alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Energy

###### Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy 

# AGENCY:

Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Department of Energy. 

# ACTION:

Notice of public meetings and request for comments, correction.

On June 11, 2001, the Department of Energy published a notice of public meetings and request for comments, 66 FR 31224-31226. In that notice, the June 21 public meeting, in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, was scheduled from 9:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m., at the Myerson Auditorium, 210 South 34th Street, Philadelphia, PA. Today's notice is announcing that this meeting will take place at the Sheraton Rittenhouse Square Hotel, 227 South 18th Street, Philadelphia, PA, from 9:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m., on June 21, 2001. 

Issued in Washington, DC on June 15, 2001. 

John Sullivan, 

Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary, Office of Planning, Budget, and Management,  Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy. 

[FR Doc. 01-15483 Filed 6-15-01; 11:28 am] 

BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
Felicia HOLTON, petitioner, v. FIRST COAST SERVICE OPTIONS, INC., et al.

No. 17-7251.

Supreme Court of the United States

March 5, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit denied.
EXHIBIT 99.2

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 Annual Report of dELiA*s Corp. on Form 10-Q for the period ending February 1, 2003 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Evan Guillemin, 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:



| |  |     |  |                                                                                   
| |  | --- |  | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| |  | By: |  | /s/EVAN GUILLEMINEvan Guillemin
Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer
May 16, 2003

---

QuickLinks
# C_2010024EN.01002901.xml

| 30.1.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 24/29 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.1.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 24/29

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the College van Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven lodged on 16 November 2009 — 1. IMC Securities BV, 2. Stichting Autoriteit Financiële Markten

(Case C-445/09)

2010/C 24/53

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Referring court

College van Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: 1. IMC Securities BV 2. Stichting Autoriteit Financiële Markten

Applicants:

Question referred

Question referred

Must the second indent of Article 1(2)(a) of the Market Abuse Directive (1) be interpreted as meaning that the bringing about of price changes in a time span such as that at issue through the commission of a combination of acts with a financial instrument, namely transactions and orders to trade as described ..., should be regarded as the ‘securing’ of such an instrument at an abnormal or artificial level?

1

---

(1)  Directive 2003/6/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 January 2003 on insider dealing and market manipulation (market abuse) (OJ 2003 L 96, p. 16)

1

---
Kenneth D. BEVERLY, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 15-9419.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 3, 2016.

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

Justice KAGAN took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.
# C_2011055EN.01002102.xml

| 19.2.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 55/21 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.2.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 55/21

---

Judgment of the General Court of 13 January 2011 — Park v OHIM — Bae (PINE TREE)

(Case T-28/09) (1)

1

(Community trade mark - Revocation proceedings - Figurative Community mark PINE TREE - Genuine use of the mark - Articles 50(1)(a) and 55(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 40/04 (now Articles 51(1)(a) and 56(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

2011/C 55/37

Language of the case: German

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Mo-Hwa Park (Hillscheid, Germany) (represented by: P. Lee, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: S. Schäffner, acting as Agent)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: Chong-Yun Bae (Berlin, Germany) (represented by: A.-K. Warnecke and C. Donle, lawyers)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court:

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 13 November 2008 (Case R 1882/2007-4) concerning revocation proceedings between Mr Mo-Hwa Park and Mr Chong-Yun Bae.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Mr Mo-Hwa Park to pay the costs.. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Mr Mo-Hwa Park to pay the costs..

---

(1)  OJ C 82, 4.4.2009.

1

---
In re Melvin James THOMAS, petitioner.

No. 16-6919.

Supreme Court of the United States

Jan. 23, 2017.

Petition for writ of mandamus denied.
# C_2009282EN.01005301.xml

| 21.11.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 282/53 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.11.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 282/53

---

Action brought on 17 September 2009 — Insula v Commission

(Case T-366/09)

2009/C 282/100

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Conseil scientifique international pour le développement des îles (Insula) (Paris, France) (represented by: J.-D. Simonet and P. Marsal, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | declare the action admissible and well-founded; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare the action admissible and well-founded;

| — | declare that the Commission’s demand for reimbursement of the sum of EUR 114 996,82 is unfounded and, consequently, order the Commission to issue a credit note in the sum of EUR 114 996,82; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare that the Commission’s demand for reimbursement of the sum of EUR 114 996,82 is unfounded and, consequently, order the Commission to issue a credit note in the sum of EUR 114 996,82;

| — | declare that the Commission’s demand for reimbursement of the sum of EUR 253 617,08 is well-founded in part and, consequently, order the Commission to issue a credit note in the sum of EUR 174 044,85; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare that the Commission’s demand for reimbursement of the sum of EUR 253 617,08 is well-founded in part and, consequently, order the Commission to issue a credit note in the sum of EUR 174 044,85;

| — | order the Commission to pay damages of EUR 146 261,06; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission to pay damages of EUR 146 261,06;

| — | in the alternative, declare that the applicant is entitled to compensation in the sum of EUR 573 273,42; |
| --- | --- |

—

in the alternative, declare that the applicant is entitled to compensation in the sum of EUR 573 273,42;

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

—

order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

By the present action, based on an arbitration clause, the applicant requests the Court to declare that the debit notes by which the Commission demands, following a report from OLAF, recovery of advances paid to the applicant do not comply with the clauses of the various contracts concluded in respect of projects under the specific programme for research, technological development and demonstration on energy, environment and sustainable development and under the ALTENER II programme.

The pleas and main arguments raised by the applicant are essentially identical to those raised in Case T-246/09 Insula v Commission. (1)

Insula

Commission

1

---

(1)  OJ 2009 C 193, p. 30.

1

---
Kristina Ranae GRIER, petitioner, v. WASHINGTON.

No. 15-9285.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 3, 2016.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Washington denied.
In the Matter of DISBARMENT OF Robert C. GRAHAM.

No. D-3012.

Supreme Court of the United States

Feb. 20, 2018.

Disbarment order entered.
EX-10.1



 Exhibit 10.1 

Non-Employee Director Compensation Program 

Effective May 24, 2018, the TransEnterix, Inc. Non-Employee Director Compensation Program is: 

 

																			
	 Annual
Retainer
for each
Non-

employee
 Board

Member
(1)
	  	Additional Retainer for
Committee Chairs	 	  	Additional
Retainer for
Lead
Director	 	  	Additional Retainer for
Committee Members	 	  	Annual Equity
Award
(1)(2)(3)
	 $40,000
	  	Audit
Compensation
N&CG	  	$
$
$	20,000
13,000
10,000	 
 
 	  	$	40,000	 	  	Audit
Compensation
N&CG	  	$
$
$	9,000
6,000
5,000	 
 
 	  	50/50 stock options and Restricted Stock Units with a grant date value of approximately
$90,000

  

	(1)	Each non-employee director can elect to receive the annual cash compensation in stock. Each non-employee director can also elect not to
receive the cash and/or stock compensation. 


	(2)	The vesting schedule is 25% of the stock option award quarterly on July 1, October 1, January 1 and April 1 following the date of grant. For the restricted stock units, the units remain subject to
forfeiture until the first anniversary of the date of grant or, if earlier, the date of the next annual meeting of stockholders. 


	(3)	Each annual equity award will be for no more than 90,000 shares of common stock.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                       1,393,488
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   29,584
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                          56,844
<DEPRECIATION>                                  11,300
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,157,794
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         2,080
<OTHER-SE>                                     572,765
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 2,157,794
<SALES>                                        192,720
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               192,720
<CGS>                                           71,588
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  856,460
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               146,887
<LOSS-PROVISION>                              (135,765)
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 (6,383)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             (6,383)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    (6,383)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (0.00)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (0.00)


</TABLE>
1301.

#### Gamble *v.*The State.

Hill, C. J.

1. The person who buys spirituous, alcoholic, or malt liquors is not in law an accomplice of the person who sells it to him. Besides, the law does not require, in misdemeanors, that the testimony of an accomplice shall be corroborated. Penal Code, §991, and citations.

2. The evidence is sufficient to support the verdict. *Judgment affirmed.*

*846Indictment for unlawful sale of liquor, from Crisp superior court — Judge Whipple. June 20, 1908.

Submitted October 6,

Decided October 12, 1908.

*Crum & Jones,*for plaintiff in error.

*Walter F. George, solicitor-general,*contra.
Jason BATTS, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 16-7227.

Supreme Court of the United States

Jan. 23, 2017.

*839Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied.
Israel BORNSTEIN, Individually and as Administrator of the Estate of Amit Bornstein, petitioner, v. MONMOUTH COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE, et al.

No. 16-1428.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 2, 2017.

*121Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit denied.
In re Andre David LEFFEBRE, petitioner.

No. 16-7013.

Supreme Court of the United States

Jan. 9, 2017.

Petition for writ of habeas corpus denied.
Ratna BAGWE, petitioner, v. SEDGWICK CLAIMS MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INC., et al.

No. 15-1428.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 3, 2016.

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

for the Fifth Circuit

No. 20-40309

Ashley Charles Burrell, 

Petitioner—Appellant,

versus

Bobby Lumpkin, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice,

Correctional Institutions Division, 

Respondent—Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Texas

USDC No. 1:15-CV-266

Before Dennis, Southwick, and Engelhardt, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

Ashley Charles Burrell, Texas prisoner # 1760733, was convicted by a 

jury of aggravated robbery and sentenced to 74 years in prison. He currently

appeals the district court’s denial of his motion under Federal Rule of 

* Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this 

opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited 

circumstances set forth in 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

April 20, 2021

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 20-40309 Document: 00515829692 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/20/2021
No. 20-40309

2

Appellate Procedure 4(a)(6) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(6) to 

reopen the appeal period for the denial of his federal habeas application.

Because Burrell’s motion to reopen was filed under Federal Rules

Civil Procedure 4(a)(6) and 60(b), Burrell’s motion for a certificate of 

appealability (COA) is denied as unnecessary. See Ochoa Canales v. 

Quarterman, 507 F.3d 884, 888 (5th Cir. 2007); Dunn v. Cockrell, 302 F.3d 

491, 492 (5th Cir. 2002); Gibbs v. Thaler, 459 F. App’x 336, 337 (5th Cir. 

2012). We dispense with further briefing because this appeal may be resolved 

on the available record. 

The district court did not abuse its discretion when it denied Burrell’s 

motion to reopen. See Dunn, 302 F.3d at 492; In re Jones, 970 F.2d 36, 39 

(5th Cir. 1992). First, Burrell does not satisfy the requirements for reopening 

the time to file an appeal under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a)(6)

because Burrell’s counsel received notice of the denial of his application 

within 21 days of the judgment’s date of entry, see Fed. R. App. P.

4(a)(6)(A), and because Burrell filed his motion to reopen more than 180 days 

after the entry of the judgment he seeks to appeal and more than 14 days after 

his counsel received notice of that judgment, see Fed. R. App. P.

4(a)(6)(B). Additionally, Burrell may not use a motion under Federal Rule 

of Civil Procedure Rule 60(b) to circumvent the time limits for appealing

under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4. See Dunn, 302 F.3d at 492-93; 

see also Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S. 205, 214 (2007); Perez v. Stephens, 745 F.3d 

174, 177-79 (5th Cir. 2014). 

MOTION DENIED; AFFIRMED.

Case: 20-40309 Document: 00515829692 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/20/2021
Michael LAKE, petitioner, v. Detective Robby Carl RAY, et al.

No. 17-7179.

Supreme Court of the United States

Feb. 20, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit denied.
II-01049

From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

Andrew & Kathleen Wittenborn <wittenbn@westnet.com>

Thursday, December 2, 2010 8:48 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.

Andrew & Kathleen Wittenbom

152 Mountain Rd.

Pleasantville, NY 10570
# C_2010063EN.01003101.xml

| 13.3.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 63/31 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.3.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 63/31

---

Action brought on 18 December 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of the Netherlands

(Case C-542/09)

2010/C 63/50

Language of the case: Dutch

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: G. Rozet and M. van Beek, acting as Agents)

Applicant:

Defendant: Kingdom of the Netherlands

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | Declare that, by requiring that migrant workers and family members for whom they still provide must fulfil a residence requirement (the ‘3 out of 6 rule’) in order to be eligible under the WSF (1) for the funding of educational studies abroad, the Kingdom of the Netherlands has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 45 TFEU and Article 7(2) of Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68; (2) |
| --- | --- |

—

Declare that, by requiring that migrant workers and family members for whom they still provide must fulfil a residence requirement (the ‘3 out of 6 rule’) in order to be eligible under the WSF (1) for the funding of educational studies abroad, the Kingdom of the Netherlands has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 45 TFEU and Article 7(2) of Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68; (2)

1

2

| — | order Kingdom of the Netherlands to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order Kingdom of the Netherlands to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

As the Netherlands has still not adopted all the measures necessary to put an end to the residence requirement (the ‘3 out of 6 rule’), which migrant workers and family members for whom they still provide must fulfil in order to be eligible under the WSF for the funding of educational studies abroad, the Commission draws the conclusion that the Netherlands has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 45 TFEU and Regulation No 1612/68.

---

(1)  Wet Studiefinanciering 2000 (Law on funding for studies).

1

(2)  Council Regulation of 15 October 1968 on freedom of movement for workers within the Community (OJ L 257, p. 2).

2

---
David HAYDEN, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 16-1433.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 2, 2017.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh 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




I, Michael J. Loiacono, the Chief Financial Officer and Chief Accounting Officer of Global Axcess Corp (the "Company"), certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:




(1) the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the first quarter ended March 31, 2011 (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of Section 13 (a) or 15 (d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and




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




Dated:  May 04, 2011/s/ Michael J. LoiaconoName: Michael J. LoiaconoTitle: Chief Financial Officer and Chief Accounting Officer
Eugene Bernard SMITH, petitioner, v. MICHIGAN.

No. 16-6770.

Supreme Court of the United States

Jan. 9, 2017.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals of Michigan denied.
In Re Edwin F. REILLY, petitioner.

No. 17-1171.

Supreme Court of the United States

March 19, 2018.

Petition for writ of habeas corpus denied.