligibility for asylum, her

petition for withholding of removal necessarily fails. See Sow v. Mukasey, 546 F.3d

953, 956 (8th Cir. 2008). Her petition for CAT relief likewise fails because her claim

that she may be tortured upon her removal to Guatemala relies upon the same factual

basis as her claims for asylum and withholding of removal. See Guled v. Mukasey,

515 F.3d 872, 882 (8th Cir. 2008).

We deny the petition for review.

______________________________

-2-
# C_2012243EN.01001401.xml

| 11.8.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 243/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.8.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 243/14

---

Judgment of the General Court of 28 June 2012 — I Marchi Italiani and Basile v OHIM — Osra (B. Antonio Basile 1952)

(Case T-133/09) (1)

1

(Community trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - Community figurative mark B. Antonio Basile 1952 - Earlier national word mark BASILE - Relative ground for refusal - Limitation in consequence of acquiescence - Article 53(2) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 54(2) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009) - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1) of Regulation No 40/94 (now Article 8(1) of Regulation No 207/2009)

2012/C 243/25

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Parties

Applicants: I Marchi Italiani Srl (Naples, Italy) and Antonio Basile (Giugliano in Campania, Italy); (represented by: G. Militerni, L. Militerni and F. Gimmelli, lawyers)

Applicants:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented: initially by A. Sempio and subsequently by P. Bullock, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervening before the General Court: Osra SA (Rovereta, Saint-Marin) (represented by: A. Masetti Zannini de Concina, R. Cartella and G. Petrocchi, lawyers)

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 Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 9 January 2009 (Case R 502/2008-2) relating to invalidity proceedings between Osra SA and M. Antonio Basile.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Removes the name of the second applicant, Antonio Basile, from the list of applicants in Case T-133/09; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Removes the name of the second applicant, Antonio Basile, from the list of applicants in Case T-133/09;

| 2. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Dismisses the action;

| 3. | Orders I Marchi Italiani Srl to pay the costs, other than those relating to the discontinuance; |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders I Marchi Italiani Srl to pay the costs, other than those relating to the discontinuance;

| 4. | Orders Mr Basile to bear his own costs. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Orders Mr Basile to bear his own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 141, 20.6.2009.

1

---
1368.

#### Marshall *v.*The State.

Accusation of assault and battery, from city court of Dawson — Judge Edwards. July 21, 1908.

Submitted October 8,

Decided October 12, 1908.

*Marlin &*Hoyl, for plaintiff in error.

*M. J. Yeomans, solicitor,*contra.

Russell, J.

No error of law is alleged to have been committed by the court on the trial. The evidence authorized the verdict, and the motion for new trial was properly overruled.

*Judgment affirmed.*
Richard LOPEZ, et al., petitioners, v. ESTATE OF James Franklin PERRY, et al.

No. 17-890.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 2, 2018.

Motion of International Municipal Lawyers Association for leave to file a brief as *amicus curiae* granted. Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit denied.
II-01216

From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

Dan Boykin <dan.boykin@lakelandelectric.com>

Wednesday, December 1, 2010 2:19 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.

Dan Boykin

15725 Acorn Circle

Tavares, FL 32778
In the Matter of DISBARMENT OF Mary March EXUM.

No. D-2998.

Supreme Court of the United States

Feb. 20, 2018.

Disbarment order entered.
### In The

Court of Appeals

Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana

______________________________

No. 06

- 1 0

- 00 117

- CV

______________________________

GEORGE WESLEY FISHER, INDEPENDENT EXECUTOR OF THE ESTATE

OF WILMER GIDDENS, DECEASED AND INDIVIDUALLY , Appellant

V.

ESTATE OF JOHNNIE HUE GIDDENS, BENNIE J. NELSON, AS

ADMINISTRATOR AND INDIVIDUALLY , Appellee

On Appeal from the 102nd Judicial District Court

Bowie County, Texas

Trial Court No. 10C0638

- 102

Before Morriss, C.J., Carter and Moseley, JJ.

Memorandum Opinion by Justice Carter2 MEMORANDUM OPINION

George Wesley Fisher, independent executor of the estate of Wilmer Giddens, deceased,

and individually, filed his notice of appeal from the trial court’s judgment quieting title on

November 1, 2010.

Fisher has not paid a filing fee and is not indigent

. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. app. C (B)(1)

.

Further, t he clerk’s record was filed January 4, 2011 , and the reporter’s record was due to

be filed on or before February 22, 2011. Appellant is not indigent, and is thus responsible for

paying or making adequate arrangements to pay the reporter’s fees for preparing the record. See

T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 37.3. On March 30, 2011, we contacted appellant by letter, reminding him that

the record was over thirty days past due, and warning that if a reporter’s record was desired,

appellant must make a substantial and tangible effort to obtain such a record within ten days of the

date of our letter.

We also informed appellant that if he did not desire to file a reporter’s record, the

appellant’s brief was due based solely on the clerk’s record, and his brief was due within thirty

days of our letter. We further warne d appellant that if no response was received, the appeal would

be subject to dismissal for want of prosecution. T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 42.3(b), (c).3

We have received no communication from appellant . Pursuant to T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 42.3(b),

we dismiss this appe al for want of prosecution.

Jack Carter

Justice

Date Submitted: May 18 , 2011

Date Decided: May 19 , 2011
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                          30,395
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  30,395
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            2,790
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         2,170
<OTHER-SE>                                      25,435<F1>
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    30,395
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                12,230
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (12,230)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.01)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
<FN>
<F1>Other Stockholder's equity includes: Additional paid in capital
$36,180; Stock warrant $2,913 and Accumulated Deficit ($13,558)
</FN>



</TABLE>
Dearick SMITH, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 17-5724.

Supreme Court of the United States

Feb. 26, 2018.

Petition for rehearing denied.
Ifeanyichukwu Eric ABAKPORO, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 16-7266.

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.
# C_2011038EN.01001201.xml

| 5.2.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 38/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.2.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 38/12

---

Judgment of the General Court of 15 December 2010 — Epcos v OHIM — Epco Sistemas (EPCOS)

(Case T-132/09) (1)

1

(Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community figurative mark EPCOS - Earlier national figurative mark epco SISTEMAS - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009) - Genuine use of earlier mark - Article 43(2) and (3) of Regulation No 40/94 (now Article 42(2) and (3) of Regulation No 207/2009)

2011/C 38/18

Language of the case: German

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Epcos AG (Munich, Germany) (represented by: L. von Zumbusch and S. Schweyer, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: S. Schäffner, Agent)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Epco Sistemas SL (Constanti, Spain)

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

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 19 January 2009 (Case R 1088/2008-2) relating to opposition proceedings between Epco Sistemas SL and Epcos AG.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Epcos AG to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Epcos AG to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 129, 6.6.2009.

1

---
(LOGO)
KPMG
515 Broadway
Albany, NY 12207

Independent Accountants' Report

The Board of Directors
Banknorth Mortgage Company, Inc.

We have examined management's assertion about Banknorth Mortgage Company, Inc.'s
(the  Company's),  a wholly  owned  subsidiary  of First  Vermont Bank and Trust
Company (whose parent company is Banknorth  Group,  Inc.),  compliance  with the
minimum  servicing  standards set forth in the Mortgage  Bankers  Association of
America's Uniform Single  Attestation  Program for Mortgage Bankers (USAP) as of
and  for  the  year  ended  December  31,  1998,  included  in the  accompanying
management  assertion.  Management is responsible  for the Company's  compliance
with those minimum  servicing  standards.  Our  responsibility  is to express an
opinion on management's  assertion about the Company's  compliance  based on our
examination.

Our  examination  was  made in  accordance  with  standards  established  by the
American  Institute of Certified Public Accountants and,  accordingly,  included
examining,  on a test basis,  evidence about the Company's  compliance  with the
minimum  servicing   standards  and  performing  such  other  procedures  as  we
considered  necessary  in the  circumstances.  We believe  that our  examination
provides a reasonable basis for our opinion.  Our examination does not provide a
legal  determination  on the  Company's  compliance  with the minimum  servicing
standards.

In our  opinion,  management's  assertion  that the Company has  complied in all
material respects with the aforementioned  minimum servicing standards as of and
for the year  ended  December  31,  1998,  is  fairly  stated,  in all  material
respects.

KPMG LLP

January 22,1999
W.A. GRIFFIN, petitioner, v. UNITED HEALTHCARE OF GEORGIA, INC., et al.

No. 17-1073.

Supreme Court of the United States

March 26, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari before judgment denied.