alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
## SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

## Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

701 KA 12-00141

PRESENT: SCUDDER, P.J., CENTRA, PERADOTTO, CARNI, AND LINDLEY, JJ.

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT,

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

PRASHANT AGARWAL, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

JOHN E. TYO, SHORTSVILLE, FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

JON E. BUDELMANN, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, AUBURN (CHRISTOPHER T. VALDINA OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.

Appeal from an order of the Cayuga County Court (Mark H. Fandrich, A.J.), dated June 20, 2011. The order determined that defendant is a level two risk pursuant to the Sex Offender Registration Act.

It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: On appeal from an order determining that he is a level two risk pursuant to the Sex Offender Registration Act (Correction Law § 168 et seq .), defendant contends that County Court’s upward departure from his presumptive classification as a level one risk to a level two risk is not supported by the requisite clear and convincing evidence ( see § 168-n [3]). We reject that contention. There is clear and convincing evidence that defendant used the internet to engage in sexually explicit conversations with an undercover police officer posing as a 14-year-old girl, instructed her to masturbate, provided her with Web sites to educate her about sexual positions, communicated to her that he wanted to engage in sexual activity with her, and “ ‘exhibited a willingness to act on his compulsions’ ” by arranging to meet with her and then arriving at the arranged meeting with various items demonstrating his intent to engage in sexual activity ( People v Blackman , 78 AD3d 803, 804, lv denied 16 NY3d 707). In our view, the People thereby presented evidence of aggravating factors “ ‘of a kind, or to a degree, not otherwise adequately taken into account by the [risk assessment] guidelines’ ” ( People v McCollum , 41 AD3d 1187, 1188, lv denied 9 NY3d 807).

Entered: June 8, 2012 Frances E. Cafarell Clerk of the Court
II-00766

From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

Jill Blaisdell <ablaisdell@earthlink.net>

Thursday, December 2, 2010 11:32 AM

dfadefinitions <dfadefinitions@CFTC.gov>

Re: No loopholes in Dodd-Frank

1) Securities and Exchange Commission/Commodities Futures Trading Commission, Re: Commercial Risk (CFTC PIN

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 (PIN 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.

Jill Blaisdell

5152 Earl Dr.

La Canada, CA 91011
Exhibit 32.1   CERTIFICATION  Certification Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (Subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code)  Pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code), each of the undersigned officers of Innocom Technology Holdings, Inc., a Nevada corporation (the "Company"), does hereby certify, to such officer's knowledge, that:  The Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2010 (the "Form 10-K") of the Company fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and information contained in the Form 10-K fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.  A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Innocom Technology Holdings, Inc. and will be retained by Innocom Technology Holdings, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.   Date: April 15, 2011/s/ William Yan Sui HuiWilliam Yan Sui Hui, Chief Executive Officer
Willie BRANCH, aka Willie Branch-El, petitioner, v. T. CARRILLO, et al.

No. 16-7148.

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.
**Exhibit 32.2**

 

**CERTIFICATION 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 Quarterly Report of PW Eagle, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2003 as filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”), I, Roger Robb, Chief Financial 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; and 

 

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

 

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to PW Eagle, Inc. and will be retained by PW Eagle, Inc.andfurnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission upon request. 

 

Dated: August 14, 2003
United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 12-1157

___________________________

Donald K. Alexander

lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellant

v.

Boone Hospital Center; William A. Hawkins; Susan Alpert; Kathleen Erickson

DiGiorno; Stephen N. Oesterle; Gary Ellis; Brian Rysdam; Medtronic, Inc.; Daniel

Rothery; Missy Arnold; Nancy Tune

lllllllllllllllllllll Defendants - Appellees

___________________________

No. 12-1298

___________________________

Donald K. Alexander

lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellant

v.

William A. Hawkins; Susan Alpert;

Kathleen Erickson DiGiorno;

Stephen Oesterle; Gary Ellis; 

Brian Rysdam; and Medtronic, Inc.

lllllllllllllllllllll Defendants - Appellees

____________
 Appeals from United States District Court 

for the District of Minnesota - Minneapolis

____________

 Submitted: June 28, 2012

Filed: November 5, 2012

[Unpublished]

____________

Before BYE, GRUENDER, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

____________

PER CURIAM.

Donald Alexander filed a civil action in the Western District of Missouri

seeking damages under 18 U.S.C. § 1964(c). The case was transferred to the District

of Minnesota, which was presiding over related multidistrict litigation. The District

of Minnesota severed and dismissed some defendants from the action based on a

1

settlement between the parties. The claims against the remaining defendants were

remanded to the Western District of Missouri, which ultimately granted the

2

remaining defendants’ motion to dismiss. Alexander filed in both courts motions

under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) to set aside the settlement-based

dismissal. The Western District of Missouri declined to rule on the motion; the

District of Minnesota denied it on the merits. In these consolidated appeals,

Alexander challenges the Western District of Missouri’s dismissal, and argues that

only the Western District of Missouri, not the District of Minnesota, had jurisdiction

to rule on his Rule 60 motion. 

The Honorable Richard H. Kyle, United States District Judge for the District 1

of Minnesota.

The Honorable Nanette K. Laughrey, United States District Judge for the

2

Western District of Missouri.

-2-
We agree with the Western District of Missouri that Alexander’s section

1964(c) claim failed for the reasons stated by that court. We also conclude the

District of Minnesota retained jurisdiction to consider his Rule 60 motion, and thus

the Western District of Missouri did not err by declining to do so. See 28 U.S.C.

§ 1407(a); J.P.M.L. R. 10.1(a). Accordingly, we affirm the judgments of the district

courts. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

______________________________

-3-
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM FORM
10-QSB FOR THE QUARTER ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 1998 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                         936,483
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  481,223
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,494,180
<PP&E>                                          76,474
<DEPRECIATION>                                   1,933
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,248,481
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          780,371
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     3,845,825
<OTHER-SE>                                     231,207
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 2,248,481
<SALES>                                      1,735,296
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,735,296
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,715,210
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               502,376
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 32,487
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             32,487
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    32,487
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    0.014
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    0.030
        

</TABLE>
James Paul DESPER, petitioner, v. Harold W. CLARKE, Director, Virginia Department of Corrections.

No. 16-5617.

Supreme Court of the United States

Jan. 9, 2017.

Petition for rehearing denied.
**EXHIBIT
      32.2**




**CERTIFICATION** **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 Quarterly Report of PLX Technology, Inc. (the "Company")
        on
        Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2007 as filed with the Securities
        and
        Exchange Commission (the "Report"), I, Arthur O. Whipple, Chief Financial
        Officer of the Company, hereby certify as of the date hereof, solely for
        purposes of Title 18, Chapter 63, Section 1350 of the United States Code,
        that
        to the best of my knowledge:
  1.
              the
                  Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
                  15(d), as
                  applicable, 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
                  at the dates and for the periods indicated.
  This
        Certification has not been, and shall not be deemed, "filed" with the Securities
        and Exchange Commission.
  Date:
        November 2 ,
        2007
  By: /s/ Arthur
        O. Whipple


Arthur
        O.
        Whipple
 Chief Financial
        Officer
Deandre ENOCH, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 17-7216.

Supreme Court of the United States

Feb. 20, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit denied.
II-00507

From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

Pauline Warren <rosewood2638@yahoo.com>

Thursday, December 2, 2010 4:00 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.

Pauline Warren

2638 N 700 E

North Ogden, UT 84414
Tully TAVARES, petitioner, v. UNITED AIRLINES, et al.

No. 16-5940.

Supreme Court of the United States

Jan. 23, 2017.

Petition for rehearing denied.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                           1,539
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                               7
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                     0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                      5,912
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                           3,831
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                             3,714
<LOANS>                                         51,136
<ALLOWANCE>                                        391
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  65,613
<DEPOSITS>                                      58,283
<SHORT-TERM>                                     1,000
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                                286
<LONG-TERM>                                        494
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         3,007
<OTHER-SE>                                       2,543
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                  65,613
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                  2,360
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                  275
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                    74
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                 2,709
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                               1,205
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,231
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                            1,478
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                      212
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                  1,447
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      1
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                           1
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                         1
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .22
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    8.70
<LOANS-NON>                                        925
<LOANS-PAST>                                        76
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                   354
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                    (175)
<RECOVERIES>                                         0
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                  391
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                               391
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0
        

</TABLE>
# C_2009220EN.01003302.xml

| 12.9.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 220/33 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.9.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 220/33

---

Action brought on 17 June 2009 — Commission v Edificios Inteco

(Case T-235/09)

2009/C 220/70

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: G. Valero Jordana, acting as Agent)

Applicant:

Defendant: Edificios Inteco, SL (Valladolid, Spain)

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | Order the defendant to repay the applicant EUR 157 238,07, plus the sum of EUR 81 686,22 of interest due until 1 June 2009 and daily interest for late payment at the rate of EUR 21,73796 per day accrued from 2 June 2009 until the full amount of the debt has been repayed; |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the defendant to repay the applicant EUR 157 238,07, plus the sum of EUR 81 686,22 of interest due until 1 June 2009 and daily interest for late payment at the rate of EUR 21,73796 per day accrued from 2 June 2009 until the full amount of the debt has been repayed;

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

—

order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

The European Commission requests the partial repayment of the payments made to Edificios Inteco, S.L. within the framework of a contract concerning the project ‘Energy — Comfort 2000 Phase I’ relating to the construction of a commercial and business centre in the city of Valladolid (Spain) which was annulled by the Commission.

In support of its claims the Commission submits that the defendant failed to meet its contractual obligations.

---
# C_2011319EN.01000701.xml

| 29.10.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 319/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.10.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 319/7

---

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 15 September 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Administrativen sad Sofia-grad (Bulgaria)) — ‘DP grup’ EOOD v Direktor na Agentsia ‘Mitnitsi’

(Case C-138/10) (1)

1

(Customs union - Customs declaration - Acceptance by the customs authorities of that declaration - Invalidation of a customs declaration which has already been accepted - Consequences for penal measures)

2011/C 319/10

Language of the case: Bulgarian

Referring court

Referring court

Administrativen sad Sofia-grad

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant:‘DP grup’ EOOD

Applicant:

Defendant: Direktor na Agentsia ‘Mitnitsi’

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Administrativen sad Sofia-grad — Interpretation of Articles 4(5), 8(1), first indent, 62, 63 and 68 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code (OJ 1992 L 302, p. 1) — Acceptance by the customs authority of a customs declaration made in writing by the person liable to pay duty — Treatment of such acceptance as equivalent to an administrative decision open to judicial review — Acceptance of the declaration on a provisional basis pending definitive verification of the information provided therein by means of an expert report for the purpose of confirming the tariff code — Delimitation of the review conducted by the customs authority at the time of that verification

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The provisions of European Union law in customs matters must be interpreted as meaning that a declarant cannot request a court to annul a customs declaration made by it when that declaration has been accepted by the customs authorities. By contrast, under the conditions laid down in Article 66 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code, as amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 1791/2006 of 20 November 2006, that declarant may request those authorities to invalidate that declaration, even after they have released the goods. At the conclusion of their assessment, the customs authorities must, subject to the possibility of a court action, either reject the declarant’s application by reasoned decision or proceed with the invalidation requested.

---

(1)  OJ C 148, 5.6.2010.

1

---
II-00887

From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

Ingrid Scott <ingrid3464@roadrunner.com>

Thursday, December 2, 2010 10:19 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.

Ingrid Scott

P.O. Box 806

Castine, ME 4421