alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
DYNAMO HOLDINGS LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, et al., petitioners, v. UNITED STATES, et al.

No. 16-358.

Supreme Court of the United States

Jan. 9, 2017.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit denied.
Sody CLEMENTS, et al., petitioners, v. SOUTHWESTERN BELL TELEPHONE COMPANY, dba AT & T Oklahoma, et al.

No. 17-1331.

Supreme Court of the United States

May 21, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Oklahoma denied.
Michael Lee WEIBLE, petitioner, v. CALIFORNIA.

No. 17-7921.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 16, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeal of California, First Appellate District denied.
# C_2011252EN.01000502.xml

| 27.8.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 252/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.8.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 252/5

---

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 30 June 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State van België — Belgium) — Vereniging van Educatieve en Wetenschappelijke Auteurs (VEWA) v Belgische Staat

(Case C-271/10) (1)

1

(Directive 92/100/EEC - Copyright and related rights - Public lending - Remuneration of authors - Adequate income)

2011/C 252/07

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Referring court

Raad van State van België

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Vereniging van Educatieve en Wetenschappelijke Auteurs (VEWA)

Applicant:

Defendant: Belgische Staat

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Raad van State van België — Interpretation of Article 5(1) of Council Directive 92/100/EEC of 19 November 1992 on rental right and lending right and on certain rights related to copyright in the field of intellectual property (OJ 1992 L 346, p. 61) (now Article 6(1) of European Parliament and Council Directive 2006/115/EC of 12 December 2006) — Remuneration of authors in the case of public lending — Sufficient remuneration

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

Article 5(1) of Council Directive 92/100/EEC of 19 November 1992 on rental right and lending right and on certain rights related to copyright in the field of intellectual property precludes legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which establishes a system under which the remuneration payable to authors in the event of public lending is calculated exclusively according to the number of borrowers registered with public establishments, on the basis of a flat-rate amount fixed per borrower and per year.

---

(1)  OJ C 234, 28.8.2010.

1

---
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3863 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 3863

        To deauthorize the New London Harbor Waterfront Channel.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             July 19, 2019

 Mr. Courtney introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
             Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
        To deauthorize the New London Harbor Waterfront Channel.

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

SECTION 1. NEW LONDON HARBOR WATERFRONT CHANNEL, CONNECTICUT.

    (a) In General.--The portion of the project for navigation, New 
London Harbor, Connecticut, 23-foot Waterfront Channel, authorized by 
section 1 of the River and Harbor Act of June 13, 1902 (32 Stat. 333) 
described in subsection (b) is no longer authorized beginning on the 
date of enactment of this Act.
    (b) Area Described.--The area described in this subsection is 
generally the portion of the Federal navigation project lying between 
and around the two piers at State Pier New London, specifically 
described as that area--
            (1) beginning at a point N691970.24, E1180372.61;
            (2) running southeasterly about 47.69 feet to a point 
        N691951.68, E1180416.54;
            (3) running southeasterly about 948.57 feet to a point 
        N691179.20, E1180967.05;
            (4) running northeasterly about 304.20 feet to a point 
        N691263.78, E1181259.26;
            (5) running northwesterly about 955.59 feet to a point 
        N692046.26, E1180710.74;
            (6) running northeasterly about 100.00 feet to a point 
        N692103.66, E1180792.62;
            (7) running southeasterly about 989.80 feet to a point 
        N691293.17, E1181360.78;
            (8) running southeasterly about 93.23 feet to a point 
        N691216.82, E1181414.30;
            (9) running southwesterly about 411.08 feet to a point 
        N690982.28, E1181076.69;
            (10) running northwesterly about 198.95 feet to a point 
        N691144.29, E1180961.23; and
            (11) running northwesterly about 1014.23 feet to the point 
        described in paragraph (1).
                                 <all>
```
In Re Edwin CULP, petitioner.

No. 17-5065.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 2, 2017.

Petition for writ of mandamus denied.
**Exhibit 99.6**

 

[Cadwalader Wickersham & Taft Letterhead]

 

July 30, 2004

 

Robert J. Moore, Esq.

Milbank, Tweed, Hadley &McCloy LLP

601 South Figueroa – 30thFloor

Los Angeles, California  90017

 

 

Re:  American Restaurant Group, Inc.

 

Dear Bob:

 

We are counsel to certain ofthe beneficial owners of the 111⁄2% Senior Secured Notes due 2006 (the “SecuredNotes”) issued by American Restaurant Group, Inc. (the “Company”),including:  (i) Credit Suisse FirstBoston International; (ii) QVT Financial LP; (iii) Third Point ManagementCompany L.L.C.; (iv) Northeast Investors; (v) Aragorn Capital, L.P.;(vi) Stanfield Capital Partners LLC; (vii) Delaware Investments; (viii)JMB Capital Partners; and (ix) Lonestar Capital Management, LLC (collectively,the “Holders”).  In the aggregate, theHolders currently beneficially own in excess of 61% of the outstandingprincipal amount of the Secured Notes.

 

Reference is made to theForbearance Agreement, dated June 1, 2004, by and among the Company, itssubsidiaries, and certain beneficial owners of the Secured Notes (the“Forbearance Agreement”).  TheForbearance Agreement expires by its terms at 10:00 a.m. (Pacific Time) on July31, 2004.

 

This letter will confirm thatthe Holders agree to forbear from exercising any remedies with respect tocertain existing events of default under the indenture pursuant to which theSecured Notes were issued until 10:00 a.m. (Pacific Time) on August 8,2004.  The terms and conditions of theforbearance described in the preceding sentence shall be identical to thoseterms and conditions set forth in the Forbearance Agreement.

 
| Sincerely,               |
|--------------------------|
|                     |
|                     |
| Gregory M.  Petrick      |
| Mr. Robert               |
|                     |
|                     |
| cc:  Patrick Kelvie |

 

----
Exhibit 32.2



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


        In connection with the Annual Report of RPM Advantage Inc.
(the "Company") on Form 10-KSB for the period ended December 31, 2006
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
(the "Report"), I, David R. Presler, Secretary, Treasurer and Chief
Financial Officer, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

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


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

Date: July 15, 2011




/s/ DAVID R. PRESSLER





David R. Pressler
Chief Financial Officer
# C_2009141EN.01003102.xml

| 20.6.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 141/31 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.6.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 141/31

---

Action brought on 3 April 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg

(Case C-126/09)

2009/C 141/54

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: N. Yerrell, acting as Agent)

Applicant:

Defendant: Grand Duchy of Luxembourg

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | Declare that, by failing to adopt all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2003/59/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 July 2003 on the initial qualification and periodic training of drivers of certain road vehicles for the carriage of goods or passengers, amending Council Regulation (EEC) No 3820/85 and Council Directive 91/439/EEC and repealing Council Directive 76/914/EEC (1) or, in any event, by failing to notify those provisions to the Commission, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive; |
| --- | --- |

—

Declare that, by failing to adopt all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2003/59/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 July 2003 on the initial qualification and periodic training of drivers of certain road vehicles for the carriage of goods or passengers, amending Council Regulation (EEC) No 3820/85 and Council Directive 91/439/EEC and repealing Council Directive 76/914/EEC (1) or, in any event, by failing to notify those provisions to the Commission, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

1

| — | order the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

The period prescribed for transposition of Directive 2003/59/EC expired on 9 September 2006. At the time the present action was brought, the defendant had still not adopted all the measures necessary to transpose the directive or, in any event, had not notified those measures to the Commission.

---

(1)  OJ 2003 L 226, p. 4.

1

---
II-00424

From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

Lisa epperly <mslisarainier@earthlink.net>

Thursday, December 2, 2010 8:09 PM

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.

Lisa epperly

4537 haig

portland, OR 97206
---

Exhibit 10.5

SECOND AMENDMENT to the 
Employment Agreement executed September 16, 1999 between Jack Cobb and Eagle Pacific Industries, Inc.

THIS
AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT is entered into effective as of August 20, 2001, by and between Jack Cobb (the Employee) and PW Eagle, Inc., f/k/a Eagle Pacific Industries, Inc. (Eagle).

WITNESSETH:

WHEREAS, Employee and Eagle are parties to that certain Employment Agreement
executed September 16, 1999, as amended December 15, 1999 (the Agreement).

WHEREAS, the parties mutually desire
to amend the Agreement effective August 20, 2001 to take into account the resolutions adopted by Eagles Board of Directors at its meeting on such date.

NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises and mutual agreements hereinafter contained, and for other good and valuable consideration, the parties agree as
follows:

1.         The term of the Agreement as referenced in Section 1 shall
be through December 31, 2004.

2.         Except as amended herein, the
Agreement shall remain in full force and effect.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Amendment to
Employment Agreement effective as of the date first written above.

|PW EAGLE, INC.         |                 
|---------------------- | ----------------
|(the Company)        |                 
|                       |                 
|                       |                 
|By:  /s/ Larry Fleming | /s/ Jack Cobb   
|Its:  President        | (the Employee)

|                             
|-----------------------------
|                             
|[RETURN TO TABLE OF CONTENTS]
|
Richard Douglas HACKFORD, petitioner, v. UTAH, et al.

No. 17-44.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 2, 2017.

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

Justice GORSUCH took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.
Alex ROBLES, petitioner, v. NEW JERSEY.

No. 16-9595.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 2, 2017.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division denied.
II-01045

From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

Vic Burton <cvburton@swbell.net>

Thursday, December 2, 2010 8:49 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.

Vic Burton

5837 Grand Ave.

Kansas City, MO 64113
Laith G. COX, Petitioner v. UNITED STATES

Courtney A. Craig, Petitioner v. United States

Andrew K. Lewis, Petitioner v. United States

Ian T. Miller, Petitioner v. United States

Joseph D. Morchinek, Petitioner v. United States

Kelvin L. O'Shaughnessy, Petitioner v. United States.

No. 16-1017.

Supreme Court of the United States

June 22, 2018.

Brian L. Mizer, Johnathan D. Legg, Lauren-Ann L. Shure, Appellate Defense Counsel, Air Force Legal Ops. Agency, Joint Base Andrews, MD, Eugene R. Fidell, New Haven, CT, Stephen I. Vladeck, Austin, TX, Mary J. Bradley, Christopher D. Carrier, Defense Appellate Division, Army Legal Services Agency, Fort Belvoir, VA, for Petitioners.

Noel J. Francisco, Solicitor General, Dana J. Boente, Acting Assistant Attorney General, Edwin S. Kneedler, Deputy Solicitor General, Brian H. Fletcher, Assistant to the Solicitor General, Joseph F. Palmer, Danielle S. Tarin, Attorneys, Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.

PER CURIAM.

The writ of certiorari is dismissed as improvidently granted.

*It is so ordered* .
Jimmy Allen ROBERTS, petitioner, v. Erik A. HOOKS, Secretary, North Carolina Department of Public Safety, et al.

No. 17-8089.

Supreme Court of the United States

May 14, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied.
**EXHIBIT 32.1**

**CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER**

          I, Douglas M. Pasquale, Chief Executive Officer of ARV Assisted Living, Inc., Managing General Partner of American Retirement Villas Properties III (the“Registrant”), do hereby certify in accordance with 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge:

|   | (a)    | the Registrant’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2003, which this certification accompanies, fully complies with the requirements ofsection 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and                      |
|--------|--------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   |   |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               |
|   | (b)    | the information contained in the Registrant’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2003, which this certification accompanies, fairly presents, in allmaterial aspects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Registrant. |

 

| /s/ DOUGLAS M. PASQUALE                                                                                  |   |
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
|                                                                                                          |   |
| **Douglas M. Pasquale  Chief Executive Officer of  ARV Assisted Living, Inc.  Managing General Partner** |   |
| **August 14, 2003**                                                                                      |   |

The foregoing certification accompanied the Form 10-Q filing pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350.  It isbeing reproduced herein for information only.  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 Registrant, whether madebefore or after hereof, regardless of any general incorporation language in such filing.  A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Registrant and will be retained by the Registrant andfurnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
# C_2010234EN.01005403.xml

| 28.8.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 234/54 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.8.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 234/54

---

Order of the General Court of 30 June 2010 — Centraal bureau voor de statistiek v Commission

(Case T-361/09) (1)

1

()

2010/C 234/97

Language of the case: Dutch

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

---

(1)  OJ C 282, 21.11.2009.

1

---
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE>           5
<LEGEND>
                    The Schedule contains summary financial
                    information extracted from the financial
                    statements for P-B Capital Return Futures
                    Fund 2, L.P. and is qualified in its entirety
                    by reference to such financial statements
</LEGEND>

<RESTATED>
<CIK>               0000851786
<NAME>              P-B Capital Return Futures Fund 2, L.P.
<MULTIPLIER>        1

<FISCAL-YEAR-END>               Dec-31-1999

<PERIOD-START>                  Jan-1-1999

<PERIOD-END>                    Jun-30-1999

<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-Mos

<CASH>                          5,600,157

<SECURITIES>                    17,814,450

<RECEIVABLES>                   0

<ALLOWANCES>                    0

<INVENTORY>                     0

<CURRENT-ASSETS>                23,414,607

<PP&E>                          0

<DEPRECIATION>                  0

<TOTAL-ASSETS>                  23,414,607

<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>           1,392,202

<BONDS>                         0

<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>           0

<PREFERRED>                     0

<COMMON>                        0

<OTHER-SE>                      22,022,405

<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>    23,414,607

<SALES>                         0

<TOTAL-REVENUES>                1,649,147

<CGS>                           0

<TOTAL-COSTS>                   0

<OTHER-EXPENSES>                1,391,070

<LOSS-PROVISION>                0

<INTEREST-EXPENSE>              0

<INCOME-PRETAX>                 0

<INCOME-TAX>                    0

<INCOME-CONTINUING>             0

<DISCONTINUED>                  0

<EXTRAORDINARY>                 0

<CHANGES>                       0

<NET-INCOME>                    258,077

<EPS-BASIC>                   2.64

<EPS-DILUTED>                   0

</TABLE>