alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
In the Matter of DISCIPLINE OF Edward SMITH, Jr.

No. D-3021.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 2, 2018.

Edward Smith, Jr., of Baltimore, Maryland, is suspended from the practice of law in this Court and a rule will issue, returnable within 40 days, requiring him to show cause why he should not be disbarred from the practice of law in this Court.
# C_2011013EN.01002402.xml

| 15.1.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 13/24 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.1.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 13/24

---

Judgment of the General Court of 24 November 2010 — Nike International v OHIM — Muñoz Molina (R10)

(Case T-137/09) (1)

1

(Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community word mark R10 - Non-registered national word mark R10 - Assignment of the national mark - Procedural defect)

2011/C 13/46

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Nike International Ltd (Beaverton, Oregon, United States) (represented by: M. de Justo Bailey, lawyer)

Applicant:

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

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Aurelio Muñoz Molina (Petrer, Spain)

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

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 21 January 2009 (Case R 551/2008-1) relating to opposition proceedings between DL Sports & Marketing Ltda and Mr Aurelio Muñoz Molina.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 21 January 2009 (Case R 551/2008-1); |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 21 January 2009 (Case R 551/2008-1);

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

2.

Dismisses the remainder of the action;

| 3. | Orders each party to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders each party to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 129, 6.6.2009.

1

---
# U ni te d S ta te s Co ur t of A pp ea ls For the Eig hth Circu it

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ No. 1 5- 20 59

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ Ja m es F. Bo sc he rt ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pla in ti

ff - App el la nt
v. JP Mo rg an Ch as e Ban k, Nat io na l As so ci at io n ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defe nd

an t - Ap pe ll ee

__ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt fo r th e Eas te rnDis tri ctof M is so ur i - St . Lou is

__ __ __ __ __ __ Subm it te d: Jan ua ry

5, 2 01 6 Fil ed : J an ua ry

15 , 20 16 [Unpubl is he d]

__ __ __ __ __ __ Befo re SM ITH, BYE andSHEPHERD, Circ ui t J ud ge s.

__ __ __ __ __ __ PER CURI AM. Ja m es F. Bo sc he rt ap pe al s th e di st ric t co urt’s di sm is sa l of hi s di ve rs it y act io n 1 un de r Fed eral Ru le of Ci vi l Pro cedur e 12 (b )(6 ). W e ag ree wit h th e di st ric t co urt th at
The Hon or ab le Cat he rin e D. Perry , Ch ie f Ju dg e, Uni te d St at es Dis tri ct Co urt 1 fo r th e Eas te rnDis tri ctof M is so ur i.di sm is sa l fo r fai lu re to st at e a cl ai m was warra nt ed , se e Mo un ta in Hom e Fl ig ht Serv .,

In c. v. Bax te r Cn ty., Ark ., 75 8 F.3 d 10 38 , 10 42 -4 3 (8 th Ci r. 20 14 ) (d e no vo rev ie w), an d we fin d no m eri t to Bo sc he rt’s ob jecti on s to th e no -arg um en t de si gn at io n of th e in st an t ap pe al . The jud gm en t o f th e d is tri ctco urt i s af firm ed . See 8 th Cir . R. 47 B.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

-2

-
FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________

No. 1D2024-0251

_____________________________

S.N.M., Mother of V.J., Jr., Z.J., 

A.J., T.T., T.T., T.T., T.T., Minor 

Children,

Appellant,

v.

DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND 

FAMILIES,

Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Bay County.

Russell S. Roberts, Judge.

July 8, 2024

PER CURIAM.

DISMISSED. N.S.H. v. Dep’t of Child. & Fam. Servs., 843 So. 2d 

898 (Fla. 2003) (approving procedure that includes dismissal 

when, after counsel withdraws, the appellant fails to timely file his 

or her own brief in support of appeal of termination of parental 

rights).

ROWE, NORDBY, and LONG, JJ., concur.
2

_____________________________

Not final until disposition of any timely and 

authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 

9.331.

_____________________________

S.N.M., pro se, Appellant.

Sara Elizabeth Goldfarb, Statewide Director of Appeals, and 

Caitlin E. Burke, Senior Attorney, Statewide Guardian ad Litem 

Office, Tallahassee, for Guardian ad Litem.
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3868 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 3868

 To grant Members of Congress access to detention facilities, and for 
                            other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             July 22, 2019

Ms. Wasserman Schultz (for herself, Ms. Dean, Ms. Mucarsel-Powell, Ms. 
Shalala, Mrs. Watson Coleman, Mr. Ryan, Ms. DeLauro, and Ms. Wilson of 
   Florida) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
    Committee on the Judiciary, and in addition to the Committee on 
 Homeland Security, for a period to be subsequently determined by the 
  Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall 
           within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To grant Members of Congress access to detention facilities, and for 
                            other purposes.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Help Oversee, Manage, and Evaluate 
Safe Treatment and Ensure Access without Delay Act of 2019'' or the 
``HOMESTEAD Act of 2019''.

SEC. 2. MANDATORY ACCESS TO DETENTION FACILITIES.

    (a) In General.--A Member of Congress may not be prevented from 
entering any detention facility for the purpose of conducting 
oversight.
    (b) Temporary Modification.--The head of a detention facility may 
not make any temporary modification at the detention facility in a 
manner that alters what is observed by a visiting Member of Congress.
    (c) No Notice Required.--A Member of Congress shall not be required 
to provide notice of intent to enter a detention facility for the 
purpose of conducting oversight.
    (d) Detention Facility Defined.--In this section, the term 
``detention facility'' means any facility--
            (1) used to detain or otherwise house aliens; and
            (2) operated by or for--
                    (A) the Department of Homeland Security (including 
                any facility operated by a private contractor with the 
                Department); or
                    (B) the Department of Health and Human Services 
                (including any facility operated by a private 
                contractor with the Department).
                                 <all>
```
1 

DCO Exhibit A-3 

Attach as Exhibit A-3, a narrative summary of Applicant’s proposed clearing activities 

including (i) the anticipated start date of clearing products (or, if Applicant is already 

clearing products, the anticipated start date of activities for which Applicant is seeking an 

amendment to its registration), and (ii) a description of the scope of Applicant’s proposed 

clearing activities (e.g., clearing for a designated contract market; clearing for a swap 

execution facility; clearing bilaterally executed products). 

Aristotle Exchange DCO, Inc. (“Aristotle” or the “Clearinghouse”) intends to clear fully 

collateralized binary option contracts listed for trading on the Aristotle-affiliated designated 

contract market (“DCM”). 

Aristotle anticipates clearing products upon the registration of both the Aristotle DCM and 

Aristotle DCO and the listing of fully collateralized binary option contracts on the Aristotleaffiliated DCM.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                           2,112
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                          18,935
<DEPRECIATION>                                   2,746
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  21,400
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                         12,430
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                       7,506
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    21,400
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 2,328
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    1,801
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 4,739<F2>
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 413
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  4,853
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              4,853
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                         (96)
<NET-INCOME>                                     4,757
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   252.30<F1>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   252.30
<FN>
<F1>Net income per limited partner unit.
<F2>Gain on sale of properties.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
Walter Leroy MOODY, Jr., Applicant, v. Cynthia STEWART, Warden.

No. 17A1145.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 19, 2018.

**ORDER**

UPON CONSIDERATION of the application of counsel for the applicant,

IT IS ORDERED that execution of the sentence of death is hereby stayed pending further order of the undersigned or of the Court.

*/s/ Clarence Thomas*

Associate Justice of the Supreme

Court of the United States
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                          57,326
<SECURITIES>                                   236,329
<RECEIVABLES>                                  333,097
<ALLOWANCES>                                    25,125
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               410,985
<PP&E>                                         453,482
<DEPRECIATION>                                 400,176
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 756,415
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          331,332
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           806
<OTHER-SE>                                     223,288
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   756,415
<SALES>                                      1,076,772
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,141,415
<CGS>                                          446,234
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,277,407
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                14,963
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               9,691
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (150,995)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (150,955)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                408,255
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   257,300
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.04
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.03


</TABLE>
Exhibit 32.1

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

 

ALPHATRADE.COM

A Nevada corporation

 

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THESARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

 

 

        In connection with the Annual Report of AlphaTrade.com. (the"Company") on Form 10-K/A for the year ended December 31, 2009 as filedwith the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),I, Gordon Muir, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18U.S.C. section 1350, as adopted pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-OxleyAct of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge and belief:

 

        (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 materialrespects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

 

 

 

        Dated: June 22, 2010                          /s/Gordon J. Muir

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

Chief Executive Officer, President, Chairman,

                        andDirector
# C_2010179EN.01003802.xml

| 3.7.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 179/38 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.7.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 179/38

---

Judgment of the General Court of 19 May 2010 — Ravensburger v OHIM — Educa Borras (MEMORY)

(Case T-108/09) (1)

(Community trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - Community word mark MEMORY - Absolute ground for refusal - Descriptive character - Article 7(1)(c) and Article 75 of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 7(1)(c) and Article 77 of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

(2010/C 179/66)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Ravensburger AG (Ravensburg, Germany) (represented by: G. Würtenberger and R. Kunze, lawyers)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (represented by: D. Botis, agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervening before the General Court: Educa Borras, SA (Barcelona, Spain) (represented by: I. Valdelomar Serrano, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 8 January 2009 (Case R 305/2008-2), relating to invalidity proceedings between Educa Borras, SA and Ravensburger AG.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

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

2.

Orders Ravensburger AG to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 129, 6.6.2009.

---
# C_2011089EN.01000301.xml

| 19.3.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 89/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.3.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 89/3

---

Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 15 December 2010 — Karen Goncharov v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), DSB

(Case C-156/10 P) (1)

1

(Appeals - Community trade mark - Marks consisting of acronyms - Earlier trade mark DSB - Word sign ‘DSBW’ - Opposition proceedings - Relative ground for refusal - Examination of the likelihood of confusion - Visual similarity - Aural similarity - Inadmissibility - Assessment of the facts)

2011/C 89/04

Language of the case: German

Parties

Parties

Appellant: Karen Goncharov (represented by: A. Späth, Rechtsanwalt)

Appellant:

Other parties to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: B. Schmidt, acting as Agent), DSB (represented by: T. Graf, Rechtsanwalt)

Other parties to the proceedings:

Re:

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) of 21 January 2010 in Case T-34/07 Goncharov v OHIM — DSB (DSBW) by which the General Court dismissed the action for annulment of the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 4 December 2006, which refused registration of the word sign ‘DSBW’ as a Community trade mark for certain goods in Classes 39, 41 and 43 and upheld the opposition of the proprietor of the earlier Community word mark ‘DSB’ — Likelihood of confusion — Account not taken, during the examination of the likelihood of confusion, of the particularities of marks consisting of acronyms — Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94

Goncharov

OHIM — DSB (DSBW)

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

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

1.

The appeal is dismissed.

| 2. | Mr Goncharov is ordered to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Mr Goncharov is ordered to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 148, 5.6.2010.

1

---
secretary 

From: David Darcy [daviddarcy@rocketmail.com] 

or--9 

(jJ) 

Page 1 of 1 

"f"''t Sent: Friday, November 07, 2008 11 :02 PM ~.,.,.·< ...,_,_._ 

To: secretary 

Subject: "Proposed Rules for Trading off the Centralized Market" 

To Whom It May Concern: COMMENT 

I have been a cocoa options market maker for 7 years. I arri an options permit holder and' only two years 

ago it was my largest non cash asset. I consider my trading career a small business. 

In the past two years there have been many changes to my business. The most detrimental of which has 

been the introduction of block trading. While I am sure the introduction block trading had an intended 

purpose. No matter what the purpose was, the cost to the entire market has been too high. 

In an illiquid market, every trade that enters the market provides an opportunity for magnified market 

depth. This is in essence a snowball effect. If I am able to buy an option in one month, I am much more 

likely to sell an option in another month. It is evident that block trading has a negative multiplier effect 

on the cocoa options market. This year, the volume of my trades alone, from July 1st through the end of 

October decreased to 40% of last years volume from same period. This demonstrates on the ultimate 

micro scale that a centralized marketplace is essential to the future of cocoa options. 

Block trading has its place, just not in our markets. Open outcry markets have lost their place in many 

trading environments, but we must see to it that the "open" aspect of the markets remains. This is vital 

to fairness to all parties involved. 

David R. Darcy 

11110/2008 

Received CFTC 

Records Section 

tf'i¥s
Kareem MARTIN, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 17-7822.

Supreme Court of the United States

March 26, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit denied.
# Column Definitions

# Referenced Contracts
In the Matter of DISCIPLINE OF Harold E. BRAZIL.

No. D-3016.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 2, 2018.

Harold E. Brazil, of Washington, District of Columbia, is suspended from the practice of law in this Court and a rule will issue, returnable within 40 days, requiring him to show cause why he should not be disbarred from the practice of law in this Court.
II-00513

From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

James Paqun <paquinjames@yahoo.com>

Thursday, December 2, 2010 3:51 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.

James Paqtm

PO Box 314

Trinidad, CA 95570
N OTE : This disposition is nonprecedential.


# United States **Court of Appeals**  **for the Federal Circuit**

______________________

E

- LYNXX CORPORATION
, Plaintiff

- Appellant

v.

INNERW ORKINGS, INC.
, CIRQIT.COM, INC.
, Defendants

- Appellees

______________________

2014

- 1349

______________________
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle Distri ct of Pennsylvania in No. 1:10

- cv

- 02535

- CCC, Chief Judge Christopher Conner.

__________ ____________

JUDGMENT

______________________

D ARREN P ATRICK N ICHOLSON
, S ayles Werbner, P.C., Dallas, TX, argued for plaintiff

- appellant. Also represen ted by M ARK S TRACHAN ; J ONATHAN T AD S UDER
, B RETT M ICHAEL P INKUS
, Friedman, Suder & Cooke, Fort Worth, TX.

D ARYL J OSEFFER
, K ing & Spalding LLP, Washington, DC, argued for defendant

- appellee InnerWorkings, Inc. Also represented by A DAM C ONRAD
, Charlotte, NC;J ENNIFER H. D OAN
, J OSHUA R. T HANE
, Haltom & Doan, Texarkana, TX.

J ENNIFER E. H OEKEL
, Armstrong Teasdale LLP, St. Louis, MO, for defendant

- appellee Cirqit.com, Inc. Also represented by J ESSICA M ENDEZ
, R ICHARD L. B ROPHY

.

______________________

T HIS C AUSE having been heard and considered, it is

O RDERED and A DJUDGED :

P ER C URIAM (P ROST
, Chief Judge, B RYSON and W ALLACH
, Circuit Judges ).

AFFIRMED

. See Fed. Cir. R. 36.

E NTERED BY O RDER OF THE C OURT

February 9, 2015 /s/ Daniel E. O’Toole Date Daniel E. O’Toole Clerk of Court
Claudio GUTIERREZ-CRUZ, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 16-9440.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 2, 2017.

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