alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
State of New York

Supreme Court, Appellate Division

Third Judicial Department

Decided and Entered: June 23, 2016 522103 

________________________________

In the Matter of KEVIN 

THOMPSON, 

Appellant, 

v MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND 

COMMUNITY SUPERVISION, 

Respondent.

________________________________

Calendar Date: May 3, 2016

Before: Peters, P.J., Egan Jr., Rose, Lynch and Aarons, JJ.

__________

Kevin Thompson, Comstock, appellant pro se.

Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General, Albany (Kate H.

Nepveu of counsel), for respondent.

__________

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Melkonian,

J.), entered September 30, 2015, which dismissed petitioner's

application, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, to

review a determination of the Board of Parole denying

petitioner's request for parole release.

Petitioner commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding

challenging an August 2014 determination of the Board of Parole

denying his request for parole release and ordering his next

appearance in 15 months. Supreme Court dismissed the petition,

and this appeal ensued. The Attorney General has advised this

Court that petitioner reappeared before the Board in November

2015 and was again denied parole release. As a result, the

appeal is now moot and must be dismissed (see Matter of Franko v

Department of Corr. & Community Supervision, 126 AD3d 1193, 1193
-2- 522103 

[2015]). 

Peters, P.J., Egan Jr., Rose, Lynch and Aarons, JJ.,

concur.

ORDERED that the appeal is dismissed, as moot, without

costs. 

ENTER:

Robert D. Mayberger

Clerk of the Court
##### 



Exhibit 13.(a).2

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER 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 Annual Report of chinadotcom corporation (the
Company) on Form 20-F/A for the period ended December 31, 2002 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Form 20-F/A),
I, Daniel Widdicombe, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



|(1) |  | The Form 20-F/A 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 Form 20-F/A fairly presents,
in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
operations of the Company.

Date: January 20, 2004

| |  |                                          
| |  | -----------------------------------------
| |  | /s/ Daniel Widdicombe                    
| |  |                                          
| |  | Daniel Widdicombe
Chief Financial Officer

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other
document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature
that appears in typed form
within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section
906, has been provided to chinadotcom corporation and will be retained by
chinadotcom corporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission
or its staff upon request.
### 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 (20 17 ).

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

district court; Cady, C.J., and Wiggins and Appel, J J

., 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 aff irmed by operation of law.”).

Copies to:

Jamie Lynn Hunter

Dickey & Campbell P L C

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
# C_2011063EN.01001102.xml

| 26.2.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 63/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.2.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 63/11

---

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 22 December 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation du Grand-Duché de Luxembourg (Luxembourg)) — État du Grand-Duché de Luxembourg, Administration de l’enregistrement et des domaines v Pierre Feltgen (in his capacity as administrator in the bankruptcy of Bacino Charter Company SA), Bacino Charter Company SA

(Case C-116/10) (1)

1

(Sixth VAT Directive - Exemptions - Article 15(4)(a) and 15(5) - Exemption for the hiring of sea-going vessels - Scope)

2011/C 63/20

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Referring court

Cour de cassation du Grand-Duché de Luxembourg

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellants: État du Grand-Duché de Luxembourg, Administration de l’enregistrement et des domaines

Appellants:

Respondents: Pierre Feltgen (in his capacity as administrator in the bankruptcy of Bacino Charter Company SA), Bacino Charter Company SA

Respondents:

Re:

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Cour de cassation du Grand-Duché de Luxembourg — Interpretation of Article 15(4)(a) and 15(5) of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment (OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1) — Exemption for hire operations of sea-going vessels — Exemption subject to the condition that such vessels be assigned to navigation on the high seas and provide transport of travellers or the pursuit of commercial, industrial or fishing activities, for reward

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

Article 15(5) of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment, as amended by Council Directive 91/680/EEC of 16 December 1991, must be interpreted as meaning that the exemption from value added tax provided for by that provision does not apply to services consisting of making a vessel available, for reward, with a crew, to natural persons for purposes of leisure travel on the high seas.

---

(1)  OJ C 113, 1.5.2010.

1

---
Decentralization, 

DeFi and 

MakerDAO
What is Decentralization? 
“decentralized: used to describe organizations or 

activities which are not controlled from one central 

place, but happen in many different places”

dictionary.cambridge.org

“decentralization: the dispersion or distribution of 

function or powers.”

merriam-webster.com
Framework Attributes
• Decentralization must be possible 

• Decentralization must improve over time

• Decentralization should support the intended function
Why Does Decentralization Matter? 
• Accessibility and Independence 

• Opportunity and Innovation

• Competition and Efficiency 

• Growth
Misconceptions, Issues and Solutions
• Misconception: Lawlessness

• Application of regulation

• Solution: 

• “Regulation at the edges”

• “Walled gardens”
What is Decentralized Finance or DeFi?
• A new monetary and financial system built on public 

blockchains.

• A system that augments but does NOT replace the 

traditional one.

• A system that creates value by enabling independent access 

to the global financial system.
What is MakerDAO and where 

does it fit in DeFi?
• Decentralized protocol layer on top of Ethereum.

• Open source protocol that is blockchain agnostic.

• Provides tools for DeFi to grow the blockchain economy.
Decentralized Tools Provided by 

MakerDAO
• Collateralization Tool – Any ERC20 compliant asset

• Credit Generation Tool – Generates stablecoin, Dai.

• Rewarding Tool – Rewards staked Dai with more Dai.
How Does MakerDAO Generate Dai? - Analogy
How Does MakerDAO Generate Dai?
Conclusion
• MakerDAO ⊂ DeFi ⊂ Decentralization

• Decentralization requires a change in perspective to see 

the Value to everyone.

• That Value comes from an open and free system that 

embraces accessibility and independence.
Thank You!
Diego Alberto CASTILLEJA-LIMON, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 17-7711.

Supreme Court of the United States

March 19, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied.
Theodore JACKSON, petitioner, v. Brigham SLOAN, Warden.

No. 16-6735.

Supreme Court of the United States

Jan. 9, 2017.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Ohio denied.
EXHIBIT 10.2

ABN AMRO Bank N.V. as Agent
101 California St Suite 4550
San Francisco, Ca   94111-5812

Attn: Robin Yim

        Pursuant to Subparagraph 2.01 (h) of  the Credit Agreement dated as of
May 24,  1996 (the "Credit Agreement"), among Etec  Systems, Inc. ("Borrower"),
the financial  institutions listed in Schedule I to the  Credit Agreement (the
"Lenders"), and ABN  AMRO Bank, N.V., as Agent for the Lenders,  Borrower
hereby requests the Lenders to  extend the Revolving Loan Maturity Date  (as
defined in the Credit Agreement) for  an additional one-year period.  If a 
Lender, in its sole and absolute  discretion, consents to such request, such 
Lender shall evidence such consent by  executing this letter in the space 
provided and returning to Agent two copies  of this letter.

        Upon the execution of a copy of this  letter by each Lender, the return
thereof  to Agent and the written notification  thereof by Agent to Borrower
and Lenders,  the Revolving Loan Maturity Date, as  defined in Paragraph 1.01
of the Credit  Agreement, shall be amended by changing  the date "November 30,
1999" to "November  30, 2000".

Except as specifically amended hereby, all  terms, covenants and conditions of
the  Credit Agreement shall remain in full  force and effect.


Very truly yours,



By:/s/ Richard W. Powell
------------------------------
Richard W.  Powell
Corporate Treasurer
Etec Systems, Inc.
Systems, Inc.

Consented to and Acknowledged by:

Signature: /s/ Mary Beth Suhr
------------------------------
Name:   Mary Beth Suhr
------------------------------
Title:   V. P.      
------------------------------
Bank:   Comerica  
------------------------------
Eric Lazaro RODRIGUEZ, petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS, III, Attorney General.

No. 16-9475.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 2, 2017.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.
NY12528:492232.4C

BANK OF AMERICA / DODD-FRANK ISSUES

1. Exchange/SEF Trading Requirement: Manner of execution; scope of definition.

2. Real Time Reporting: Time periods for reporting different types of transactions; 

method of dissemination; information to be included; publication of information; impact on 

liquidity.

3. Definitions of Swap, Security-Based Swap, Major Swap Participant and Major 

Security-Based Swap Participant: Scope of definitions; applicability to different types of 

entities.

4. Inter-Affiliate Trades: Applicability of execution, clearing and margin 

requirements to transactions between affiliates; impact on treatment as swap dealer, securitybased swap dealer, major swap participant or major security-based swap participant.

5. Position Limits: Structure and extent of position limit regime.
Exhibit 32.1**CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER****PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350**In connection with the accompanying Quarterly Report of Laserscope on Form 10-Q for the threemonths ended March 31, 2006, I, Eric M. Reuter, President and Chief Executive Officer ofLaserscope, hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to section 906of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that: (1) such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the three months ended March 31, 2006fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934, as amended; and  (2) the information contained in such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the threemonths ended March 31, 2006 fairly presents, in all material respects, the financialcondition and results of operations of Laserscope.      Date: May 10, 2006
II-00737

From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

JOSEPH REEL <jreel@pacbell.net>

Thursday, December 2, 2010 11:52 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.

JOSEPH REEL

PO BOX 51066

PACIFIC GROVE, CA 93950
# C_2013009EN.01000502.xml

| 12.1.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 9/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.1.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 9/5

---

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 8 November 2012 — European Commission v Republic of Finland

(Case C-342/10) (1)

1

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Free movement of capital - Article 63 TFEU - EEA Agreement - Article 40 - Taxation of dividends paid to non-resident pension funds)

2013/C 9/06

Language of the case: Finnish

Parties

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: R. Lyal and I. Koskinen, acting as Agents)

Applicant:

Defendant: Republic of Finland (represented by: J. Heliskoski, acting as Agent)

Defendant:

Interveners in support of the defendant: Kingdom of Denmark (represented by: C. Vang, acting as Agent), French Republic (represented by: G. de Bergues and N. Rouam, acting as Agents), Kingdom of the Netherlands (represented by C. Wissels and M. Noort, acting as Agents), Kingdom of Sweden (represented by: A. Falk and S. Johannesson, acting as Agents), United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (represented by H. Walker, acting as Agent, and G. Facenna, Barrister)

Interveners in support of the defendant:

Re:

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Infringement of Art. 63 TFEU and Art. 40 of the EEA Agreement — Tax discrimination — National legislation making dividends paid by resident companies to foreign pension funds subject to a stricter tax regime than that applicable to national pension funds

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Declares that, by introducing and maintaining in force a scheme under which dividends paid to foreign pension funds are taxed in a discriminatory manner, the Republic of Finland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 63 TFEU and Article 40 of the European Economic Area Agreement of 2 May 1992. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Declares that, by introducing and maintaining in force a scheme under which dividends paid to foreign pension funds are taxed in a discriminatory manner, the Republic of Finland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 63 TFEU and Article 40 of the European Economic Area Agreement of 2 May 1992.

| 2. | Orders the Republic of Finland to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the Republic of Finland to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission.

| 3. | Orders the Kingdom of Denmark, the French Republic, the Kingdom of the Netherlands, the Kingdom of Sweden and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to bear their own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the Kingdom of Denmark, the French Republic, the Kingdom of the Netherlands, the Kingdom of Sweden and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to bear their own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 234, 28.8.2010.

1

---
# C_2011311EN.01004202.xml

| 22.10.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 311/42 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.10.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 311/42

---

Judgment of the General Court of 15 September 2011 — centrotherm Clean Solutions v OHIM — Centrotherm Systemtechnik (CENTROTHERM)

(Case T-427/09) (1)

1

(Community trade mark - Revocation proceedings - Community word mark CENTROTHERM - Genuine use of the mark - Article 51(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

2011/C 311/77

Language of the case: German

Parties

Parties

Applicant: centrotherm Clean Solutions GmbH & Co. KG (Blaubeuren, Germany) (represented by: O. Löffel, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: G. Schneider and R. Manea, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Centrotherm Systemtechnik GmbH (Brilon, Germany) (represented by: J. Albrecht and U. Vormbrock, lawyers)

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

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 25 August 2009 (Case R 6/2008-4) relating to revocation proceedings between centrotherm Clean Solutions GmbH & Co. KG and Centrotherm Systemtechnik GmbH

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 25 August 2009 (Case R 6/2008-4) in so far as it annuls the decision of the Cancellation Division of 30 October 2007 in part; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 25 August 2009 (Case R 6/2008-4) in so far as it annuls the decision of the Cancellation Division of 30 October 2007 in part;

| 2. | Orders OHIM to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by centrotherm Clean Solutions GmbH & Co. KG; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders OHIM to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by centrotherm Clean Solutions GmbH & Co. KG;

| 3. | Orders Centrotherm Systemtechnik GmbH to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders Centrotherm Systemtechnik GmbH to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 312, 19.12.2009.

1

---
Supreme Court ofthe United States

Office ofthe Clerk

Washington, DC 20543-0001

September 3, 2015

Clerk

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas

P.O. Box 12308

Capitol Station

Scott S. Harris

Clerk of the Court

(202)479-3011

RECEIVED Austin, TX 78711 ,QQUflT OF CWMINtf APPEALS

Re: Albin Adalin Zelaya-Zelaya

v. Texas

No. 15-5945

(Your No. WR-81,318-02)

4MAG08ta.Cteri<

Dear Clerk:

The petition for a writ of certiorari in the above entitled case was filed on

August 28, 2015 and placed on the docket September 3, 2015 as No. 15-5945.

Sincerely,

Scott S. Harjris, Clerk

by

Erik FossJm

Case Analyst
<PAGE>
EXHIBIT 5.10

                                   RESOLUTION

                             AUTHORIZE SALE OF ASSET

Upon motion made and seconded, the Board of Directors of PowerSource Corporation
unanimously adopted the following resolution:

RESOLVED, that the Corporation hereby authorizes, the return of all 250,000
shares of EHG Technology LLC currently held by the Company in exchange for a
payment of $5000.00.

The undersigned hereby certifies that he is the duly elected and qualified
Secretary and the custodian of the books and records and seal of PowerSource, a
corporation duly formed pursuant to the laws of the State of Nevada, and that
the foregoing is a true record of a resolution duly adopted at a meeting of the
Board of Directors, and that said meeting was held in accordance with state law
and the Bylaws of PowerSource corporation on, and that said resolution is now in
full force and effect without modification or rescission.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have an executed my name as Secretary and have hereunto
affixed the corporate seal of the above-named Corporation this day of April 24,
2002.

A True Record.                               /s/ Roman Gordon
                                             -----------------------------------
                                             Roman Gordon

                                             /s/ Illya Bond
                                             -----------------------------------
                                             Illya Bond

/s/ Roman Gordon                             /s/ E. Douglas Mitchell
-------------------------------              -----------------------------------
Secretary                                    E. Douglas Mitchell

                                             April 24, 2002
# C_2009233EN.01001301.xml

| 26.9.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 233/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.9.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 233/13

---

Action brought on 17 August 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Austria

(Case C-330/09)

2009/C 233/22

Language of the case: German

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: G. Braun and M. Adam, acting as Agents)

Applicant:

Defendant: Republic of Austria

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | Declare that, by failure to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to implement Directive 2006/43/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 May 2006 on statutory audits of annual accounts and consolidated accounts, amending Council Directives 78/660/EEC and 83/349/EEC and repealing Council Directive 84/253/EEC (1) or by failing to notify the commission thereof, the Republic of Austria has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive; |
| --- | --- |

—

Declare that, by failure to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to implement Directive 2006/43/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 May 2006 on statutory audits of annual accounts and consolidated accounts, amending Council Directives 78/660/EEC and 83/349/EEC and repealing Council Directive 84/253/EEC (1) or by failing to notify the commission thereof, the Republic of Austria has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

1

| — | order Republic of Austria to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order Republic of Austria to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

The period prescribed for implementation of the directive expired on 29 June 2008. At the time the present action was lodged, the defendant had not yet adopted the necessary measures for the implementation of this directive, or had in any case not notified the Commission thereof.

---

(1)  OJ L 157, p. 87.

1

---