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


<ARTICLE>                     5



<S>                                          <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                        3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                   MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                             449,934
<SECURITIES>                                             0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    5,928,193
<ALLOWANCES>                                       434,000
<INVENTORY>                                      2,009,478
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 8,953,433
<PP&E>                                           3,645,112
<DEPRECIATION>                                   1,060,253
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  26,391,101
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           12,456,045
<BONDS>                                          3,627,144
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                    0
<PREFERRED>                                              5
<COMMON>                                             3,730
<OTHER-SE>                                       7,500,177
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    26,391,101
<SALES>                                         14,279,691
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                14,279,691
<CGS>                                           10,915,443
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    3,096,764
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   354,919
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    73,410
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 262,987
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  (348,599)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     (118,000)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              (230,599)
<DISCONTINUED>                                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                          0
<CHANGES>                                                0
<NET-INCOME>                                     (230,599)
<EPS-BASIC>                                         (0.10)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                       (0.10)



</TABLE>
Debra Lynette JOHNSON, petitioner, v. OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH ADMINISTRATION, et al.

No. 16-5694.

Supreme Court of the United States

Nov. 28, 2016.

Petition for rehearing denied.
Eric Kenneth JONES, petitioner, v. Tom McGINLEY, Acting Superintendent, State Correctional Institution at Coal Township, et al.

No. 16-5974.

Supreme Court of the United States

Jan. 9, 2017.

Petition for rehearing denied.
Lawrence SMITH, petitioner, v. Scott SEMPLE, Commissioner, Connecticut Department of Correction.

No. 17-8146.

Supreme Court of the United States

May 14, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit denied.
Gregory Lance HENDERSON, petitioner, v. ALABAMA.

No. 17-7546.

Supreme Court of the United States

March 26, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama denied.
##### 



Exhibit 32.1 Certification of Chief Executive Officer Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, the undersigned officer of T REIT, Inc. (the Company) hereby certifies, to his knowledge,
that: (i) the accompanying Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2004 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
Section 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and (ii) the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the Company. /s/     Jack R. MaurerJack R. MaurerChief Executive Officer and President
 Date: May 13, 2005 A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provide to the
Company and will be retained by the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to
the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request. The foregoing certification is being furnished with the Companys Form 10-K for the period
ended December 31, 2004 pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350. It is not being filed for purposes of
Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and it is not to be incorporated by
reference into any filing of the Company, whether made before or after the date hereof, regardless
of any general information language in such filing.
Tremaine MASON, petitioner, v. ILLINOIS.

No. 17-7275.

Supreme Court of the United States

March 5, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Appellate Court of Illinois, First District denied.
II-00092

From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

Dawna Zeeman <dawnazeeman@earthlink.net>

Monday, December 6, 2010 12:26 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.

Dawna Zeeman

702 Huntley Drive

West Hollywood, CA 90069
In Re Donovan Charles STONER, petitioner.

No. 17-7581.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 2, 2018.

Petition for writ of mandamus denied.
II-01076

From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

Charity Moschopoulos <charity.rome@hotmail.com>

Thursday, December 2, 2010 8:26 AM

dfadefinitions <dfadefinitions@CFTC.gov>

Re: No loopholes in Dodd-Frank

1) Securities and Exchange Commission/Commodities Futures Trading Commission, Re: Commercial Risk (CFTC PIN

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 (PIN 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.

Charity Moschopoulos

3617 Sprucedale Dr

Annandale, VA 22003
# C_2009129EN.01001901.xml

| 6.6.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 129/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.6.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 129/19

---

Action brought on 6 April 2009 — Epcos v OHIM — Epco Sistemas (EPCOS)

(Case T -132/09)

2009/C 129/33

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Epcos AG (Munich, Germany) (represented by: L. von Zumbusch, 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 of OHIM: Epco Sistemas, SL (Constanti, Spain)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of 19 January 2009, R 1088/2008-2; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of 19 January 2009, R 1088/2008-2;

| — | annul Decision No B 979767 of the Opposition Division of 22 May 2008 on the opposition proceedings brought by the opposing party, in so far as the opposition was upheld in respect of the goods ‘NTC-Thermistoren’, ‘PTC-Thermistoren’ and ‘Sensoren’, and reject the opposition in its entirety; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul Decision No B 979767 of the Opposition Division of 22 May 2008 on the opposition proceedings brought by the opposing party, in so far as the opposition was upheld in respect of the goods ‘NTC-Thermistoren’, ‘PTC-Thermistoren’ and ‘Sensoren’, and reject the opposition in its entirety;

| — | order the defendant and the opposing party to pay the costs of the proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant and the opposing party to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant

Applicant for a Community trade mark:

Community trade mark concerned: Figurative mark ‘EPCOS’ for goods in Classes 6 and 9 (application No 4 133 799)

Community trade mark concerned:

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Epco Sistemas, SL

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

Mark or sign cited in opposition: Spanish figurative mark ‘E epco SISTEMAS’ for goods in Class 9

Mark or sign cited in opposition:

Decision of the Opposition Division: Upholding in part of the opposition

Decision of the Opposition Division:

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal

Decision of the Board of Appeal:

Pleas in law: Breach of Article 8(1)(b) and Article 43(2) and (3) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 and Rule 19(3) of Regulation (EC) No 2868/95, (1) since the opposition trade mark has not been used within the five years prior to publication of the trade mark applied for and there is no likelihood of confusion between the two opposing marks.

Pleas in law:

1

---

(1)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 of 13 December 1995 implementing Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 on the Community trade mark (OJ 1995 L 303, p. 1).

1

---
Venus DODSON, petitioner, v. JRL MUSIC, INC., et al.

No. 16-1535.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 2, 2017.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit denied.
In Re Leon TAYLOR, petitioner.

No. 17-5022.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 2, 2017.

Petition for writ of habeas corpus denied.
Andrew U.D. STRAW, petitioner, v. SUPREME COURT OF INDIANA, et al.

No. 17-8426.

Supreme Court of the United States

May 14, 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 Seventh Circuit dismissed. See Rule 39.8.
Commissioner Kristin N. Johnson

Public Calendar

August 1 to August 31, 2022

Monday, August 1, 2022

11:00 am Meeting with Jonah Platt, Citadel

1:00 pm Speaking Event – FIA Greenwood Project Chicago – Zoom Lunch & Learn

3:00 pm Internal meeting

Tuesday, August 2, 2022

11:00 am Internal meeting

3:00 pm Internal meeting

4:30 pm Internal meeting

Thursday, August 4, 2022

9:30 am Internal meeting

10:00 am Meeting with Charlie Thornton, T Cap Solutions; Bryan Corbett and Jen Hann, 

Managed Funds Association 

10:30 am Internal meeting

3:30 pm Meeting with Bill Thum, SIFMA

Friday, August 5, 2022

3:00 pm Meeting with Sam Siegel, Vistra

Monday, August, 8, 2022

10:30 am Meeting with Lucy Hynes, U.S. Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, 

and Forestry

12:45 pm Meeting with Jon Olson, Trumarx

2:30 pm Internal meeting

4:00 pm Meeting with Ben Marshall, Vitol

6:30 pm Meeting with Jamila Piracci, Patomak Global Partners

Tuesday, August 9, 2022

10:00 am Meeting with Ken Medlock, The Baker Institute, Rice University

11:30 am Meeting with Tracy Hester, University of Houston Law Center

1:00 pm Meeting with Donald Bowers, Seth Dunbar, and Jesse Thompson, Federal 

Reserve Bank-Dallas; Gerald Smith, Smith Graham; Federal Reserve BankDallas; Darryl Wilson, The Wilson Collective; Theresa Hollaway, Prosperity 

Bank USA

2:30 pm Internal meeting

Wednesday, August 10, 2022

9:30 am Meeting with Stephen Brown, Climate Imperative Foundation 

12:00 pm Meeting with Cleve Mesidor, The Block Foundation; Joshua Lobert, House 

Agriculture Joi Chaney, National Urban League; Robert Boone, Wilmer Hale; 
Kyle Williams, Coinbase; and Rashan Colbert, Office of Senator Corey 

Booker

4:45 pm Internal meeting

Thursday, August 11, 2022

11:00 am Meeting with Jason Goggins, Fidelity Investments

11:45 am Internal meeting

Friday, August 12, 2022

12:30 pm Internal meeting

Monday, August 15, 2022

4:00 pm Internal meeting

Tuesday, August 16, 2022

9:30 am Call with Chair Gary Gensler, U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission

10:00 am Internal meeting

Wednesday, August 17, 2022

9:00 am Internal meeting

Thursday, August 18, 2022

10:30 am Internal meeting

11:00 am Internal meeting

11:30 am Internal meeting

12:00 pm Meeting with CFTC Commissioner Christy Goldsmith-Romero

Friday, August 19, 2022

3:00 pm Internal meeting

Monday, August 22, 2022

10:00 am Internal meeting

1:30 pm Internal meeting

Monday, August 29, 2022

12:00 pm Internal meeting

3:00 pm Internal meeting

Tuesday, August 30, 2022

3:30 pm Internal meeting

Wednesday, August 31, 2022

10:30 am Internal meeting

11:00 am Internal meeting

12:00 pm Call with Commissioner Caroline Crenshaw, U.S. Securities and Exchange 

Commission
2:00 pm Internal meeting

2:30 pm Internal meeting

5:00 pm Internal meeting
Shane A. KITTERMAN, petitioner, v. Daniel Q. SULLIVAN, Warden.

No. 17-7627.

Supreme Court of the United States

Feb. 26, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit denied.
Margaret BACH, petitioner, v. CIRCUIT COURT OF WISCONSIN, MILWAUKEE COUNTY.

No. 17-7829.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 16, 2018.

Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed *in forma pauperis* denied, and the petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals of Wisconsin, District I dismissed. See Rule 39.8.
**EXHIBIT 31.1****Certification**  I, John D. Doherty, Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer of Central Bancorp,Inc., certify that: 1. I have reviewed this Annual Report on Form 10-K of Central Bancorp, Inc.; 2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report; 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in thisreport; 4. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:     (a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosurecontrols and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is madeknown to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which thisreport is being prepared;     (b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and proceduresand presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosurecontrols and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on suchevaluation; and     (c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (theregistrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materiallyaffected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal controlover financial reporting; and5. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and theaudit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions):     (a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affectthe registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information;and     (b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employeeswho have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.Date: June 23, 2006              /s/ John D. Doherty   John D. Doherty   Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer
**Exhibit 32.1** **CERTIFICATION    OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER**     Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant    to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the    undersigned officer of T REIT, Inc. (the “Company”)    hereby certifies, to his knowledge, that:     (i) the accompanying Annual Report on    Form 10-K/A    of the Company for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2006    (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of    Section 13(a) or Section 15(d), as applicable, of the    Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and     (ii) the information contained in the Report fairly    presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and    results of operations of the Company. /s/  Jack    R. Maurer    Jack R. Maurer
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED JUNE 3, 2016

NO. 03-15-00798-CR

Gerard Montrell Hicks, Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

APPEAL FROM THE 27TH DISTRICT COURT OF BELL COUNTY

BEFORE JUSTICES PURYEAR, GOODWIN, AND FIELD

AFFIRMED -- OPINION BY JUSTICE PURYEAR

This is an appeal from the judgment of conviction rendered by the trial court. Having reviewed 

the record and the parties’ arguments, the Court holds that there was no reversible error in the 

trial court’s judgment. Therefore, the Court affirms the trial court’s judgment of conviction.

Because appellant is indigent and unable to pay costs, no adjudication of costs is made.
# C_2011063EN.01001203.xml

| 26.2.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 63/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.2.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 63/12

---

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 22 December 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Celle (Germany)) — Joseba Andoni Aguirre Zarraga v Simone Pelz

(Case C-491/10 PPU) (1)

1

(Judicial cooperation in civil matters - Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 - Jurisdiction, recognition and enforcement of judgments in matrimonial matters and matters of parental responsibility - Parental responsibility - Rights of custody - Child abduction - Article 42 - Enforcement of a certified judgment ordering the return of a child handed down by a (Spanish) court with jurisdiction - Power of the requested (German) court to refuse enforcement of that judgment in a case of serious infringement of the child’s rights)

2011/C 63/23

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Referring court

Oberlandesgericht Celle

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Joseba Andoni Aguirre Zarraga

Applicant:

Defendant: Simone Pelz

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Oberlandesgericht Celle — Interpretation of Article 42 of Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 of 27 November 2003 concerning jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in matrimonial matters and the matters of parental responsibility, repealing Regulation (EC) No 1347/2000 (OJ 2003 L 338, p. 1) — Abduction of a child — Enforcement of a decision ordering the return of a child taken by a (Spanish) court having jurisdiction — Power of the (German) court responsible for enforcement to refuse to enforce that decision where there has been a serious infringement of the rights of the child

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

In circumstances such as those of the main proceedings, the court with jurisdiction in the Member State of enforcement cannot oppose the enforcement of a certified judgment, ordering the return of a child who has been wrongfully removed, on the ground that the court of the Member State of origin which handed down that judgment may have infringed Article 42 of Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 of 27 November 2003 concerning jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in matrimonial matters and the matters of parental responsibility, repealing Regulation (EC) No 1347/2000, interpreted in accordance with Article 24 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, since the assessment of whether there is such an infringement falls exclusively within the jurisdiction of the courts of the Member State of origin.

---

(1)  OJ C 346, 18.12.2010.

1

---