alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Dismiss; Opinion Filed September 3, 2020

In the

Court of Appeals

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05-19-01397-CV

COREY STEELE, Appellant

V.

UG NATIONAL CONSTRUCTIVE AND 

CY ADDISON HOSPITALITY PARTNERS, LLC, Appellees

On Appeal from the 68th Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. DC-19-07861

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Molberg, Carlyle, and Browning

Opinion by Justice Carlyle

This appeal was filed November 11, 2019, and to date, the clerk’s record has 

not been filed because appellant has not paid for it. Although appellant filed in the 

trial court a statement of inability to afford payment of costs, the trial court sustained 

appellees’ challenge to appellant’s claim and ordered appellant, in relevant part, to 

pay the fee for the clerk’s record in installments of $250 per month until paid in full.

See TEX. R. CIV. P. 145(a), (f). We reviewed the trial court’s order on appellant’s 

motion and, by opinion dated May 18, 2020, affirmed the order. See Steele v. UG 
–2–

Nat’l Constructive, 05-19-01397-CV, 2020 WL 2519895 (Tex. App.—Dallas May 

18, 2020, no pet.) (mem. op.).

Following our opinion, we ordered appellant to file, no later than June 5, 2020, 

written verification he had paid the first installment. We subsequently extended the 

deadline to June 26, 2020. Although our orders setting the June 5th and June 26th 

deadlines cautioned appellant that failure to comply would result in the appeal being 

dismissed without further notice, appellant has not complied. See TEX. R. APP. P.

37.3(b). Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal. See id.

191397F.P05

/Cory L. Carlyle/

CORY L. CARLYLE

JUSTICE
–3–

Court of Appeals

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

JUDGMENT

COREY STEELE, Appellant

No. 05-19-01397-CV V.

UG NATIONAL CONSTRUCTIVE 

AND CY ADDISON 

HOSPITALITY PARTNERS, LLC, 

Appellees

On Appeal from the 68th Judicial 

District Court, Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. DC-19-07861.

Opinion delivered by Justice Carlyle, 

Justices Molberg and Browning 

participating.

In accordance with this Court’s opinion of this date, we DISMISS the appeal. 

Judgment entered this 3rd day of September, 2020.
II-00816

From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

Valerie Bradshaw <vhmenel@hotmail.com>

Thursday, December 2, 2010 11:07 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.

Your job is to stop the theft of the American people. The biggest transfer of wealth is still occuring in our rigged system and

they want more--can you stop this? If not get out and let someone else do it. Valerie Bradshaw

Valerie Bradshaw

1381 South Lawther Drive

Apache junction, AZ 85120
# C_2011204EN.01001201.xml

| 9.7.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 204/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.7.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 204/12

---

Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 18 May 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Düsseldorf (Germany)) — Delphi Deutschland GmbH v Hauptzollamt Düsseldorf

(Case C-423/10) (1)

1

(Common Customs Tariff - Combined Nomenclature - Classification for customs purposes - Electrical connectors - Subheading 8536 69 - Plugs and sockets)

2011/C 204/21

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Referring court

Finanzgericht Düsseldorf

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Delphi Deutschland GmbH

Applicant:

Defendant: Hauptzollamt Düsseldorf

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Finanzgericht Düsseldorf — Interpretation of Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff (OJ 1987 L 256, p. 1), as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1810/2004 of 7 September 2004 (OJ 2004 L 327, p. 1), Commission Regulation (EC) No 1719/2005 of 27 October 2005 (OJ 2005 L 286, p. 1) and Commission Regulation (EC) No 1549/2006 of 17 October 2006 (OJ 2006 L 301, p. 1) — Electrical connectors, intended to be crimped to the ends of electric wire and housed in plastic casing in order to join two cables — Classification under subheading 8536 69 of the Combined Nomenclature

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

Subheading 8536 69 of the Combined Nomenclature in Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff, as amended with respect to 2005, 2006 and 2007 respectively by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1810/2004 of 7 September 2004, Commission Regulation (EC) No 1719/2005 of 27 October 2005 and Commission Regulation (EC) No 1549/2006 of 17 October 2006, must be interpreted as meaning that electrical connectors, such as those at issue in the main proceedings, are not excluded from that subheading on the ground that they do not ensure the insulation of the connection at the connection point or that they represent only some of the plugs and sockets manufactured subsequently, provided that they permit multi-way connection, for instance between appliances, cables and connector boards, simply by plugging the attached plugs into the attached sockets with no assembly work required.

---

(1)  OJ C 317, 20.11.2010.

1

---
Exhibit 32


****


****


****


**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350 ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**





In connection with the Annual Report of Inform Worldwide Holdings, Inc., a Colorado corporation, (the "Company") on Form 10-KSB for the period ending June 30, 2004, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Ash Mascarenhas, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify the following pursuant to Section 18, U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002:





1.
The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) 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.








**INFORM WORLDWIDE HOLDINGS, INC.**Date: October 18, 2004
By:
/s/ Ash MascarenhasAsh MascarenhasTitle: Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer
Kabil Anton DJENASEVIC, petitioner, v. Richard B. IVES, Warden.

No. 16-6008.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 31, 2016.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied.
Kevin WILLIAMS, aka Kirby Stewart, petitioner, v. PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, et al.

No. 16-5145.

Supreme Court of the United States

Nov. 28, 2016.

Petition for rehearing denied.
Independent Auditors' Consent

The Board of Directors
Oswego County Bancorp, Inc.:

We consent to incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement No.
333-39696 on Form S-8 of Oswego County Bancorp, Inc. of our report dated January
26, 2001, relating to the consolidated statements of financial condition of
Oswego County Bancorp, Inc. and subsidiary as of December 31, 2000 and 1999, and
the related consolidated statements of income, changes in shareholders' equity,
and cash flows for the years then ended, which report has been included in the
December 31, 2000 Annual Report on Form 10-KSB of Oswego County Bancorp, Inc.


                                          /s/ KPMG LLP

March 28, 2001
Syracuse, New York
Terrence P. SCHOUENBORG, petitioner, v. Harold D. GRAHAM, Superintendent, Auburn Correctional Facility.

No. 17-7385.

Supreme Court of the United States

March 19, 2018.

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

- S38042

- 21

NON - PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

v.

JAJUAN DEMAR DAVIS

Appellant : : : : : : : : : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

PENNSYLVANIA

No. 574 WDA 2021 Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered May 4, 2021 In the Court of Common Pleas of Fayette County Criminal Division at

No(s): CP

- 26

- CR

- 0002484

- 2018

BEFORE: BENDER, P.J.E., DUBOW, J., and COLINS, J. * CONCURRING MEMORANDUM BY DUBOW, J.: FILED: MAY 20, 2022 While I agree with the Majority that the trial court properly denied Appellant ’ s Rule 600 Motion, I disagree with its treatment of the time

- p eriod
in whi ch the trial court was shut down as a result of COVID. The Majority concludes that the time

- period during the COVID shutdown is not attributable to the Commonwealth because “the record does not show any lack of diligence by the Commonwealth or that it was not prepared to go to trial during the period of judicial delay.” I agree that this time is not attributable to the Commonwealth

. I would find , however, that it is not attributable to the Commonwealth because the court shutdown during COVID was a n event out of the control of Commonwealth. Commonwealth v. Goldman , 70 A.3d 874

_________________ __________ ______ ____ _______

* Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.J

- S38042

- 21

- 2

-

(Pa. Super. 2013) ; Commonwealth v. Pipkin , 2022 WL 1555399 at * 5 (Pa. Super. fi led May 17, 2022) ( n on - precedential decision)

. Moreover, even if consideration of the Commonwealth’s due diligence were appropriate in this circumstance, I disagree with the Majority’s conclusion that unless the record shows that the Commonwealth failed t o act with due diligence, the delay is not attributable to the Commonwealth

. In Commonwealth v. Harth , 252 A.3d 600 (Pa. 2021) , the defendant filed a Rule 600 motion to dismiss after the trial court’s schedule required the court to continue the defendant’s trial. In considering whether the trial court properly denied the motion, t he Pennsylvania Supreme Court found that the delay of the trial in such instances is excludable from the Rule 600 calculation only when the trial court finds that the C ommonwealth was ready for trial on the trial date

. Thus, when the trial court schedules a case for trial and then continues the trial because of the court’s schedule, the proper analysis does not focus on whether there is no evidence that the Commonwealth failed to act with due diligence; r ather, the record must show that Commonwealth was ready to proceed to trial on the date that the trial court continued the case. Id. I, therefore , concur in the result of the Majority.
II-O0103

From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

Arnold Johnson <amj.0169@yahoo.com>

Sunday, December 5, 2010 6:59 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.

Arnold Johnson

7818 talbert street

Playa Del Rey, CA 90293
# C_2012073EN.01002602.xml

| 10.3.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 73/26 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.3.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 73/26

---

Judgment of the General Court of 1 February 2012 — Région wallonne v Commission

(Case T-237/09) (1)

1

(Environment - Directive 2003/87/EC - Scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading - National emission allowance allocation plan for Belgium in respect of the period from 2008 to 2012 - Article 44 of Regulation (EC) No 2216/2004 - Subsequent correction - New entrant - Decision instructing the Central Administrator of the Community independent transaction log to enter a correction into the national allocation plan table)

2012/C 73/50

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Région wallonne (Belgium) (represented by: J.-M. De Backer, A. Lepièce, I.-S. Brouhns and S. Engelen, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: E. White and O. Beynet, Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Application for partial annulment of the Commission’s decision of 27 March 2009 relating to the national plan for the allocation of greenhouse gas emission allowances notified by the Kingdom of Belgium for the period from 2008 to 2012, instructing the Central Administrator to enter a correction to the Belgian national allocation plan table into the Community independent transaction log.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls the Commission’s decision of 27 March 2009 instructing the Central Administrator to enter a correction to the Belgian national allocation plan table into the Community independent transaction log, in so far as it contains a refusal to instruct the Central Administrator to enter an allowance allocation correction in favour of installation No 116 named ‘Arcelor-Cockerill Sambre_HF6_Seraing’, as requested by the Kingdom of Belgium in its letter of 18 February 2009; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the Commission’s decision of 27 March 2009 instructing the Central Administrator to enter a correction to the Belgian national allocation plan table into the Community independent transaction log, in so far as it contains a refusal to instruct the Central Administrator to enter an allowance allocation correction in favour of installation No 116 named ‘Arcelor-Cockerill Sambre_HF6_Seraing’, as requested by the Kingdom of Belgium in its letter of 18 February 2009;

| 2. | Orders the European Commission to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the European Commission to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 193, 15.8.2009.

1

---
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF IOWA

No. 17–0794

Polk County No. CVCV053097

ORDER

DIANNA HELMERS, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

vs. 

CITY OF DES MOINES, IOWA, 

Defendant-Appellee.

The court, being evenly divided, declares this case affirmed by operation of law. 

See Iowa Code § 602.4107 (2017). 

Waterman, Mansfield, and Christensen, JJ., would affirm the judgment of the 

district court; Cady, C.J., and Wiggins and Appel, JJ., would reverse the judgment of the 

district court. See State v. Effler, 769 N.W.2d 880, 884 (Iowa 2009) (“[W]hen the supreme 

court is equally divided on an issue upon which the district court and court of appeals differ, 

the decision of the district court is affirmed by operation of law.”). 

Copies to:

Jamie Lynn Hunter

Dickey & Campbell PLC

301 East Walnut Street, Suite 1

Des Moines, IA 50309

John O. Haraldson

Assistant County Attorney

602 Robert D. Ray Drive

Des Moines, IA 50309
[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 124 (Wednesday, June 27, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Pages 34273-34274]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-16087]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

NATIONAL FOUNDATION ON THE ARTS AND THE HUMANITIES


National Endowment for the Arts; Federal Advisory Committee on 
International Exhibitions (FACIE)

    Pursuant to section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act 
(Public Law 92-463), as amended, notice is hereby given that a meeting 
of the Federal Advisory Committee on International Exhibitions will be 
held from 10 a.m. to 3 p.m. on Monday, July 16, 2001 in Room 714 at the 
Nancy Hanks Center, 1100 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC, 
20506.

[[Page 34274]]

    This meeting is for the purpose of review, discussion, evaluation, 
and recommendations on financial assistance under the National 
Foundation on the Arts and the Humanities Act of 1965, as amended, 
including information given in confidence to the agency. In accordance 
with the determination of the Chairman of May 22, 2001, these sessions 
will be closed to the public pursuant to subsection (c)(4), (6) and 
(9)(B) of section 552b of Title 5, United States Code.
    Further information with reference to this meeting can be obtained 
from Ms. Kathy Plowitz-Worden, Panel Coordinator, National Endowment 
for the Arts, Washington, DC, 20506, or call 202/682-5691.

    Dated: June 21, 2001.
Kathy Plowitz-Worden,
Panel Coordinator, Panel Operations, National Endowment for the Arts.
[FR Doc. 01-16087 Filed 6-26-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7537-01-P
MICHAEL RINKINS

,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA

,

Appellee

. IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D 14

- 2068

________ _____________________/

Opinion filed September 3, 2014.

An appeal from the Circuit Court for Leon County

. Jackie L. Fulford , Judge

.

Michael Rinkins, pro se , for Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee , for Appellee.

PER CU RIAM.

AFFIRMED.

WOLF, ROWE, and OSTERHAUS, JJ., CONCUR.
Orderissued October31,2012

In The 

## Qrourt ofj\pp£als lf.iftq 

## 1llistrid of wexas at 1llallas No. 05-12-01177-CV 

### TPC CONTROLS, INC. AND TERRY 

### P. CLEMENTS,Appellants 

## v. TPC ELECTRIC COMPANY, INC. AND GEAR BRANDS, LLC,Appellees 

### ORDER The Court has been notified that a petition for bankruptcy has been filed in United States Bankruptcy Court concerning Terry P. Clements and TPC Controls, Inc.. Pursuant to II U.S.C. 

### § 362, further action in this cause is automatically stayed. See TEx. R. APP. P. 8.2. Accordingly, for administrative purposes, this cause is ABATED and will be treated as a closed case. It may be reinstated on prompt motion by any party showing that the stay has been lifted and specifyingwhatfurther action, ifany, is required from thisCourt. SeeTEx.R. APP. P. 8.3.
Susan BATISTA, petitioner, v. COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS, INC., et al.

No. 15-9925.

Supreme Court of the United States

Jan. 9, 2017.

*723Petition for rehearing denied.

Justice ALITO took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.
Damien JOHNSON, petitioner, v. Thomas MACKIE, Warden.

No. 16-6590.

Supreme Court of the United States

Jan. 9, 2017.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit denied.
U.S COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMIS

 

SION 

LabCFTC

ATL Office Hours

Thursday, 

September 26th 

ATL AN TA , GE ORGIA 

As part of our ongoing effort to engage with 

innovators and keep pace with new technologies 

and applications, LabCFTC will host Office Hours in 

Atlanta at the Georgia Institute of Technology. 

LabCFTC is the focal point for the CFTC's efforts to 

promote market-enhancing fintech innovation and 

fair competition for the benefit of the American 

public. LabCFTC is designed to make the CFTC more 

accessible to fintech innovators, and serves as a 

platform to inform the Commission's understanding 

of new technologies. 

Office Hours provide the fintech community the 

opportunity to engage with LabCFTC in general 

conversation, discuss a specific question or issue, or 

give a presentation. 

If you have interest in meeting with LabCFTC staff, 

please contact us at LabCFTC@cftc.gov. 

REGISTER TODAY! 

Email LabCFTC@cftc.gov

Thursday, September 26th 

The Advanced Technology 

Development Center (ATDC) 

Georgia Tech 

75 5th Street NW 

Suite 2000 

Atlanta, GA 30308 

*Please note: 

Limited A/V accommodations will be 

available, and presenters should plan 

to share visual aids on their devices or 

arrive with handouts. 

*Please note: LabCFTC does not have any independent decision-making or delegated authority and cannot provide 

legal advice or regulatory relief. To understand how LabCFTC will handle your information, please refer to 

https://www.cftc.gov/LabCFTC/GuidePoint/index.htm