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



Exhibit 32.1

Certification of Chief Executive
Officer

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as
created by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
the undersigned officer of T REIT, Inc. (the
Company) hereby certifies, to his knowledge, that:



| |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                             
| | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| | (i) the accompanying Annual Report on
    Form 10-K of the Company for the fiscal year ended
    December 31, 2003 (the Report) fully complies
    with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
    Section 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange
    Act of 1934, as amended; and
|
| | (ii) the information contained in the Report
    fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
    condition and results of operations of the Company.                                                                                                                           



| |                        
| | -----------------------
| | /s/ ANTHONY W. THOMPSON
| |                        
| | Anthony W. Thompson    
| | Chief Executive Officer

Date: April 22, 2004

The foregoing certification is being furnished
solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, and is not
being filed as part of the Report or as a separate disclosure
document. The signed original of this written statement required
by Section 906 has been provided to T REIT, Inc. and
will be retained by T REIT, Inc. and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
# Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

June 6, 2022

No. 04

- 22

- 00112

- CV

John CLARK

, Appellant

v.

Maria Elzbieta CLARK

, Appellee

From the 438th Judicial District Court

, Bexar County, Texas

Tr ial Court No. 2019

- CI

- 20250

Honorable David A. Canales , Judge Presiding



### O R D E R

The reporter’s record was due May 19, 2022, but it was not filed. On June 1, 2022, the court reporter filed a notification of late record, stating the reporter’s record was not filed because appellan t had failed to pay or to make arrangements to pay the court reporter’s fee for preparing the record and appellant was not entitled to appeal without paying the fee. We

therefore order appellant to provide written proof to this court stating either (1) the rep orter’s fee has been paid or arrangements have been made to pay the reporter’s fee; or (2) appellant is entitled to appeal without paying the reporter’s fee by June 16, 2022

. If appellant fails to respond within the time provided, ap pellant’s brief will be due within thirty (30) days from the date of this order, and the court will consider only those issues or points raised in appellant’s brief that do not require a reporter’s record for a decision. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 37.3(c).

_________________________________ Luz Elena D. Chapa, JusticeIN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said

court on this 6th day of June, 2022

.

___________________________________ M ichael A. C ruz
, Clerk of Court
John BLACK, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 16-7114.

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.
Luis FRIAS, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 17-6762.

Supreme Court of the United States

March 5, 2018.

Petition for rehearing denied.
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3803 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 3803

  To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to exclude Federal Pell 
                       Grants from gross income.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             July 17, 2019

  Mr. DeSaulnier (for himself, Mr. Zeldin, and Mr. King of New York) 
 introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on 
                             Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to exclude Federal Pell 
                       Grants from gross income.

    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 ``Pell Grant Flexibility Act of 
2019''.

SEC. 2. EXCLUSION OF FEDERAL PELL GRANTS FROM GROSS INCOME.

    (a) In General.--Section 117 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 
is amended by adding at the end the following new subsection:
    ``(e) Federal Pell Grants.--Gross income does not include any 
amount received as a Federal Pell Grant awarded under subpart 1 of part 
A of title IV of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1070a).''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section shall apply 
to amounts received in taxable years beginning after December 31, 2018.
                                 <all>
```
KELSEY-HAYES COMPANY, et al., petitioners, v. INTERNATIONAL UNION, UNITED AUTOMOBILE, AEROSPACE AND AGRICULTURAL IMPLEMENT WORKERS OF AMERICA, et al.

No. 17-908.

Supreme Court of the United States

Feb. 26, 2018.

On petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the *1167Sixth Circuit. Petition for writ of certiorari granted. Judgment vacated, and case remanded to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit for further consideration in light of *CNH Industrial N.V. v. Reese,* 583 U.S. ----, 138 S.Ct. 761, --- L.E.2d ---- (2018).
Billy Dwight SMITH, Jr., petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 17-7649.

Supreme Court of the United States

March 5, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit denied.
# C_2012151EN.01000602.xml

| 26.5.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 151/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.5.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 151/6

---

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 29 March 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Commissione tributaria centrale, sezione di Bologna — Italy) — Ufficio IVA di Piacenza v Belvedere Costruzioni Srl

(Case C-500/10) (1)

1

(Taxation - VAT - Article 4(3) TEU - Sixth Directive - Articles 2 and 22 - Automatic conclusion of proceedings pending before the tax court of third instance)

2012/C 151/11

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Referring court

Commissione tributaria centrale, sezione di Bologna

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Ufficio IVA di Piacenza

Applicant:

Defendant: Belvedere Costruzioni Srl

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Commissione tributaria centrale, sezione di Bologna — Value added tax — Articles 2 and 22 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) — Obligation of Member States to ensure the effective recovery of VAT — National legislation providing for the closure, in certain circumstances, of judicial proceedings in tax matters without any ruling on the substance by the court hearing the case at third instance, the decision of the court of second instance thus becoming res iudicata — Claim that the effect is the abandonment of the recovery of harmonised taxes

res iudicata

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

Article 4(3) TEU and Articles 2 and 22 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 must be interpreted as not precluding the application in value added tax matters of an exceptional provision of national law, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which provides for the automatic conclusion of proceedings pending before the tax court of third instance where those proceedings originate in an application brought at first instance more than 10 years, and in practice more than 14 years, before the date of the entry into force of that provision and the tax authorities have been unsuccessful at first and second instance, the consequence of that automatic conclusion being that the decision of the court of second instance becomes final and binding and the debt claimed by the tax authorities is extinguished.

---

(1)  OJ C 346, 18.12.2010.

1

---
II-00747

From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

Bernice Vetsch <bernice@mnseniors.net>

Thursday, December 2, 2010 11:44 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.

Bernice Vetsch

1181 Edgcumbe Road

St. Paul, MN 55105
Shannon Jamel ANDERSON, petitioner, v. Thomas MACKIE, Warden.

No. 16-9555.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 2, 2017.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit denied.
DCO Exhibit A-3

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). 

Response:

Initially, the QC Clearing LLC (the “Clearinghouse” or the “Applicant”), as a Derivatives Clearing 

Organization (“DCO”), will clear for QCX LLC (the “Exchange”), an affiliate of the Clearinghouse. In its 

capacity as a DCO, the Clearinghouse will only clear transactions executed on a Designated Contract 

Market (“DCM”). 

The anticipated start date of clearing products upon the later of the approval of both the Exchange as a 

DCM and the Applicant as a DCO. The Applicant requests that its Registration Order not be conditioned 

on clearing solely for the Exchange.
EXHIBIT 12.2

CERTIFICATION

I, Margo Kaufmann, Chief Financial Officer of Titan Trading Analytics Inc. certify that;

1.

I have reviewed this Annual Report on Form 20-F of Titan Trading Analytics Inc.;



2.

Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;



3.

Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this annual report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the Registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;



4.

The registrants other certifying officers and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:



a)

Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;



b)

Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and



c)

Disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the period covered by the annual report that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants internal control over financial reporting; and



5.

The registrants other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation, of the internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and the audit committee of registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):



a)

All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal controls over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and



b)

Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrants internal control over financial reporting.



Date: May 2, 2005

By:

/s/ Margo Kaufmann





Name:

Margo Kaufmann

Title:

Chief Financial Officer

(Principal Accounting Officer)

Date:

May 2, 2005
<PAGE>   1
                                                                      EXHIBIT 11

                 Statemet re: Computation of Per Share Earnings

NET INCOME (LOSS) PER SHARE

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                  THREE MONTHS ENDED            NINE MONTHS ENDED
                                              --------------------------   ---------------------------
                                                JUNE 28,      JUNE 29,       JUNE 28,       JUNE 29,
                                                  1998          1997           1998           1997
<S>                                           <C>           <C>            <C>            <C>


Income (loss) from continuing operations      $ (956,000)   $ 1,175,000    $(1,885,000)   $ 4,023,000

Loss from discontinued operations                     --     (1,154,000)            --     (1,664,000)
                                              ----------    -----------    -----------    -----------

Net income (loss)                             $ (956,000)   $    21,000    $(1,885,000)   $ 2,359,000
                                              ==========    ===========    ===========    ===========
Weighted average common shares
 outstanding - basic                           7,048,000      7,106,000      7,063,000      6,937,000

Adjustments thereto (1)(2)                            --        341,000             --        658,000
                                              ----------    -----------    -----------    -----------
Weighted average common shares
  and equivalents                              7,048,000      7,447,000      7,063,000      7,595,000
                                              ==========    ===========    ===========    ===========
BASIC PER SHARE:
Income (loss) from continuing operations
 per share                                    $    (0.14)   $      0.17    $     (0.27)   $      0.58
                                              ==========    ===========    ===========    ===========
Net income (loss) per share                   $    (0.14)   $      0.00    $     (0.27)   $      0.34
                                              ==========    ===========    ===========    ===========
DILUTED PER SHARE:
Income (loss) from continuing operations
 per share                                    $    (0.14)   $      0.16    $     (0.27)   $      0.53
                                             ===========    ===========    ===========    ===========
Net income (loss) per share                   $    (0.14)   $      0.00    $     (0.27)   $      0.31
                                             ===========    ===========    ===========    ===========

</TABLE>




(1)  Adjusts the weighted average number of shares outstanding for (i) dilutive
     stock options and warrants using the treasury stock method and (ii) the
     conversion of preferred stock using the if-converted method.

(2)  The effects of common stock equivalents in fiscal 1998 have not been
     presented as they are antidilutive.
David Frank PETRANO, petitioner, v. THE FLORIDA BAR.

No. 15-9505.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 3, 2016.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Florida denied.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the form 
10Q as of September 30, 1996 and for the nine months then ended, and is
qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial statements and
footnotes.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                       1,965,937
<SECURITIES>                                62,679,884
<RECEIVABLES>                                  800,468
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                  6,749,450
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            72,992,416
<PP&E>                                       4,385,564
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              80,903,459
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        4,502,710
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                   136,220,839
<OTHER-SE>                                (60,021,191)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                80,903,459
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,504,051
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  979,725
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            16,143,604
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              38,465
<INCOME-PRETAX>                           (12,773,106)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                       (12,773,106)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                              (12,773,106)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (1.00)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
I 

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 3675 

To require a review of Department of Homeland Security trusted traveler 

programs, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JULY 10, 2019 

Mr. KATKO (for himself, Mr. CORREA, Mrs. WATSON COLEMAN, and Ms. 

SLOTKIN) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Homeland Security 

A BILL 

To require a review of Department of Homeland Security 

trusted traveler programs, and for other purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Trusted Traveler Re5 consideration and Restoration Act of 2019’’. 

6 SEC. 2. COMPTROLLER GENERAL REVIEW. 

7 Not later than one year after the date of the enact8 ment of this Act, the Comptroller General of the United 

9 States shall conduct a review of Department of Homeland 


pamtmann on DSKBFK8HB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 3675 IH

1 Security trusted traveler programs. Such review shall ex2 amine the following: 

3 (1) The extent to which the Department of 

4 Homeland Security tracks data and monitors trends 

5 related to trusted traveler programs, including root 

6 causes for identity-matching errors resulting in an 

7 individual’s enrollment in a trusted traveler program 

8 being reinstated. 

9 (2) Whether the Department coordinates with 

10 the heads of other relevant Federal, State, local, 

11 Tribal, or territorial entities regarding redress proce12 dures for disqualifying offenses not covered by the 

13 Department’s own redress processes but which of14 fenses impact an individual’s enrollment in a trusted 

15 traveler program. 

16 (3) How the Department may improve individ17 uals’ access to reconsideration procedures regarding 

18 a disqualifying offense for enrollment in a trusted 

19 traveler program that requires the involvement of 

20 any other Federal, State, local, Tribal, or territorial 

21 entity. 

22 (4) The extent to which travelers are informed 

23 about reconsideration procedures regarding enroll24 ment in a trusted traveler program. 


pamtmann on DSKBFK8HB2PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 3675 IH

1 SEC. 3. ENROLLMENT REDRESS. 

2 Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Sec3 retary of Homeland Security shall, with respect to an indi4 vidual whose enrollment in a trusted traveler program was 

5 revoked in error extend by an amount of time equal to 

6 the period of revocation the period of active enrollment 

7 in such a program upon re-enrollment in such a program 

8 by such an individual. 

Æ 


pamtmann on DSKBFK8HB2PROD with BILLS
#### C. Cook *v.*The State.

Theft—Evidence.—Indictment for theft of $35 in United States notes, worth $35. Verdict of guilty, assessing seven years in the penitentiary. Motion for new trial because verdict not sustained by the evidence. New trial refused, appeal taken, and statement of facts brought up in the transcript. But, as the statement of facts shows no proof of the amount or value of the money *stolen, held,*that the judgment must be reversed and the cause remanded.

Appeal from the District Court of Robertson. Tried below before the Hon. S. Ford.

The head-note comprises the material facts.

No brief for the appellant.

*George McCormick,*Assistant Attorney General, for the State.

Ector, P. J.

The statement of facts in the record does not show the amount of money stolen or the value of the same. The judgment of the lower court must, therefore, be reversed and the cause remanded.

*Reversed and remanded.*