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

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE>           5
<LEGEND>
                    The Schedule contains summary financial 
                    information extracted from the financial
                    statements for P-B Capital Return Futures
                    Fund 2, L.P. and is qualified in its entirety
                    by reference to such financial statements
</LEGEND>
<RESTATED>          
<CIK>               0000851786
<NAME>              P-B Capital Return Futures Fund 2, L.P.
<MULTIPLIER>        1

<FISCAL-YEAR-END>               Dec-31-1997

<PERIOD-START>                  Jan-1-1997

<PERIOD-END>                    Mar-31-1997

<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-Mos

<CASH>                          8,076,439

<SECURITIES>                    23,764,785

<RECEIVABLES>                   0

<ALLOWANCES>                    0

<INVENTORY>                     0

<CURRENT-ASSETS>                31,841,224

<PP&E>                          0

<DEPRECIATION>                  0

<TOTAL-ASSETS>                  31,841,224

<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>           809,895

<BONDS>                         0

<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>           0

<PREFERRED>                     0

<COMMON>                        0

<OTHER-SE>                      31,031,329

<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>    31,841,224

<SALES>                         0

<TOTAL-REVENUES>                1,645,708

<CGS>                           0

<TOTAL-COSTS>                   0

<OTHER-EXPENSES>                1,003,290

<LOSS-PROVISION>                0

<INTEREST-EXPENSE>              0

<INCOME-PRETAX>                 0

<INCOME-TAX>                    0

<INCOME-CONTINUING>             0

<DISCONTINUED>                  0

<EXTRAORDINARY>                 0

<CHANGES>                       0

<NET-INCOME>                    642,418

<EPS-PRIMARY>                   4.83

<EPS-DILUTED>                   0

</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                           5
<LEGEND>
                                    Exhibit 27

THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM
FORM 10-K AS OF SEPTEMBER 30, 1997 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY
BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.

</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>                                                      1,000
       
<S>                                      <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                                    12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                           SEP-30-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                                SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                                            5,060
<SECURITIES>                                                          0
<RECEIVABLES>                                                    41,120
<ALLOWANCES>                                                        224
<INVENTORY>                                                      41,124
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                                 94,753
<PP&E>                                                           49,145
<DEPRECIATION>                                                   15,460
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                                  131,725
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                            44,706
<BONDS>                                                           3,364
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                                 0
<PREFERRED>                                                           0
<COMMON>                                                         40,590
<OTHER-SE>                                                       40,990
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                                    131,725
<SALES>                                                         191,471
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                                193,952
<CGS>                                                           102,422
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                                   102,862
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                                 21,179
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                                      0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                                  499
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                                  20,198
<INCOME-TAX>                                                      7,675
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                              12,523
<DISCONTINUED>                                                        0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                                       0
<CHANGES>                                                             0
<NET-INCOME>                                                     12,523
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                                      0.91
<EPS-DILUTED>                                                      0.91
        



</TABLE>
# United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 23-1956

___________________________ United States of America lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee

v. Ezekiel D. Barry lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant

____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri - Kansas City

____________ Submitted: October 12, 2023 Filed: October 17, 2023 [Unpublished]

____________ Before LOKEN, COLLOTON, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.

____________ PER CURIAM. Ezekiel Barry appeals the below-Guidelines-range sentence the district court 1 imposed after he pled guilty to a drug offense pursuant to a plea agreement containing

1 The Honorable Gary A. Fenner, United States District Judge for the Western District of Missouri.an appeal waiver. His counsel has moved to withdraw and has filed a brief under

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), challenging Barry’s career-offender classification. Upon careful review, we conclude the appeal waiver is valid, enforceable, and applicable to the issues raised in this appeal. See United States v. Scott , 627 F.3d 702, 704 (8th Cir. 2010) (reviewing de novo the validity and applicability of an appeal waiver); United States v. Andis , 333 F.3d 886, 889-92 (8th Cir. 2003) (en banc) (enforcing appeal waiver if the appeal falls within the scope of the waiver, the defendant knowingly and voluntarily entered into the plea agreement and the waiver, and enforcing the waiver would not result in a miscarriage of justice). Further, we have independently reviewed the record under Penson v. Ohio , 488 U.S. 75 (1988), and have found no non-frivolous issues for appeal outside the scope of the appeal waiver. Accordingly, we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw and dismiss this appeal.

______________________________

-2-
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO**

**18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**

**AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C.§ 1350, as adopted), Harry F. Hixson Jr., Chief ExecutiveOfficer of Sequenom, Inc. (the “Company”), hereby certify that, to the best of his knowledge: 

 

1. The Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2009, to which this Certification isattached as Exhibit 32 (the “Annual Report”) fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or section 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and 

 

2. The information contained in the Annual Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition of the Company at the end of the period covered by the Annual Report, and the results of operations of the Company for the period covered by the Annual report. 

 

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

 

This certification accompanies the Form 10-K to which it relates, is not deemed filed with the SEC and is not to be incorporated by referenceinto any filing of the Company under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (whether made before or after the date of the Annual Report), irrespective of any general incorporation languagecontained in such filing. 

 

**IN WITNESSWHEREOF,** the undersigned has set his hand hereto as of the 15th day of March, 2010.
#### Camilo COSTA, Bernard Fernandes, Menino D’Acosta, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. CELEBRITY CRUISES, INC., Defendant-Appellee.

No. 11-11427.

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.

March 6, 2012.

Carlos Felipe Llinas Negret, Michael A. Winkleman, Lipcon Margulies Alsina & Winkleman, PA, Miami, FL, for Plaintiffs-Appellants.

Sanford L. Bohrer, Scott Daniel Ponce, Holland & Knight, LLP, Miami, FL, for Defendant-Appellee.

Before DUBINA, Chief Judge, ANDERSON and KLEINFELD,* Circuit Judges.

*

 Honorable Andrew J. Kleinfeld, United States Circuit Judge for the Ninth Circuit, sitting by designation.

PER CURIAM:

Appellants Camilo Costa, Bernard Fernandes, and Menino D’Acosta (the “Seafarers”) appeal the district court’s order dismissing Seafarers’ amended complaint seeking vacatur of an arbitration award.

After reviewing the record, reading the parties’ briefs and having the benefit of oral argument, we reject all of the appellants’ arguments and affirm the judgment of dismissal based on our decision in *Industrial Risk Insurers v. M.A.N. Gutehoffnungshutte,*141 F.3d 1434, 1446 (11th Cir.1998).

AFFIRMED.
Sebastian Patrick WILLIAMS, petitioner, v. Shane JACKSON, Warden.

No. 17-7567.

Supreme Court of the United States

March 5, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit denied.
G. Harrison SCOTT, et al., petitioners, v. FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION.

No. 17-567.

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.
**Judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) of 21 September 2011 – Rügen Fisch v OHIM – Schwaaner Fischwaren (SCOMBER MIX)**

**(Case T-201/09)**

Community trade mark – Invalidity proceedings – Community word mark SCOMBER MIX – Absolute grounds for refusal – Descriptive character – Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

Community trade mark – Surrender, revocation and invalidity – Absolute grounds of invalidity – Registration contrary to Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation No 40/94 (Council Regulation No 40/94, Arts 7(1)(c) and 51(1)(a))
(see paras 28-31)

**Re:**

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 20 March 2009 (Case R 230/2007-4), relating to invalidity proceedings between Rügen Fisch AG and Schwaaner Fischwaren GmbH. |

**Operative part**

The Court:

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

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 2. | | Orders Rügen Fisch AG to bear the costs. |
**Exhibit 31.2** **CERTIFICATION**     I, Dirkson R. Charles, certify that:     1. I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on    Form 10-Q    of K&F Industries, Inc.;     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 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; and     (c) 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 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 registrant’s board of    directors (or persons performing the equivalent function):     (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; and     (b) 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/  DIRKSON    R. CHARLES    Dirkson R. Charles    Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer     Date: August 14, 2006
II-00062

From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

Ana Connell <anac26@yahoo.com>

Tuesday, December 7, 2010 1:44 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.

Ana Connell

506 N. Frederic

Burbank, CA 91505
II-00172

From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

Maureen O’Connor <mauj skt@hotmail.com>

Saturday, December 4, 2010 2:49 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.

Maureen O’Connor

305 Dutton Street

Lowell, MA 01854
Edgardo LOZANO-TENORIO, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 16-6885.

Supreme Court of the United States

Jan. 17, 2017.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied.
II-00143

From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

Christopher Lish <lishchris@yahoo.com>

Saturday, December 4, 2010 4:16 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.

Christopher Lish

PO Box 113

Olema, CA 94950
# C_2009220EN.01001703.xml

| 12.9.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 220/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.9.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 220/17

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van beroep te Brussel (Belgium) lodged on 15 May 2009 — I. SGS Belgium NV v Belgisch Interventie- en Restitutiebureau, Firme Derwa NV and Centraal Beheer Achmea NV and II. Firme Derwa NV and Centraal Beheer Achmea NV v SGS Belgium NV and Belgisch Interventie- en Restitutiebureau

(Case C-218/09)

2009/C 220/31

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Referring court

Hof van beroep te Brussel

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

| I. | SGS Belgium NV
  v
  Belgisch Interventie- en Restitutiebureau
  Firme Derwa NV
  Centraal Beheer Achmea NV |
| --- | --- |

I.

SGS Belgium NV

v

Belgisch Interventie- en Restitutiebureau

Firme Derwa NV

Centraal Beheer Achmea NV

| II. | Firme Derwa NV
  Centraal Beheer Achmea NV
  v
  SGS Belgium NV
  Belgisch Interventie- en Restitutiebureau |
| --- | --- |

II.

Firme Derwa NV

Centraal Beheer Achmea NV

v

SGS Belgium NV

Belgisch Interventie- en Restitutiebureau

Question referred

Question referred

Must the term ‘force majeure’ in Article 5(3) of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 3665/87 (1) of 27 November 1987 laying down common detailed rules for the application of the system of export refunds on agricultural products be interpreted as meaning that damage to beef while being transported in the correct packaging and in a refrigerated container continuously maintained at the prescribed temperature, in principle constitutes force majeure?

1

---

(1)  OJ 1987 L 351, p. 1.

1

---
# C_2011152EN.01001903.xml

| 21.5.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 152/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.5.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 152/19

---

Order of the General Court of 4 April 2011 — Marcuccio v Commission

(Case T-239/09 P) (1)

1

(Appeal - Civil service - Officials - Refusal by an institution to open an inquiry - Pre-litigation procedure - Action for damages - Appeal in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly unfounded)

2011/C 152/35

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Parties

Appellant: Luigi Marcuccio (Tricase, Italy) (represented by: G. Cipressa, lawyer)

Appellant:

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: J. Currall and C. Berardis Kayser, agents, and A. dal Ferro, laywer)

Other party to the proceedings:

Re:

Re:

Appeal against the order of the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union (First Chamber) of 31 March 2009 in Case F-146/07 Marcuccio v Commission, not yet published in the ECR, seeking annulment of that order.

Marcuccio

Commission

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The appeal is dismissed. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The appeal is dismissed.

| 2. | Mr Luigi Marcuccio shall bear his own costs and pay those incurred by the European Commission in the present proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Mr Luigi Marcuccio shall bear his own costs and pay those incurred by the European Commission in the present proceedings.

---

(1)  OJ C 193, 15.8.2009.

1

---