alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 3.1


                            ARTICLES OF ORGANIZATION
                                       OF
                         MINNESOTA CORN PROCESSORS, LLC


         Pursuant to the provisions of the Colorado Limited Liability Company
Act, Title 7, Article 80 of the Colorado Revised Statutes (the "Act"), the
undersigned hereby executes these Articles of Organization as the organizer of a
Colorado limited liability company:


                                    ARTICLE I
                                      NAME

         The name of the limited liability company is Minnesota Corn Processors,
LLC (the "Company").


                                   ARTICLE II
                           PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS

         The Company's principal place of business is located at 901 North
Highway 59, Marshall, MN 56258.


                                   ARTICLE III
                                REGISTERED AGENT

         The name and address of the Company's its registered office and agent
in the State of Colorado is:

                           The Corporation Company
                           1675 Broadway
                           Denver, CO 80202


                                   ARTICLE IV
                                   MANAGEMENT

         The Company's business and affairs shall be managed by a Board of
Directors. For purposes of the Act, the Board of Directors shall be deemed to be
the board of managers of the Company, and each director shall be deemed to be a
manager. The name and addresses of the initial Directors are as follows:

<PAGE>


                           Dan Stacken
                           901 North Highway 59
                           Marshall, MN 56258

                           Dan Thompson
                           901 North Highway 59
                           Marshall, MN 56258

                           Jerry Jacoby
                           901 North Highway 59
                           Marshall, MN 56258

Each initial Director shall serve until the closing under the Transaction
Agreement by and between the Company and Minnesota Corn Processors, Inc. ("MCP
Cooperative"), at which time the directors of MCP Cooperative shall become the
directors of the Company.


                                    ARTICLE V
                                 INITIAL MEMBER

         The initial member of the Company is Minnesota Corn Processors, Inc.,
located at 901 North Highway 59, Marshall, MN 56258.


         IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed these Articles of
Organization as of this 10th day of December, 1998.



 /s/ David P. Swanson
---------------------------
David P. Swanson
In Re David CLUM, Jr., petitioner.

No. 17-5406.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 2, 2017.

Petition for writ of mandamus denied.
Luis Angel PEREZ, petitioner, v. NEW YORK CITY DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION.

No. 17-8097.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 23, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit denied.
Lonnie SNELLING, petitioner, v. Betty WARREN, et al.

No. 17M114.

Supreme Court of the United States

May 14, 2018.

Motion to direct the Clerk to file a petition for writ of certiorari out of time denied.
# C_2010011EN.01003402.xml

| 16.1.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 11/34 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.1.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 11/34

---

Action brought on 6 November 2009 — Simba Toys v OHIM — Seven Towns (Three-dimensional representation of a cubic toy)

(Case T-450/09)

2010/C 11/64

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Simba Toys GmbH & Co. KG (Fürth, Germany) (represented by: O. Ruhl, lawyer)

Applicant:

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

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Seven Towns Ltd (London, United Kingdom)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 1 September 2009 in case R 1526/2008-2; and |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 1 September 2009 in case R 1526/2008-2; and

| — | Order the defendant and the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal to pay the costs incurred in the appeal proceedings and those incurred before the Court. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the defendant and the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal to pay the costs incurred in the appeal proceedings and those incurred before the Court.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

Registered Community trade mark subject of the application for a declaration of invalidity: A three-dimensional representation of a cubic toy for goods in class 28

Registered Community trade mark subject of the application for a declaration of invalidity:

Proprietor of the Community trade mark: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Proprietor of the Community trade mark:

Party requesting the declaration of invalidity of the Community trade mark: The applicant

Party requesting the declaration of invalidity of the Community trade mark:

Decision of the Cancellation Division: Rejected the request for a declaration of invalidity

Decision of the Cancellation Division:

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

Decision of the Board of Appeal:

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 7(1)(b),(c) and (e) of Council Regulation 207/2009, as the Board of Appeal wrongly assessed the absolute grounds for refusal presented by the applicant; Infringement of Article 75 of Council Regulation No 207/2009 as the Board of Appeal failed to state reasons why it denied the ground for revocation under Article 7(1)(c) of the said regulation; Infringement of Article 76(1) of Council Regulation No 207/2009 as the Board of Appeal failed to identify fully the features of the trade mark subject of the application for a declaration of invalidity and failed to take into account certain features of such trade mark.

Pleas in law:

---
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 Hooker Furniture Corporation (the Company)
Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ending November 30, 2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, E. Larry Ryder, 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 (Section 906), that, to the best of my knowledge:



| | (1) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and
| | --- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



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



|                        |  |  |  |     |  |                       |  |                        
|----------------------- |  |  |  | --- |  | --------------------- |  | -----------------------
|                        |  |  | 
|Date: February 27, 2004 |  |  |  | By: |  | /s/    E. Larry Ryder
|                        |  |  |  |     |  |                       | 
|                        |  |  |  |     |  |                       |  | E. Larry Ryder         
|                        |  |  |  |     |  |                       |  | Chief Financial Officer



A signed original of this written
statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
This memorandum opinion was not selected for publication in the New Mexico Appellate Reports.

Please see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum

opinions. Please also note that this electronic memorandum opinion may contain

computer-generated errors or other deviations from the official paper version filed by the Court of

Appeals and does not include the filing date. 

1 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO

2 STATE OF NEW MEXICO, 

3 Plaintiff-Appellee,

4 v. No. A-1-CA-36971

5 DANIELLE ORTEGA,

6 Defendant-Appellant.

7 APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF LEA COUNTY

8 Mark Terrence Sanchez, District Judge

9 Hector H. Balderas, Attorney General

10 Santa Fe, NM

11 for Appellee

12 Templeman and Crutchfield

13 C. Barry Crutchfield

14 Lovington, NM 

15 for Appellant

16 MEMORANDUM OPINION

17 ZAMORA, Judge.
1 {1} Summary dismissal was proposed for the reasons stated in the notice of

2 proposed summary disposition. No memorandum opposing summary dismissal has

3 been filed and the time for doing so has expired. DISMISSED.

4 {2} IT IS SO ORDERED.

5 

6 M. MONICA ZAMORA, Judge

7 WE CONCUR:

8 

9 HENRY M. BOHNHOFF, Judge 

10 

11 DANIEL J. GALLEGOS, Judge
the relief requested. 2Any such motion to reinstate this appeal shall be 

filed within 60 days of the district court's order declining to grant the 

requested relief. 

It is so ORDERED. 

J. 

Douglas 

Parfaguirre 

dis tr.‘ 

Cliny J. 

Cherry 

cc: Hon. Brent T. Adams, District Judge 

Hon. David A. Hardy, District Judge 

David E. Adkins 

Snell & Wilmer LLP/Salt Lake City 

Snell & Wilmer, LLP/Las Vegas 

Washoe District Court Clerk 

2We note that any aggrieved party may file a notice of appeal from 

any appealable order entered at the completion of the district court 

proceedings. See NRAP 3A. 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 2 

(0) I947A
James Wendell WARREN, petitioner, v. Lorie DAVIS, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division.

No. 17-7585.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 2, 2018.

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

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 400 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 400

   To amend title 39 of the United States Code to direct the Postal 
 Regulatory Commission to promulgate regulations to establish rates of 
postage for packages shipped by priority mail from the United States to 
   a foreign Army Post Office, Fleet Post Office, or Diplomatic Post 
                                Office.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 9, 2019

 Mr. Norcross introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                   Committee on Oversight and Reform

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To amend title 39 of the United States Code to direct the Postal 
 Regulatory Commission to promulgate regulations to establish rates of 
postage for packages shipped by priority mail from the United States to 
   a foreign Army Post Office, Fleet Post Office, or Diplomatic Post 
                                Office.

    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 ``Care Packages for Our Heroes Act of 
2019''.

SEC. 2. ESTABLISHMENT OF RATES OF POSTAGE FOR PACKAGES SHIPPED BY 
              PRIORITY MAIL FROM THE UNITED STATES TO A FOREIGN ARMY 
              POST OFFICE, FLEET POST OFFICE, OR DIPLOMATIC POST 
              OFFICE.

    Section 3633 of title 39 of the United States Code is amended by 
adding at the end the following:
    ``(c) Exemption.--Notwithstanding subsection (a), not later than 
180 days after the date of the enactment of this subsection, the Postal 
Regulatory Commission shall promulgate regulations to establish rates 
of postage for packages shipped by priority mail from the United States 
to a foreign Army Post Office, Fleet Post Office, or Diplomatic Post 
Office address whereby a person may not be charged for such packages 
traveling through a zone other than a first zone or a second zone (as 
defined in section 4040 of title 39, Code of Federal Regulations, 
respectively).''.
                                 <all>
```
Masoud BAMDAD, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 17-8278.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 30, 2018.

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 Ninth 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* ).
Roger Charles DAY, Jr., petitioner, v. Donald J. TRUMP, President of the United States.

No. 17-7844.

Supreme Court of the United States

March 26, 2018.

Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed *in forma pauperis* denied, and the petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit dismissed. See Rule 39.8.
Edgar Julian DIETRICH, petitioner, v. Anthony P. PATTI.

No. 17-6322.

Supreme Court of the United States

Feb. 20, 2018.

Petition for rehearing denied.
Raheem VENABLE, petitioner, v. Steven JOHNSON, Administrator, New Jersey State Prison, et al.

No. 17-5071.

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.
II-00940

From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

Drew Cucuzza <dcucuzza@snet.net>

Thursday, December 2, 2010 9:51 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.

Drew Cucuzza

351 Central Avenue

New Haven, CT 6515
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3674 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 3674

To amend the Higher Education Act of 1965 to eliminate origination fees 
                       for Federal Direct Loans.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             July 10, 2019

 Mrs. Davis of California (for herself, Mr. Smucker, and Ms. Davids of 
   Kansas) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                    Committee on Education and Labor

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend the Higher Education Act of 1965 to eliminate origination fees 
                       for Federal Direct Loans.

    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 ``Eliminating the Hidden Student Loan 
Tax Act''.

SEC. 2. ELIMINATION OF ORIGINATION FEES FOR FEDERAL DIRECT LOANS.

    (a) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of Congress that no 
origination fees should be charged on any future Federal Direct Loans.
    (b) Repeal of Origination Fees.--Subsection (c) of section 455 of 
the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1087e(c)) is repealed.
    (c) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (b) shall 
apply with respect to loans made under part D of title IV of the Higher 
Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1087a et seq.) for which the first 
disbursement of principal is made, or, in the case of a Federal Direct 
Consolidation Loan, the application is received, on or after July 1, 
2020.
                                 <all>
```
Andrew U.D. STRAW, petitioner, v. Curtis HILL, Attorney General of Indiana, et al.

No. 17-8143.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 16, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit denied.
# C_2009267EN.01006801.xml

| 7.11.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 267/68 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.11.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 267/68

---

Action brought on 14 August 2009 — skytron energy v OHIM (arraybox)

(Case T-321/09)

2009/C 267/123

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Parties

Applicant: skytron energy GmbH & Co. KG (Berlin, Germany) (represented by H.-J. Omsels, lawyer)

Applicant:

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

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market of 4 June 2009 in Case R 1680/2008-1; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market of 4 June 2009 in Case R 1680/2008-1;

| — | In the alternative, refer the case back to the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market; |
| --- | --- |

—

In the alternative, refer the case back to the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market;

| — | Order the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘arraybox’ for goods and services in Classes 9, 37, 38 and 42 (application No 6 710 479)

Community trade mark concerned:

Decision of the Examiner: Registration refused

Decision of the Examiner:

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed

Decision of the Board of Appeal:

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation No 207/2009 (1) as the sign applied for is not descriptive and has the requisite distinctive character.

Pleas in law:

1

---

(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark (OJ 2009 L 78, p. 1).

1

---
Gregg McNAMARA, petitioner, v. CALIFORNIA.

No. 16-9639.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 2, 2017.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.
Exhibit 10.21

GENTEK INC.

December 31, 2008Robert D. Novo2 Kingsbrook CourtMendham, NJ 07945

Dear Rob,

As discussed, this letter agreement (the Letter Agreement) shall entitle you to the same rights to severance that a Severance Participant (as defined in the Gentek Inc. Key Employee Retention Plan (the
KERP)) was entitled to receive under Section 4.01 of the KERP prior to its recent termination, subject to the following conditions and the conditions set forth in the KERP and the terms set forth in the KERP:

- You agree that you may not terminate your employment with Gentek Inc. (the Company) for Good Reason (as defined in the KERP) later than the date two (2) years
following the occurrence of the particular action that constitutes Good Reason. The two (2) year limitation shall be in addition to any other limitation on your right to terminate
your employment for Good Reason under the KERP;
- You agree that as a condition to your receipt of any severance pursuant to this Letter Agreement, you will need to enter into a Non-Solicitation, Non-Compete,
Non-Disclosure and Non-Disparagement Agreement with the Company and its affiliates and an additional release of claims agreement referenced in the KERP, in each case, within
forty-five (45) days following your Termination Date (as defined in the KERP);
- You agree that in the event you become entitled to severance payments under the Gentek Inc. Executive Severance Plan (Plan), any payments you may be entitled
to receive under Plan shall be reduced by the amount of any payments you receive pursuant to this Letter Agreement;
- You agree that your severance multiplier for purposes of Section 4.01(a) of the KERP shall be 1.5;
- You agree that you shall not be entitled to any severance under Section 4.01 of the KERP if you terminate employment due to Disability (as defined in the KERP) or death;
and
- You agree that this Letter Agreement shall supersede any prior letter agreement you have entered into with the Company regarding your right to severance, except for your
right to severance under the Plan.

Please sign below acknowledging your agreement with the foregoing and please do not hesitate to call me with any questions.

Sincerely,

/s/ William E. Redmond, Jr.William E. Redmond, Jr.

Acceptance: /s/ Robert D. NovoRobert D. Novo


---
Kurtis M. WILLIAMS, petitioner, v. Julie L. JONES, Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections.

No. 17-8437.

Supreme Court of the United States

May 14, 2018.

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