alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                                            9
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              Dec-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                                 Jan-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                   Jun-30-2000
<CASH>                                         19,381
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                         182
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                               1,575
<TRADING-ASSETS>                               0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                    33,174
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                         10,132
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                           10,128
<LOANS>                                        313,127
<ALLOWANCE>                                    3,201
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 398,489
<DEPOSITS>                                     329,304
<SHORT-TERM>                                   22,752
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                            2,867
<LONG-TERM>                                    0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       61
<OTHER-SE>                                     43,505
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                 398,489
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                13,042
<INTEREST-INVEST>                              1,358
<INTEREST-OTHER>                               200
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                               14,600
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                             5,836
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             6,195
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                          8,405
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                  600
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                             0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                7,455
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                1,901
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                     1,244
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   1,244
<EPS-BASIC>                                    0.20
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  0.20
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                 4.94
<LOANS-NON>                                    423
<LOANS-PAST>                                   314
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                               0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                               2,671
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                  185
<RECOVERIES>                                   115
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                              3,201
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                           3,201
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                            0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                        0



</TABLE>
Rejon TAYLOR, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 16-6392.

Supreme Court of the United States

May 14, 2018.

*1976Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit denied.
CFTC MRAC Market Structure Subcommittee 

Report to MRAC – December 11, 2019 

December 11, 2019  Page 1 of 2

Introduction 

The Market Structure Subcommittee is pleased to begin its work to develop recommendations to further 

enhance the structure and regulation of our derivatives markets.    

The Market Structure Subcommittee held initial discussions on November 21st and 22nd to identify a list 

of  potential  topics  for  consideration.    The  topics  identified  fall  into  three  broad  categories  –  trading, 

clearing and reporting (in addition, there are certain topics that straddle these three broad categories). 

To advance its work, the Subcommittee will form working groups to explore issues within each area in 

greater detail and to develop forward‐looking recommendations.  The working groups, together with an 

indicative list of the issues that each intends to explore, are outlined below. 

Market Structure Subcommittee Working Groups 

Trading Working Group 

 Swap Dealer Landscape (Concentration, Swap Dealer De Minimis, Floor Trader Exemption)

 Review of Existing Trading Protocols (including Required vs. Permitted Modes of Execution)

 “Made Available to Trade” (MAT) Process & the Scope of MAT Products

 Post‐Trade Name Give Up & Pre‐ vs. Post‐Trade Anonymity

 Impartial Access / Barriers to Entry / Evolution of Dealer‐to‐Dealer vs. Dealer‐to‐Customer Markets

 Open Access vs. Vertical Integration for Exchanges and CCPs

 Position Limits1

Clearing Working Group

 Scope of Clearing Mandate

 Clearing Member Concentration

 Client Clearing Offerings (including Fee Structures)

 Straight‐Through Processing (including Pre‐Trade Credit Checks)

 Cleared vs. Uncleared Margin Methodologies / Levels

 Portfolio Margining

Regulatory and Public Reporting Working Group 

 Pre‐Trade Transparency Regime

 Post‐Trade Transparency Regime

 Block Trade Thresholds (Updating / Recalibrating)

 Reporting / Identifying Package Transactions

1

 Potential overlap with the Energy & Environmental Markets and/or Agricultural Advisory Committees 
CFTC MRAC Market Structure Subcommittee 

Report to MRAC – December 11, 2019 

December 11, 2019    Page 2 of 2

Additional Issues That Straddle Working Groups 

 Treatment of FX (including Classification of Deliverable Forwards vs. Non‐Deliverable Forwards) 

 LIBOR to SOFR Transition (including the Scope and Timing of Applying Clearing and Trading 

Obligations to Standardized SOFR Swaps)2

 Equivalency Determinations (Trading Venues, CCPs, Public Reporting Regimes, Trade Repositories) 

 Codification of Guidance and No Action Letters (or Better Inventory of Existing Relief) 

Next Steps 

The Trading, Clearing, and Reporting working groups will begin meeting in January. 

The full Subcommittee expects to be prepared to share its initial recommendations in each of these 

areas at future MRAC meetings in 2020. 

                                                            

2

 Potential overlap with MRAC Interest Rate Benchmark Reform Subcommittee
# C_2009244EN.01000702.xml

| 10.10.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 244/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.10.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 244/7

---

Action brought on 24 July 2009 — Omnicare v OHIM — Astellas Pharma (formerly Yamanouchi Pharma) (OMNICARE)

(Case T-290/09)

2009/C 244/12

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Parties

Applicants: Omnicare, Inc. (Covington, United States) (represented by: M. Edenborough, Barrister)

Applicants:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Astellas Pharma GmbH (formerly Yamanouchi Pharma GmbH) (Heidelberg, Germany)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 14 May 2009 in case R 402/2008-4; and |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 14 May 2009 in case R 402/2008-4; and

| — | Award the applicant the costs incurred in connection with this appeal before the Court of First Instance. |
| --- | --- |

—

Award the applicant the costs incurred in connection with this appeal before the Court of First Instance.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for the Community trade mark: The applicant

Applicant for the Community trade mark:

Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘OMNICARE’, for services in class 42

Community trade mark concerned:

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings:

Mark or sign cited: German trade mark registration of the mark ‘OMNICARE’ for services in classes 35, 41 and 42

Mark or sign cited:

Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejected the opposition

Decision of the Opposition Division:

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Annulled the contested decision and rejected the Community trade mark applied for

Decision of the Board of Appeal:

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) Council Regulation 207/2009 as the Board of Appeal wrongly held that: (a) the trade marks concerned were similar; (b) that there was genuine use of the trade mark cited in the opposition proceedings; (c) that the services for which genuine use had been shown were similar; and (d) that, as a consequence, there existed a likelihood of confusion between the trade marks concerned.

Pleas in law:

---
# C_2011232EN.01001101.xml

| 6.8.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 232/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.8.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 232/11

---

Order of the Court of 14 April 2011 — Luigi Marcuccio v Court of Justice of the European Union

(Case C-460/10 P) (1)

(Appeal - Non-contractual liabity - Representation of the appellant - Lawyer not authorised to act - Service of an appeal - Claim for damages - Court of Justice of the European Union - Rejection - Action for annulment - Harm allegedly suffered - Action for damages - Appeal in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly unfounded)

(2011/C 232/18)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Appellant: Luigi Marcuccio (represented by: G. Cipressa, lawyer)

Other party to the proceedings: Court of Justice of the European Union (represented by: A. V. Placco, agent)

Re:

Appeal against the order of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) of 6 July 2010 in Case T-401/09 Marcuccio v Commission, in which that court dismissed, first, the action for annulment of the purported decisions of the Court of Justice dismissing the claim for compensation for the harm allegedly suffered as a result of an alleged unlawful act committed when the appeal was served on Mr Luigi Marcuccio in Case T-20/09 P and, second, a claim for damages.

Operative part of the order

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

1.

The appeal is dismissed.

| 2. | Mr Marcuccio is orderd to pay the costs of the appeal. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Mr Marcuccio is orderd to pay the costs of the appeal.

---

(1)  OJ C 328, 4.12.2010.

---
II-00186

From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

CAROL CREAMER <CAROLGEE 181 @MSN.COM>

Friday, December 3, 2010 10:47 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.

CAROL CREAMER

110 33 72ND AVE

Forest Hills, NY 11375
Exhibit 32.2
 Certification of Principal Financial Officer, Pursuant to
18 U.S.C. Section 1350,
As Adopted Pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
  (1)
    
    the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934; and(2)
    
    the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition of the Company at the end of the period covered by the Report and
results of operations of the Company for the period covered by the Report.
 /s/ ERIK E. PRUSCH

Erik E. PruschPrincipal Financial Officer
WASHINGTON, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES, et al.

No. 17-269.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 13, 2018.

Joint motion of respondents for divided argument granted.

Justice KENNEDY took no part in the consideration or decision of this motion.
[ DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

_______________________ No. 13

- 13619

_______________________ D. C. D ocket No

. 9: 12

- cv
- 80577

- KAM BRIAN KEIM, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff

– Appellant,

versus ADF MIDATLANTIC, LLC; AMERICAN HUTS, INC.; ADF PIZZA I, LLC; ADF PA, LLC,
Defendants

– Appellees.

_______________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southe rn District of Florida

________________________ (December 1, 2014)
Before MARTIN, Circuit Judge , and EATON, ∗ Judge, and HINKLE , ∗ ∗ District Judge.

∗ Honorable Richard K. Eaton, United States Court of International Trade Judge, sitting by designation.
∗ ∗ Honorable Robert L. Hinkle, United States District Judge for the Northern District of Florida, sitting by designation

Case: 13-13619 Date Filed: 12/01/2014 Page: 1 of 32 HINKLE, District Judge: The district court dismissed this proposed class action as moot after the
defendants served on the named plaintiff a Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 68 offer of judgment that the defendants say would have provided complete relief to the named plaintiff ind ividually

. The named plaintiff did not accept the offer.
We have today issued our opinion in Jeffrey Stein, D.D.S., M.S.D., P.A. v.
Buccaneers L td. Partnership , __ F.3d __ , No. 13

- 15417 (11th Cir. ____, 2014).
There we held that a proposed class action like this one was not rendered moot by an unaccepted Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 68 offer of complete relief to the named plaintiffs , but not to class members . There, as here, the defendant served
the Rule 68 offer before the class wa s certified and indeed before the named plaintiffs move d to certify the class. The decision is squarely on point and requires reversal of the district court’s order dismissing this case.
In deed, this case presents a weaker case for dismissal than Stein

. Here, as in
Ste in , the complaint asserts a claim under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act

. See 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(1)(C) . Here, as in Stein, the complaint demands $500 for each violation, trebled to $1,500 for willfulness. But in Stein , the defendant
offered a sum c ertain to each named plaintiff. Here , in contrast, the defendants
offered the named plaintiff $1,500 for each violation, that is, for each illegal text
message he allegedly received, without specifying a number. The record does not

Case: 13-13619 Date Filed: 12/01/2014 Page: 2 of 33 show how many messages the named plaintiff received. So the named plaintiff’s
individual claim would not have be en moot even had he accepted the Rule 68 offer; there was still work to be done to get the case to the finish line. The defendants moved to dismiss the complaint on other grounds as well. The district court did not address those grounds, nor do we. Because the Rule 68 offer mooted neither the named plaintiff’s individual claim nor the class claims, the district court’s order dismissing the case is reversed.

Case: 13-13619 Date Filed: 12/01/2014 Page: 3 of 3
Durade ZEBARI, petitioner, v. CVS CAREMARK CORPORATION, et al.

No. 17-1413.

Supreme Court of the United States

June 4, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit denied.
Jeremy BRUNS, et ux., petitioner, v. Rhonda BRYANT, et al.

No. 17-1017.

Supreme Court of the United States

May 14, 2018.

Petition for rehearing denied.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from Greenland
Corporation June 30, 1999 financial statements and is qualified in its entirety
by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0000852127
<NAME> GREENLAND CORPORATION

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                         168,380
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  134,393
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    192,915
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               594,413
<PP&E>                                          67,617
<DEPRECIATION>                                (25,019)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               4,315,574
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          664,748
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        24,631
<OTHER-SE>                                   3,626,195
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 4,315,574
<SALES>                                          1,866
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 1,866
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  511,586
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             1,879,606
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               7,626
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (1,676,049)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (2,389,326)
<DISCONTINUED>                                 713,277
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (1,676,049)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (.09)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.09)


</TABLE>
March 10, 2011

Financial Services Roundtable participants:

Gary C. Bhojwani, President and Chief Executive Officer~ Allianz Life Insurance Company of North

America

Brian R. Bodager, EVP, Chief Administrative Officer, General Counsel and Corporate Secretary~ Associated

Ban-Corp

Richard V. Silver, Senior Executive Vice President, ChiefAdmin Officer and Chief Legal Officer~ AXA

Financial, Inc.

Aubrey B. Patterson, Jr.,Chairman and Chief Executive Officer~ BancorpSouth, Inc.

Lawrence Uhlick, Chair, Compass Bank Board and Compass Bancshares Board~ BBVA Compass

Kelly McNamara Corley, Executive Vice President, General Counsel and Secretary~ Discover Financial

Services, Inc.

James A. Tricarico, Jr.,General Counsel, Principal~ Edward Jones

Paul L. Reynolds, Executive Vice President, Secretary and Chief Administrative Officer~ Fifth Third Bancorp

John J. Dolan, President and Chief Executive Officer~ First Commonwealth Financial Corporation

Charles G. Burkett, President ofBanking~ First Horizon National Corporation

Paul V. Noble, Vice President, Deputy General Counsel, P & C US~ Harris Bankcorp, Inc.

Timothy V. Haight, VP and Chief Counsel, John Deere Financial/Assoc. Gen Counsel, Deere & Co., John

Deere Financial Services, Inc.

Stephanie L. Brown, Managing Director and General Counsel~ LPL Financial Corporation

Jeffrey R. Schmid, Chairman & Chief Executive Officer - Mutual of Omaha Bank~ Mutual of Omaha Bank

Patricia R. Hatler, Executive Vice President, ChiefLegal and Governance Officer~ Nationwide

Stephen N. Potter, President, NOlthern Trust Global Investments~ Northern Trust Corporation

Richard J. Johnson, Chief Financial Officer~ PNC Financial Services Group, Inc.

Karen E. Shaff, Executive Vice President and General Counsel~ Principal Financial Group

John D. Johns, Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer~ Protective Life Corporation

Brian W. Clymer, Senior Vice President, External Affairs~ Prudential Financial Inc.

Steven M. Raney, President and Chief Executive Officer~ Raymond James Bank

Grayson Hall, President and Chief Executive Officer~ Regions Financial Corporation

Stephen H. Weinstein, Senior Vice President, General Counsel~ RenaissanceRe Holdings Ltd.

Nuno Matos, Head, Retail Business Development~ Sovereign (Banco Santander)

Richard A. Toomey, General Counsel~ Sovereign (Banco Santander)

Edward B. Rust, Jr., Chairman and Chief Executive Officer~ State Farm Insurance Companies

Mark A. Chancy, Corporate Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer~ SunTrust Banks, Inc.

Mark W. Midkiff, Vice Chairman and Chief Risk Officer~ Union Bank

Spencer F. Eccles, Chairman Emeritus, Intermountain Region~ Wells Fargo Bank

Robert L. Walker, Senior Vice President and ChiefFinancial Officer~ Western & Southern Financial Group
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA No. DA 23
- 0205 STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee, v. PABLO ANTONIO VILLALOBOS,

Defendant and Appellant
.

**ORDER** Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, and good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension of time to and including August 23 , 2023 , within which to prepare, file, and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by: Mike McGrath Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

July 17 2023

07/17/2023

Case Number: DA 23-0205
Brandon MOOREFIELD, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 16-9549.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 2, 2017.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third 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**




In
      connection with the Annual Report of China 3C Group (the “Company”) on Form
      10-KSB/A-1 for the year ending December 31, 2005 as filed with the Securities
      and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Jian
      Liu ,
      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
                Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d)
                of
                the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and




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




/s/Jian
                LiuJian
                LiuChief
                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 China 3C Group and will be retained by
      China 3C Group and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its
      staff upon request.