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

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 9
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                           9,892
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                           5,649
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                16,000
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                     54,425
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                           8,673
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                             8,482
<LOANS>                                        158,651
<ALLOWANCE>                                      1,483
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 266,158
<DEPOSITS>                                     229,593
<SHORT-TERM>                                     4,172
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                              2,273
<LONG-TERM>                                      1,750
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            24
<OTHER-SE>                                      28,346
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                 266,158
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                 10,799
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                3,133
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                   468
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                14,400
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                               6,101
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               6,416
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                            7,984
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                      330
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   1
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                  5,848
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  3,425
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                       2,235
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     2,235
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.08
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.08
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    4.53
<LOANS-NON>                                      1,256
<LOANS-PAST>                                        78
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                 1,396
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                      286
<RECOVERIES>                                        43
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                1,483
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                             1,483
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0
        

</TABLE>
# C_2012165EN.01001701.xml

| 9.6.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 165/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.6.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 165/17

---

Judgment of the General Court of 19 April 2012 — Würth and Fasteners v Council

(Case T-162/09) (1)

1

(Actions for annulment - Dumping - No individual concern - Inadmissibility)

2012/C 165/28

Language of the case: German

Parties

Parties

Applicants: Adolf Würth GmbH & Co. KG (Künzelsau, Germany) and Arnold Fasteners (Shenyang) Co. Ltd (Shenyang, China) (represented by: M. Karl and M. Mayer, lawyers)

Applicants:

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: initially J.-P. Hix, Agent, assisted by G. Berrisch and G. Wolf, lawyers, then J.-P. Hix and B. Driessen, Agents, assisted by G. Berrisch)

Defendant:

Parties intervening in support of the defendant: European Commission: (represented by: H. van Vliet and B. Martenczuk, Agent); and European Industrial Fasteners Institute AISBL (EIFI) (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: initially J. Bourgeois, Y. van Gerven and E. Wäktare, then J. Bourgeois, lawyers)

Parties intervening in support of the defendant:

Re:

Re:

Application for annulment of Council Regulation (EC) No 91/2009 of 26 January 2009 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of certain iron or steel fasteners originating in the People’s Republic of China (OJ 2009 L 29, p. 1).

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action as inadmissible. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action as inadmissible.

| 2. | Orders Adolf Würth GmbH & Co. KG and Arnold Fasteners (Shenyang) Co. Ltd to bear their own costs and to pay those incurred by the Council of the European Union and by the European Industrial Fasteners Institute AISBL. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Adolf Würth GmbH & Co. KG and Arnold Fasteners (Shenyang) Co. Ltd to bear their own costs and to pay those incurred by the Council of the European Union and by the European Industrial Fasteners Institute AISBL.

| 3. | Order the European Commission to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Order the European Commission to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 167, 18.07.2009.

1

---
EXHIBIT
32.1
  WRITTEN
STATEMENT PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
  In
connection with the Annual Report of China 3C Group and its subsidiaries (the
“Company”) on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2009 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), the
undersigned, Zhenggang Wang, Chief Executive Officer of the Company certifies,
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 13a-14(b) or 15d-14(b) 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.
 
 Dated:
      April 15, 2010
              By:
              /s/
      Zhenggang WangName:
              Zhenggang
      WangTitle:
              Chief
      Executive Officer and Chairman (Principal Executive
    Officer)
Michael J. GOWAN, petitioner, v. Lorie DAVIS, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division.

No. 16-9700.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 2, 2017.

Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed *in forma pauperis* denied, and petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit dismissed. See Rule 39.8. As petitioner has repeatedly abused this Court's process, the Clerk is directed not to accept any further petitions in noncriminal matters from petitioner unless the docketing fee required by Rule 38(a) is paid and petition submitted in compliance with Rule 33.1. See *Martin v. District of Columbia Court of Appeals,*506 U.S. 1, 113 S.Ct. 397, 121 L.Ed.2d 305 (1992) (*per curiam* ).
I 

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 3897 

To amend title 38, United States Code, to increase the monthly housing 

stipend under the Post-9/11 Educational Assistance Program for individuals who pursue programs of education solely through distance learning 

on more than a half-time basis. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JULY 23, 2019 

Mr. BILIRAKIS introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Veterans’ Affairs 

A BILL 

To amend title 38, United States Code, to increase the 

monthly housing stipend under the Post-9/11 Educational Assistance Program for individuals who pursue 

programs of education solely through distance learning 

on more than a half-time basis. 

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


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
2 

•HR 3897 IH

1 SECTION 1. INCREASE OF MONTHLY HOUSING STIPEND 

2 UNDER THE POST-9/11 EDUCATIONAL ASSIST3 ANCE PROGRAM FOR INDIVIDUALS WHO PUR4 SUE PROGRAMS OF EDUCATION SOLELY 

5 THROUGH DISTANCE LEARNING ON MORE 

6 THAN A HALF-TIME BASIS. 

7 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 3313(c)(1)(B) of title 38, 

8 United States Code, is amended— 

9 (1) by striking clause (iii); 

10 (2) by redesignating clause (iv) as clause (iii); 

11 and 

12 (3) in clause (i), in the matter preceding sub13 clause (I), by striking ‘‘clauses (ii) and (iii)’’ and in14 serting ‘‘clause (ii)’’. 

15 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by 

16 subsection (a) shall apply to a quarter, semester, or term 

17 beginning on or after August 1, 2020. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit 

___________________________

No. 20-2849

___________________________ 

United States of America

 Plaintiff - Appellee

v.

Kouang Viphongxai

 Defendant - Appellant

____________

Appeal from United States District Court 

for the Southern District of Iowa - Central 

____________ 

Submitted: June 18, 2021

Filed: June 28, 2021

[Unpublished]

____________ 

Before GRUENDER, BENTON, and STRAS, Circuit Judges. 

____________

PER CURIAM.

After Kouang Viphongxai pleaded guilty to one count of passing counterfeit 

obligations or securities of the United States, see 18 U.S.C. §§ 2, 472, the district 

court1 sentenced him to 27 months’ imprisonment and 3 years’ supervised release. 

1

The Honorable Rebecca Goodgame Ebinger, United States District Judge for 

the Southern District of Iowa.
-2- 

Viphongxai appealed, arguing that the district court committed procedural error in 

imposing a five-point offense-level increase under U.S.S.G. § 2B5.1(b)(2)-(3), 

which affected the calculation of his advisory sentencing guidelines range. 

While this appeal was pending, the Government informed us that on April 5, 

2021, Viphongxai was released from the Bureau of Prisons’ custody to begin his 

term of supervised release. Because Viphongxai challenged on appeal only his 

sentence of imprisonment, we ordered Viphongxai to address whether his appeal 

was moot. See Owen v. United States, 930 F.3d 989, 989-91 (8th Cir. 2019) 

(dismissing an appeal as moot because the appellant challenged only the length of 

his term of imprisonment but completed that term and was released from prison 

while the appeal was pending). In response, Viphongxai stated that he “takes no 

position on mootness.”

“[W]e have no jurisdiction over appeals that are moot.” United States v. 

Evans, 690 F.3d 940, 943 (8th Cir. 2012). Because Viphongxai challenged on appeal 

only the length of his term of imprisonment, and he has completed that term, we 

conclude that this appeal is moot. See Owen, 930 F.3d at 990. Accordingly, we 

dismiss this appeal.

______________________________
Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,
Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h
Elizabeth A. Weave r

Maura D. Corriga n Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markma n Diane M. Hathaway,
J ustices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

_______________________________________ __ Clerk May 13, 2010 

# Order

May 13, 2010

Rehearing No. 562

138123

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellant, SC: 138123 v COA: 284943 Washtenaw CC: 07-001471-FC RONALD JAMES PLUNKETT, Defendant-Appellee.

___________________ ________________

On order of the Court, the motion for rehearing is considered, and it is

DENIED.

KELLY, C.J., and CAVANA GH and HATHAWAY, JJ., would grant rehearing.
FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________

No. 1D17-4727

_____________________________

BOBBY BULLOCK,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Franklin County.

Terry Lewis, Judge.

September 18, 2019

PER CURIAM.

Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), 

Appellant’s counsel filed a brief informing the court that she 

cannot make an argument for reversal of the judgment and 

sentence or order revoking Appellant’s probation. However, after 

Appellant’s motion to correct sentencing error was denied, counsel 

argues that the order revoking probation must be corrected to 

specify the condition of probation Appellant admitted to violating. 

We agree and remand for entry of a corrected order revoking 

probation. See Lee v. State, 826 So. 2d 457 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002). 

Appellant need not be present.

AFFIRMED and REMANDED. 
2

WOLF, KELSEY, and WINOKUR, JJ., concur.

_____________________________

Not final until disposition of any timely and 

authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 

9.331.

_____________________________

Candice K. Brower, General Counsel, Office of Criminal Conflict 

and Civil Regional Counsel, Region One, Gainesville, and Melissa 

J. Ford, Assistant Regional Conflict Counsel, Office of Criminal 

Conflict and Civil Regional Counsel, Region One, Tallahassee, for 

Appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.
Charles Wesley BLACKLEDGE, petitioner, v. Olga Grigorievna BLACKLEDGE.

No. 17-7883.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 2, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit denied.
Exhibit 32.1
**CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER**
**PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350**
     In connection with the accompanying Quarterly Report of Laserscope on Form10-Q for the six months ended June 30, 2004, I, Eric M. Reuter, President andChief Executive Officer of Laserscope, hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C.section 1350, as adopted pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of2002, that:
 (1) such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the six months endedJune 30, 2004 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 such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Qfor the six months ended June 30, 2004 fairly presents, in allmaterial respects, the financial condition and results of operationsof Laserscope.     Date: August 9, 2004 By: /s/ Eric M. Reuter   Eric M. Reuter   President and Chief Executive Officer
A signed original of this written statement required by section 906, or otherdocument authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signaturethat appears in typed form within the electronic version of this writtenstatement required by section 906, has been provided to Laserscope and will beretained by Laserscope and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commissionor its staff upon request.
IB 

Union Calendar No. 203 

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 362 

[Report No. 116–255] 

To amend the Department of Energy Organization Act with respect to 

functions assigned to Assistant Secretaries, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 9, 2019 

Mr. RUSH (for himself and Mr. WALBERG) introduced the following bill; which 

was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce 

OCTOBER 28, 2019 

Additional sponsors: Mr. VAN DREW and Mr. FITZPATRICK

OCTOBER 28, 2019 

Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union 

and ordered to be printed 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
2 

•HR 362 RH

A BILL 

To amend the Department of Energy Organization Act with 

respect to functions assigned to Assistant Secretaries, 

and for other purposes. 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
3 

•HR 362 RH

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 ‘‘Energy Emergency 

5 Leadership Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. FUNCTIONS ASSIGNED TO ASSISTANT SECRE7 TARIES. 

8 Subsection (a) of section 203 of the Department of 

9 Energy Organization Act (42 U.S.C. 7133(a)) is amended 

10 by adding at the end the following new paragraph: 

11 ‘‘(12) Energy emergency and energy security 

12 functions, including— 

13 ‘‘(A) responsibilities with respect to infra14 structure, cybersecurity, emerging threats, sup15 ply, and emergency planning, coordination, re16 sponse, and restoration; and 

17 ‘‘(B) upon request of a State, local, or 

18 tribal government or energy sector entity, and 

19 in consultation with other Federal agencies as 

20 appropriate, provision of technical assistance, 

21 support, and response capabilities with respect 

22 to energy security threats, risks, and inci23 dents.’’. 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
Union Calendar No. 203 

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 362 

[Report No. 116–255] 

A BILL 

To amend the Department of Energy Organization 

ant Secretaries, and for other purposes. Act with respect to functions assigned to AssistOCTOBER 28, 2019 

Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the 

State of the Union and ordered to be printed 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
II-00384

From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

Mary Sweet <mfsweet1739@yahoo.com>

Thursday, December 2, 2010 10:04 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.

Mary Sweet

2405 St Anthony

San Antonio, TX 78210
Notice: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the Atlantic

and Maryland Reporters. Users are requested to notify the Clerk of the Court of any

formal errors so that corrections may be made before the bound volumes go to press.

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS

No. 1 7

- BG

- 12 58

IN RE WILLIAM STEVEN PALEOS

201 7 D DN 2 3 8

A Member of the Bar of the

District of Columbia Court of Appeals

Bar Reg istration No. 3 5 85 80

BEFORE: Beckwith

, Associate Judge, and Washington and Farrell , Senior Judges.

O R D E R

(FILED

– February 1 , 2018)

On consideration of the certified order changing respondent’s status to practice

law in the state of Maryland to inactive by consent, this court’s December 5 , 201 7 , order

suspending respondent and directing him to show cause why he should not be

indefinitely suspended pursuant to a disability suspension under D.C. Bar R. XI § 1 3 as

reciprocal discipline

, the statement of Disciplinary Counsel wherein he states that

respondent notified him that he d id not oppose the imposition of reciprocal discipline,

and it appearing that respondent did not file a response to this court’s order but did file

his D.C. Bar R. XI § 14 (g) affidavit on January 2, 2018, it is

ORDERED that William Steven Paleos is hereby indefinitely suspend ed from the

practice of law in the District of Columbia pursuant to D.C. Bar R. XI § 13 nunc pro

tunc to January 2, 2018. It is

FURTHER ORDERED that respondent’s attention is directed to the requirements

of D.C. Bar R. XI § 1 3 (g) for reinstatement, as well as the provisions of Rule XI § 16

( b ) dealing with the requirements for reinstatement

.

PER CURIAM
H. Res. 1764 

In the House of Representatives, U. S., 

December 15, 2010. 

Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall 

be in order to take from the Speaker’s table the bill (H.R. 

2965) to amend the Small Business Act with respect to the 

Small Business Innovation Research Program and the Small 

Business Technology Transfer Program, and for other purposes, with the Senate amendment thereto, and to consider 

in the House, without intervention of any point of order except those arising under clause 10 of rule XXI, a motion offered by the Majority Leader or his designee that the House 

concur in the Senate amendment with the amendment printed in the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying 

this resolution. The Senate amendment and the motion shall 

be considered as read. The motion shall be debatable for one 

hour equally divided and controlled by the Majority Leader 

and Minority Leader or their respective designees. The pre-
2 

•HRES 1764 EH 

vious question shall be considered as ordered on the motion 

to final adoption without intervening motion. 

Attest: 

Clerk.
Bobbette M. BLAKE, petitioner, v. MJ OPTICAL, INC.

No. 17-1015.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 2, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit denied.
Andrew Joseph WORKMAN, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 17-7042.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 16, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit denied.
Nathan Wayne SMITH, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 17-8047.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 16, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit denied.
Althea MILEY, petitioner, v. CENLAR FSB, et al.

No. 17-1096.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 16, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals of Georgia denied.
Mikhael Charles DORISE, petitioner, v. Andre MATEVOUSIAN, Warden.

No. 17-7308.

Supreme Court of the United States

Feb. 20, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.
# C_2010346EN.01003702.xml

| 18.12.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 346/37 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.12.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 346/37

---

Order of the President of the Court of 1 July 2010 — European Commission v Ireland

(Case C-95/09) (1)

1

()

2010/C 346/65

Language of the case: English

The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 113, 16.5.2009.

1

---