alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA WESTERN DISTRICT JEWISH ASSOCIATION ON AGING D/B/A CHARLES MORRIS NURSING AND REHABILITATION CENTER, Respondent

v. SOLOMON WHITE, Petitioner : : : : : : : : : : : : : No. 456 WAL 2014 Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER PER CURIAM AND NOW , this 10th day of December, 2014, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is DENIED
.
Christopher McDANIEL, petitioner, v. Bonita J. HOFFNER, Warden.

No. 17-7998.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 16, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit denied.
II-00387

From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

Randolph Griffin <rgriblade@hotmail.com>

Thursday, December 2, 2010 9:57 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.

Randolph Griffin

174 Front St. P.O. Box 75

Cygnet, OH 43413
# C_2012165EN.01000501.xml

| 9.6.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 165/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.6.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 165/5

---

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 19 April 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof (Austria)) — Wintersteiger AG v Products 4U Sondermaschinenbau GmbH

(Case C-523/10) (1)

1

(Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 - Jurisdiction and the enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters - Jurisdiction ‘in matters relating to tort, delict or quasi-delict’ - Determination of the place where the harmful event occurred or may occur - Website of a referencing service provider operating under a country-specific top-level domain of a Member State - Use, by an advertiser, of a keyword identical to a trade mark registered in another Member State)

2012/C 165/08

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Referring court

Oberster Gerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Wintersteiger AG

Applicant:

Defendant: Products 4U Sondermaschinenbau GmbH

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Oberster Gerichtshof — Interpretation of Article 5(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (OJ 2001 L 12, p. 1) — Determination of jurisdiction in respect of an action seeking to prohibit the registration of a sign identical to a trade mark with a service provider operating an internet search engine in order that, following the entry of that sign as a search term (‘AdWord’), the screen automatically displays advertising for goods or services identical with or similar to those for which the trade mark at issue is registered — Situation in which the trade mark is protected in a first Member State and the said display of advertising functions only at the top-level domain of that search engine specific to another Member State, while being accessible from the first Member State and in the official language of that latter State — Criteria for determining the ‘place where the harmful event occurred or may occur’

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

Article 5(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters must be interpreted as meaning that an action relating to infringement of a trade mark registered in a Member State because of the use, by an advertiser, of a keyword identical to that trade mark on a search engine website operating under a country-specific top-level domain of another Member State may be brought before either the courts of the Member State in which the trade mark is registered or the courts of the Member State of the place of establishment of the advertiser.

---

(1)  OJ C 30, 29.1.2011.

1

---
Jessica TAVARES, petitioner, v. Gene WHITEHOUSE, et al.

No. 17-429.

Supreme Court of the United States

March 26, 2018.

*1324Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                       1,299,928
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                3,398,891
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             4,777,770
<PP&E>                                         381,496
<DEPRECIATION>                                 181,562
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               5,056,167
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        2,722,898
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         4,826
<OTHER-SE>                                   2,328,443
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 5,056,167
<SALES>                                     13,634,009
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            13,634,009
<CGS>                                       12,273,565
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               12,273,565
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             1,081,756
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                311,322
<INCOME-TAX>                                   141,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            170,322
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   170,322
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.04
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.04
        

</TABLE>
NOTE: This order is nonprecedential. 

# mtniteb**~tate~** 

# (!Court of**~eaI~** 

# for !be jf

# eberaI (!Circuit

AMBASE CORPORATION AND 

### CARTERET BANCORP, INC., Plaintiffs-Cross Appellants, AND 

### FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION, Plaintiff-Cross Appellant, 

### v. UNITED STATES, Defendant-Appellant. 2012-5047, -5048, -5049 Appeals from the United States Court of Federal Claims in case no. 93-CV-531, Senior Judge Loren A. Smith. 

### ON MOTION ORDER The parties move to dismiss these appeals due to settlement. Upon consideration thereof,AMBASE CORP v. US 2
IT Is ORDERED THAT: (1) The motion is granted. The appeals are dismissed. (2) Each side shall bear its own costs. FOR THE COURT 

## NOV 092012 Date /s/ Jan Horbaly Jan Horbaly Clerk cc: Charles J. Cooper, Esq. John M. Dorsey, III, Esq. Jeanne 

### E. Davidson, Esq. s21 Issued As A Mandate:

__ 

## NO_V_O_9_2_01_2

__ 

## u.s.**couRf~Ifl~PeALS** fOR THEfEDERAL CIRCUIT



## NOV U92012 JANHORBALY 

### ClERK
**Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 29 September 2011 – Commission v Austria**

**(Case C-387/10)**

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Freedom to provide services – Legislation of a Member State concerning investment funds and real property investment funds – Evidence relating to revenue regarded as distributed – Evidence provided through a tax representative – ‘National’ financial institutions and business trustees recognised as tax representatives

Freedom to provide services – Restrictions – National legislation limiting the tax representation of investment funds and real property investment funds to national financial
institutions and national business trustees – Not permissible – Not justified by the general interest (Art. 49 EC; EEA Agreement, Art. 36) (see paras 25, 31-34, operative part)

**Re:**

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Breach of Article 49 EC and of Article 36 of the Agreement of 2 May 1992 on the European Economic Area (OJ 1994 L 1, p. 3) – Legislation of a Member State restricting tax representation in respect of investment funds and real property investment funds to business trustees and financial institutions established in that State. |

**Operative part**

The Court:

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 1. | | Declares that, by adopting and maintaining in force provisions under which only national financial institutions and national business trustees may be appointed as tax representatives of investment funds or real property investment funds, the Republic of Austria has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 49 EC and Article 36 of the Agreement of 2 May 1992 on the European Economic Area; |

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 2. | | Orders the Republic of Austria to pay the costs. |
II-01182

From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

heather spencer <mrsjohnspencer@hotmail.com>

Wednesday, December 1, 2010 6:39 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.

heather spencer

po box 1387

spirit lake, ID 83869
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<RESTATED>
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1
<CURRENCY>                                     U.S. Dollars

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>               DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                  JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                    SEP-30-1999
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                           1
<CASH>                                    0
<SECURITIES>                              0
<RECEIVABLES>                    38,763,000
<ALLOWANCES>                      1,283,000
<INVENTORY>                      27,305,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                 75,163,000
<PP&E>                           82,585,000
<DEPRECIATION>                    7,840,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                  161,372,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>            73,694,000
<BONDS>                          40,140,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                37,500
<PREFERRED>                               0
<COMMON>                             72,351
<OTHER-SE>                       15,096,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>    162,042,000
<SALES>                          80,196,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                 80,196,000
<CGS>                            59,599,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                    59,599,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                 14,898,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                      3,000
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                1,832,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                   4,074,000
<INCOME-TAX>                     (4,184,000)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>               8,258,000
<DISCONTINUED>                            0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                           0
<CHANGES>                                 0
<NET-INCOME>                      8,258,000
<EPS-BASIC>                           .99
<EPS-DILUTED>                           .85



</TABLE>
DCM Exhibit A-1
Ownership Chart

Aristotle

International, Outside

Inc. Investors

Delaware C-corp

100%: a

93.3 7

Aristotle . Aristotle Exchange
. CompleteCampaigns. .
International Holding Company 1,
oe com
Europe Limited Inc.

California C-corp

UK Registered Company Delaware C-corp

100%: 100%:

Aristotle Exchange

Holding Company 2, Predictit, Inc.
Inc. Delaware C-corp

Delaware C-corp

100%: | 100: |

Predictit

Aristotle Exchange
DCO, Inc.

Delaware C-corp

Aristotle Exchange
DCM, Inc.

Delaware C-corp

Europe Limited
UK Registered
Company
Francis MALOFIY, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR the EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA.

No. 16-594.

Supreme Court of the United States

Jan. 9, 2017.

*712Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit denied.
Curry S. RICHARDSON, petitioner, v. Lorie DAVIS, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division.

No. 17-6269.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 23, 2018.

Petition for rehearing denied.
# C_2010037EN.01004302.xml

| 13.2.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 37/43 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.2.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 37/43

---

Action brought on 8 December 2009 — Acciaierie e Ferriere Leali Luigi v Commission

(Case T-490/09)

2010/C 37/61

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Acciaierie e Ferriere Leali Luigi SpA (Brescia, Italy) (represented by: G. Belotti, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | Annul Commission Decision C(2009) 7492 final in Case COMP. 37 956 — Reinforcing bars, readoption — adopted by the Commission on 30 September 2009. |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul Commission Decision C(2009) 7492 final in Case COMP. 37 956 — Reinforcing bars, readoption — adopted by the Commission on 30 September 2009.

| — | — | Annul Article 2 of the decision insofar as the applicant is ordered to pay the sum of EUR 6,093 million jointly and severally with the company Leali SpA. |
| --- | --- | --- |

—

—

Annul Article 2 of the decision insofar as the applicant is ordered to pay the sum of EUR 6,093 million jointly and severally with the company Leali SpA.

| — | |
| --- | --- |

—

—

| — | Reduce the amount of the fine imposed. |
| --- | --- |

Reduce the amount of the fine imposed.

| — | Order the defendant to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those relied on in Case T-472/09 SP v Commission.

SP

Commission

---
Tyrone Maurice WILLIAMS, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 17-8212.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 23, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied.
**Exhibit 31.1**I, Paul D. Melnuk, certify that:1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q/A (Amendment No. 1) of Thermadyne Holdings Corporation;2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untruestatement of a material fact or omit to state a material factnecessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstancesunder which such statements were made, not misleading with respect tothe period covered by this report;3. [Not applicable]4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (asdefined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) and internalcontrol over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for the registrant and have: (a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, orcaused such disclosure controls and procedures to bedesigned under our supervision, to ensure thatmaterial information relating to the registrant,including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made knownto us by others within those entities, particularlyduring the period in which this report is beingprepared;  (b) designed such internal control over financialreporting, or caused such internal control overfinancial reporting to be designed under oursupervision, to provide reasonable assurance regardingthe reliability of financial reporting and thepreparation of financial statements for externalpurposes in accordance with generally acceptedaccounting principles;  (c) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’sdisclosure controls and procedures and presented inthis report our conclusions about the effectiveness ofthe disclosure controls and procedures, as of the endof the period covered by this report based on suchevaluation; and  (d) disclosed in this report any change in theregistrant’s internal control over financial reportingthat occurred during the registrant’s most recentfiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarterin the case of an annual report) that has materiallyaffected, or is reasonably likely to materiallyaffect, the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting; and5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, basedon our most recent evaluation of internal control over financialreporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of theregistrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions): (a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknessesin the design or operation of internal control overfinancial reporting which are reasonably likely toadversely affect the registrant’s ability to record,process, summarize and report financial information;and  (b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involvesmanagement or other employees who have a significantrole in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting.Date: August 13, 2007   /s/ Paul D. Melnuk Paul D. Melnuk  Chief Executive Officer  (Principal Executive Officer)
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

, Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster , Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

January 31, 2014

s0127 

# Order

Clerk January 31, 2014

147861

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGA N,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v SC: 147861

COA: 303267

Monroe CC: 06

- 035769

- FC

ROBERT K. BRANNON,

Defendant

- Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the August 27, 2013

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.

C AVANAGH

, J., would grant leave to appeal.
# C_2010080EN.01001302.xml

| 27.3.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 80/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 80/13

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden, lodged on 8 January 2010 — Staatssecretaris van Financiën v Marishipping and Transport BV

(Case C-11/10)

2010/C 80/23

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Referring court

Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Staatssecretaris van Financiën

Appellant:

Respondent: Marishipping and Transport BV

Respondent:

Questions referred

Questions referred

| 1. | Is the exemption of pharmaceutical substances from customs duties laid down in Part One, Section II, Part C (i), of Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 (1) of 23 July 1987, in conjunction with the list of pharmaceutical substances contained in Part Three (annexes), Section II, Annex 3, restricted to the pure form of the (chemical) substances referred to? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Is the exemption of pharmaceutical substances from customs duties laid down in Part One, Section II, Part C (i), of Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 (1) of 23 July 1987, in conjunction with the list of pharmaceutical substances contained in Part Three (annexes), Section II, Annex 3, restricted to the pure form of the (chemical) substances referred to?

1

| 2. | If other substances may be added to the pharmaceutical substances indicated, what restrictions should apply in that regard? |
| --- | --- |

2.

If other substances may be added to the pharmaceutical substances indicated, what restrictions should apply in that regard?

---

(1)  Regulation on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff (OJ 1987 L 256, p. 1).

1

---
James PHILLIPS, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 17-8075.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 16, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied.
Samson WRIGHT, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 16-6760.

Supreme Court of the United States

Dec. 12, 2016.

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