alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Robert A. RUCHO, et al., appellants, v. COMMON CAUSE, et al.

No. 17-1295.

Supreme Court of the United States

June 25, 2018.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina. Judgment vacated, and case remanded to the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina for further consideration in light of *Gill v. Whitford,* 585 U.S. ----, 138 S.Ct. 1916, --- L.Ed.2d ---- (2018).
Dennis BALK, petitioner, v. NEW YORK INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY.

No. 17-140.

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.
***EXHIBIT
        32.2***
 
 
 
 **CERTIFICATION
        OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER**
 **PURSUANT
        TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350 AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**
 **SECTION
        906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**
  I,
        Andrew
        Kaplan, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant
        to
        Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the annual report on
        Form
        10-K of Audible Inc. for the year ended December 31, 2005 fully complies
        with
        the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act
        of
        1934 and that information contained in such report fairly presents, in all
        material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Audible,
        Inc.
 
 A
        signed
        original of this written statement has been provided to the Company and will
        be
        retained by the Company and furnished to the SEC or its staff upon request.
  
 March
                  31, 2006
              
              By:
              
              /s/
                  Andrew KaplanAndrew
                  KaplanChief
                  Financial Officer
Christopher Lamont TARRIO, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 17-7589.

Supreme Court of the United States

May 21, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied.
Barbara BROHL, Executive Director, Colorado Department of Revenue, petitioner, v. DIRECT MARKETING ASSOCIATION.

No. 16-458.

Supreme Court of the United States

Dec. 12, 2016.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit denied.
# C_2012032EN.01000802.xml

| 4.2.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 32/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.2.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 32/8

---

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 8 December 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Netherlands) — Residex Capital IV CV v Gemeente Rotterdam

(Case C-275/10) (1)

1

(Article 88(3) EC - State aid - Aid granted in the form of a guarantee to a lender for the purpose of enabling the latter to grant a loan to a borrower - Infringement of procedural rules - Obligation to recover - Nullity - Powers of the national court)

2012/C 32/13

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Referring court

Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Residex Capital IV CV

Applicant:

Defendant: Gemeente Rotterdam

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — State aid — Interpretation of Art. 108(3) TFEU — Aid granted in the form of a guarantee to a lender, enabling it to grant a loan to a borrower — Infringement of procedural rules — Jurisdiction of the national courts

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The last sentence of Article 88(3) EC must be interpreted as meaning that the national courts have jurisdiction to cancel a guarantee in a situation such as that in the main proceedings, in which unlawful aid was implemented by means of a guarantee provided by a public authority in order to cover a loan granted by a finance company to an undertaking which would not have been able to secure such financing under normal market conditions. When exercising that jurisdiction, those courts are required to ensure that the aid is recovered and, to that end, they can cancel the guarantee, in particular where, in the absence of less onerous procedural measures, that cancellation is such as to lead to or facilitate the restoration of the competitive situation which existed before that guarantee was provided.

---

(1)  OJ C 246, 11.9.2010.

1

---
Anthony C. WILLOUGHBY, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 17-8233.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 30, 2018.

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



Exhibit 31.2 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 I, Paul B. (Pete) Pheffer, certify that:  1.
    
    I have reviewed this report on Form 10-Q of Standard Management Corporation;2.
    
    Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement
of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the
statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements
were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this
report;3.
    
    Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this report, fairly present in all material
respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of
the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;4.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as
defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant
and have:  a)
    
    designed such disclosure controls and procedures or
caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed
under our supervision, to ensure that material information
relating to the registrant, including its consolidated
subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities,
particularly during the period in which this report is being
prepared;b)
    
    evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants
disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report
our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls
and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report
based on such evaluation; andc)
    
    disclosed in this report any change in the registrants
internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the
registrants most recent fiscal quarter (the registrants fourth
fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has
materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect,
the registrants internal control over financial reporting; and  5.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on
our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting,
to the registrants auditors and the audit committee of registrants board
of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):  a)
    
    all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in
the design or operation of internal controls over financial
reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the
registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report
financial information; andb)
    
    any fraud, whether or not material, that involves
management or other employees who have a significant role in the
registrants internal control over financial reporting. Date: November 12, 2004 /s/ Paul B. (Pete) PhefferPaul B. (Pete) PhefferPresident and Chief Financial Officer
ROOSEVELT W., et ux., petitioners, v. LOS ANGELES COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES.

No. 17-7973.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 30, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeal of California, Second Appellate District denied.
Michael COLLINS, petitioner, v. VILLAGE OF PALATINE, ILLINOIS.

No. 17-1440.

Supreme Court of the United States

May 14, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit denied.
<PAGE>   1

                                                                    Exhibit 10.3

[Inprise Letterhead]

May 30, 2000

Mr. Frederick A. Ball
[ADDRESS INTENTIONALLY OMITTED]

Dear Fred,

         On behalf of Inprise Corporation, I am very pleased to report that as a
result of your extraordinary efforts, the Board has approved an increase to your
base salary and annual bonus opportunity. In addition, the Board has approved a
special bonus payment to be made to you. The details of these increases and the
special bonus are described below.

-        BASE SALARY. Effective as of May 22, 2000, your base salary will
         increase from $300,000 to $350,000 per year ($13,461.54 bi-weekly),
         payable at the same frequency as payroll is distributed to other
         Inprise employees.

-        BONUS. Commencing with Inprise's current fiscal year, you shall be
         eligible to receive an annual bonus of up to seventy percent 70(%) of
         your base salary. Fifty percent 50(%) of the bonus opportunity will be
         based upon your achievement of personal management goals to be
         established jointly by you and the Chief Executive Officer, and the
         remaining fifty percent 50(%) of the bonus opportunity will be based
         upon your achievement of corporate goals established by the
         Organization and Compensation Committee for all senior officers of
         Inprise.

-        SPECIAL RECOGNITION BONUS. The Board has approved payment to you of a
         special bonus in the amount of $250,000 to reflect your extraordinary
         performance over the past eight months. This sum will be paid to you
         within 10 days following the date of this letter and will be payable in
         full satisfaction of your bonus entitlement under the Management by
         Objective Bonus as described in your offer letter of employment, dated
         September 16, 1999 (the "Offer Letter").

                  Other than as expressly modified above, all of the other terms
         and conditions of your employment with Inprise, including those set
         forth in the Offer Letter, will remain unchanged.

                  We look forward to continuing our excellent working
         relationship with you. Please review, sign and return copy of this
         letter to me.


         Sincerely,

         INPRISE CORPORATION

<PAGE>   2

         /s/ Dale Fuller
         -------------------------------
         Dale Fuller
         Interim President & Chief Executive Officer

         AGREED AND ACCEPTED

        /s/ Frederick A. Ball
        ---------------------------------
        Frederick A. Ball

        Dated this 30th day of May, 2000
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
     2nd Quarter 1999 10Q
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                         0000853086
<NAME>                        Textainer Equipment Income Fund II
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000
<CURRENCY>                                     US Dollars

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-1-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                   JUN-30-1999
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                1
<CASH>                                         1,347
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  3,315
<ALLOWANCES>                                   383
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               5
<PP&E>                                         52,092
<DEPRECIATION>                                 20,646
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 35,730
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          1,028
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       0
<OTHER-SE>                                     34,702
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   35,730
<SALES>                                        0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               4,064
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  3,789
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               123
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                152
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            0
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   152
<EPS-BASIC>                                  0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  0



</TABLE>
Exhibit 32.1



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

I, M. L. (Chip) Fontenot, as President and Chief Executive Officer of WestPoint Stevens Inc. (the "Company"), certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.ss. 1350, as adopted by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:

(1) the accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2003, as filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (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.

Dated  November 14, 2003

/s/ M. L. Fontenot                                                                          M. L. (Chip) Fontenot
                                                                          President and Chief Executive 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.
<PAGE>
 
                                                                      EXHIBIT 11
 
                               ETEC SYSTEMS, INC.
 
            COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER COMMON SHARE AND EQUIVALENTS
 
                    (IN THOUSANDS, EXCEPT PER SHARE AMOUNTS)
 
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                           THREE MONTHS ENDED  SIX MONTHS ENDED
                                               JANUARY 31,        JANUARY 31,
                                           ------------------- -----------------
                                             1997      1996      1997     1996
                                           --------- --------- -------- --------
<S>                                        <C>       <C>       <C>      <C>
Weighted average common shares
 outstanding.............................     20,560    17,047  20, 140   14,980
Weighted average common stock equivalents
 calculated by the treasury stock method
 applied to options and warrants issued..      1,246     1,822    1,322    1,879
                                           --------- --------- -------- --------
Weighted average common shares and
 equivalents.............................     21,806    18,869   21,462   16,859
                                           ========= ========= ======== ========
Net income...............................  $   7,586 $   3,488 $ 14,570 $  6,150
                                           ========= ========= ======== ========
Net income per share.....................  $    0.35 $    0.18 $   0.68 $   0.36
                                           ========= ========= ======== ========
</TABLE>
# C_2011298EN.01000901.xml

| 8.10.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 298/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.10.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 298/9

---

Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 28 July 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Austria)) — Agrana Zucker GmbH v Bundesminister für Land- und Forstwirtschaft, Umwelt und Wasserwirtschaft

(Case C-309/10) (1)

1

(Sugar - Temporary scheme for the restructuring of the sugar industry in the European Community - Regulation (EC) No 320/2006 - Article 11 - Revenue surplus in the restructuring fund - Assignment to the EAGF - Principle of conferral and principle of proportionality - Obligation to state reasons - Unjust enrichment)

2011/C 298/15

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Referring court

Verwaltungsgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Agrana Zucker GmbH

Applicant:

Defendant: Bundesminister für Land- und Forstwirtschaft, Umwelt und Wasserwirtschaft

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Verwaltungsgerichtshof — Interpretation of Article 11 of Council Regulation (EC) No 320/2006 of 20 February 2006 establishing a temporary scheme for the restructuring of the sugar industry in the Community and amending Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005 on the financing of the common agricultural policy (OJ 2006 L 58, p. 42) — Levying of a temporary restructuring amount in a situation in which the temporary restructuring fund shows a considerable surplus and there appears to be no prospect of an increase in financing requirements — Equivalent to introduction of a general tax — Infringement of the principle of conferred powers

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | Article 11 of Council Regulation (EC) No 320/2006 of 20 February 2006 establishing a temporary scheme for the restructuring of the sugar industry in the Community and amending Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005 on the financing of the common agricultural policy is to be interpreted as meaning that the temporary amount must be raised in full, even if there were to be a revenue surplus in the temporary restructuring fund. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Article 11 of Council Regulation (EC) No 320/2006 of 20 February 2006 establishing a temporary scheme for the restructuring of the sugar industry in the Community and amending Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005 on the financing of the common agricultural policy is to be interpreted as meaning that the temporary amount must be raised in full, even if there were to be a revenue surplus in the temporary restructuring fund.

| 2. | The examination of the second question referred for a preliminary ruling has not revealed anything which might affect the validity of Article 11 of Regulation No 320/2006. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The examination of the second question referred for a preliminary ruling has not revealed anything which might affect the validity of Article 11 of Regulation No 320/2006.

---

(1)  OJ C 260, 25.9.2010.

1

---
William SCHISLER, Sr., petitioner, v. Mark DOMENICO, et al.

No. 17-5203.

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.
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, James P. Henderson, 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
DENY and Opinion Filed June 7, 2021 

S 

In The 

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-21-00150-CV 

IN RE TONY LAMAR VANN, Relator 

Original Proceeding from the 193rd Judicial District Court 

Dallas County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause No. DC-20-09117 

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

Before Justices Molberg, Reichek, and Smith 

Opinion by Justice Smith 

In this pro se petition for writ of mandamus, relator Tony Lamar Vann 

petitions the Court for a writ of mandamus compelling the trial court to (1) void its 

order denying relator’s motion to reinstate, (2) recuse from this proceeding, and (3) 

reinstate this case to the trial court’s active docket. To be entitled to the 

extraordinary remedy of mandamus, relator must show both that the trial court has 

clearly abused its discretion and that relator has no adequate appellate remedy. In re 

Prudential Ins. Co., 148 S.W.3d 124, 135–36 (Tex. 2004) (orig. proceeding). This 

burden includes providing the appellate court with a record sufficient to make that 

showing. See Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 837 (Tex. 1992). After reviewing 

the petition and record, we conclude relator has failed to show an abuse of discretion. 
 –2– 

Accordingly, we deny mandamus relief. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(a). 

210150F.P05 

/Craig Smith/

CRAIG SMITH 

JUSTICE
Exhibit 32.1
 Certification of Chief Executive Officer, Pursuant to
18 U.S.C. Section 1350,
As Adopted Pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
  (1)
    
    the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934; and(2)
    
    the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition of the Company at the end of the period covered by the Report and
results of operations of the Company for the period covered by the Report.
 /s/ TOD NIELSEN

Tod NielsenChief Executive Officer
Robert Leo RUSSELL, petitioner, v. Julie L. JONES, Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections, et al.

No. 17M101.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 16, 2018.

Motion to direct the Clerk to file a petition for writ of certiorari out of time under Rule 14.5 denied.