alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
## IN THE COU RT O F CR IM IN AL AP PE ALS OF TE XAS
N O . A P - 75, 925

EX PA R TE JEFF R EY EU G EN E R O BINSO N , A ppl i c ant

ON AP P LI CAT I ON F OR A W RI T OF HABE AS CORP US CAUS E N O. 2 0 0 6 - 1 2 2 1 - C2 I N T HE 5 4 t h DI S TR I CT COURT

FROM M c LENNAN CO UNTY

P er cur i am . O P I N I O N Pursuant to the provisions of Article 11.07 of the Texas Code of Crim i n al P ro ce dure, the cler k of the trial court transmitted to this Court this application for writ of habe as cor

pus. Ex pa rte Y oung , 41 8 S.W. 2d 82 4, 82 6 (T e x. Cr im. Ap p. 19 67 ). Ap pli c ant wa s c onvic te d of dr iving whi le intox icated

and sente nced to eig hty ear s’ imprisonment. He did not appeal his conviction. Applicant conte nds, inte r a lia , that his plea was rende red involuntary due to the ineffe ctive
a ssi sta nc e of his c ouns e l. S pe c if

ic a lly , App lic ant co nte nd s th at c ouns e l im pr op e rl y a dv ise d h im t o plead guilty

in exchang e for

an eight y ear

sentenc e whe n one of his prior drivingwhile intox icated offe nses listed for purpose s of elevating the punishment rang e was not a final conviction as de finedTh e Ap pli c ant’ s p le a a g re e me nt r e a ds a s f

oll ow s: 1 8 YEARS I

N THE TEX AS DEPARTMENT OF CRI MI NAL J USTI CE, I NSTI TUTI ONAL

DIVI SI ON, AND A FI L E OF $0.00, THE STATE NE I TH ER O PPO SES N OR REC OM MEND S TH AT TH E CO UR T GR AN T PR OB AT I ONI

N T HI S MA TT ER. under Sec tion 49.09(d) of the Te x as Penal Code. 1 Th e tr ia l c ourt

ha s d e te rm ine d, ba se d u po n th e re c or d, that App lic ant d id p le a d guil ty in exchang e for

an eight y ear

sentenc e whe n one of his prior driving while intox icated of fense s listed for pur poses of e levatingthe p u n i s h m ent rang e wa s not a final convic tion. The rec ord fur ther ref lects that there wer e no other prior driving while intox icated offe nses available which we re not listed on the indictment. Applicant is entitled to relief
. Ex pa rteHu erta , 6 9 2 S. W. 2 d 6 8 1 ( T e x. Crim. App. 1985). Relief is g rante d. The judg ment in Cause No. 2006-1221-C2 in the 54thJ udicial District Court of McL ennan

County is se t a side, and Applica nt is remanded to the custody of the sher iff of Mc L e nn an Co un ty

to a ns we r t he c ha rg e s a s se t out in

the ind ic tme nt. Copies of this opinion s hall b e s e nt t o th e T e xa s D e p a r tment of Criminal J ustice–Corre ctional Institut ions Division and Parole Division.

Deliver ed: J une 4, 2008 Do No t Pu

bli sh
Kevin QUINN, et al., petitioners, v. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS FOR QUEEN ANNE'S COUNTY, MARYLAND, et al.

No. 17-945.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 23, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied.
# L_2008257EN.01002901.xml

| 25.9.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 257/29 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.9.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 257/29

---

DECISION OF THE EEA JOINT COMMITTEE

No 66/2008

of 6 June 2008

amending Annex IX (Financial services) to the EEA Agreement

THE EEA JOINT COMMITTEE,

Having regard to the Agreement on the European Economic Area, as amended by the Protocol adjusting the Agreement on the European Economic Area, hereinafter referred to as ‘the Agreement’, and in particular Article 98 thereof,

Whereas:

| (1) | Annex IX to the Agreement was amended by Decision of the EEA Joint Committee No 51/2008 of 25 April 2008 (1). |
| --- | --- |

(1)

Annex IX to the Agreement was amended by Decision of the EEA Joint Committee No 51/2008 of 25 April 2008 (1).

| (2) | Commission Directive 2007/18/EC of 27 March 2007 amending Directive 2006/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards the exclusion or inclusion of certain institutions from its scope of application and the treatment of exposures to multilateral development banks (2) is to be incorporated into the Agreement, |
| --- | --- |

(2)

Commission Directive 2007/18/EC of 27 March 2007 amending Directive 2006/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards the exclusion or inclusion of certain institutions from its scope of application and the treatment of exposures to multilateral development banks (2) is to be incorporated into the Agreement,

HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:

Article 1

The following shall be added in point 14 (Directive 2006/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council) of Annex IX to the Agreement:

‘, as amended by:

| — | 32007 L 0018: Commission Directive 2007/18/EC of 27 March 2007 (OJ L 87, 28.3.2007, p. 9).’ |
| --- | --- |

—

32007 L 0018: Commission Directive 2007/18/EC of 27 March 2007 (OJ L 87, 28.3.2007, p. 9).’

Article 2

The texts of Directive 2007/18/EC in the Icelandic and Norwegian languages, to be published in the EEA Supplement to the Official Journal of the European Union, shall be authentic.

Article 3

This Decision shall enter into force on 7 June 2008 provided that all the notifications under Article 103(1) of the Agreement have been made to the EEA Joint Committee (*1), or on the day of entry into force of Decision of the EEA Joint Committee No 65/2008 of 6 June 2008, whichever is the later.

Article 4

This Decision shall be published in the EEA Section of, and in the EEA Supplement to, the Official Journal of the European Union.

Done at Brussels, 6 June 2008.

For the EEA Joint Committee

The President

Alan SEATTER

---

(1)  
  OJ L 223, 21.8.2008, p. 49.

1

(2)  
  OJ L 87, 28.3.2007, p. 9.

2

(*1)  No constitutional requirements indicated.

*1

---
**EXHIBIT 31.2**
 CERTIFICATION
 
 I, Andrew Kaplan, certify that:
 
 1.  I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of Audible, Inc.;
 
 2.  Based on my knowledge, this annual 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 annual report;
 
 3.  Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this annual 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 annual 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; and
 
 c)  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 reasonable 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 the registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent function):
 
 a)  A ll significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal controls which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and
 
 b)  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
 
 March 24, 2004

By:

/s/ Andrew KaplanName: Andrew KaplanTitle: Executive Vice President, Chief Financial Officer and Director (Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF INTERSTATE LAND INVESTORS II L.P. FOR THE NINE MONTHS
ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 1999 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                           1,262
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                       6,534,310
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               6,572,799
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          208,218
<BONDS>                                        175,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                   6,189,581
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 6,572,799
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                    80
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                14,791
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              13,560
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (28,271)
<EPS-BASIC>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
James Keith BEIERLE, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 17-8762.

Supreme Court of the United States

June 4, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit denied.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-1649 CHRISTOPHER LANGDON, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus
ED GARNER, JR.; STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA; ROY COOPER; T. L. MALONEE; PHILLIP JACKSON; BERNADINE BALLANCE; NORTH CAROLINA INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, Chief District Judge. (CA-01-746-5-BO; CA-01-816-5-BO; CA-01-906-5-BO) Submitted: December 29, 2003 Decided: February 10, 2004 Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Christopher Langdon, Appellant Pro Se. Adrian Phillips, NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Robert Orr Crawford, III, Lisa Carol Glover, NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).- 2 - PER CURIAM: Christopher Langdon appeals from the district court’s order imposing a prefiling injunction. Our review of the record discloses no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Langdon v. Garner , Nos. CA-01-746-5-BO, CA-01-816-5-BO, CA-01-906-5-BO (E.D.N.C. Apr. 17, 2003). We grant Langdon’s motion to amend his informal brief, deny his motion for stay pending appeal, deny Langdon’s motions for an extension to file a response, for appointment of counsel and oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
Electronically Filed

Intermediate Court of Appeals

CAAP-16-0000070

15-FEB-2019

01:44 PM
# L_2005339EN.01002801.xml

| 22.12.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 339/28 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.12.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 339/28

---

DECISION OF THE EEA JOINT COMMITTEE

No 121/2005

of 30 September 2005

amending Annex XIII (Transport) to the EEA Agreement

THE EEA JOINT COMMITTEE,

Having regard to the Agreement on the European Economic Area, as amended by the Protocol adjusting the Agreement on the European Economic Area, hereinafter referred to as ‘the Agreement’, and in particular Article 98 thereof,

Whereas:

| (1) | Annex XIII to the Agreement was amended by Decision of the EEA Joint Committee No 107/2005 of 8 July 2005 (1). |
| --- | --- |

(1)

Annex XIII to the Agreement was amended by Decision of the EEA Joint Committee No 107/2005 of 8 July 2005 (1).

| (2) | Commission Directive 2005/12/EC of 18 February 2005 amending Annexes I and II to Directive 2003/25/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on specific stability requirements for ro-ro passenger ships (2) is to be incorporated into the Agreement, |
| --- | --- |

(2)

Commission Directive 2005/12/EC of 18 February 2005 amending Annexes I and II to Directive 2003/25/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on specific stability requirements for ro-ro passenger ships (2) is to be incorporated into the Agreement,

HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:

Article 1

The following shall be added in point 56cb (Directive 2003/25/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council) of Annex XIII to the Agreement:

‘, as amended by:

| — | 32005 L 0012: Commission Directive 2005/12/EC of 18 February 2005 (OJ L 48, 19.2.2005, p. 19).’ |
| --- | --- |

—

32005 L 0012: Commission Directive 2005/12/EC of 18 February 2005 (OJ L 48, 19.2.2005, p. 19).’

Article 2

The text of Directive 2005/12/EC in the Icelandic and Norwegian languages, to be published in the EEA Supplement to the Official Journal of the European Union, shall be authentic.

Article 3

This Decision shall enter into force on 1 October 2005, provided that all the notifications under Article 103(1) of the Agreement have been made to the EEA Joint Committee (*1).

Article 4

This Decision shall be published in the EEA Section of, and in the EEA Supplement to, the Official Journal of the European Union.

Done at Brussels, 30 September 2005.

For the EEA Joint Committee

The President

HSH Prinz Nikolaus von LIECHTENSTEIN

---

(1)  
  OJ L 306, 24.11.2005, p. 45.

1

(2)  
  OJ L 48, 19.2.2005, p. 19.

2

(*1)  No constitutional requirements indicated.

*1

---
# Fourth Court of Appeals San Antonio, Texas January 3, 2023 No. 04-22-00867-CR Santos REINA , Appellant

v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee From the 25th Judicial District Court, Guadalupe County, Texas

Trial Court No. 19-1069-CR-B Honorable William D. Old III, Judge Presiding



### O R D E R Appellant Santos Reina filed a motion seeking access to a portion of the record that is sealed. The motion is GRANTED. The Clerk of this court is instructed to provide a copy of the sealed record to appellant’s attorney. All parties and their attorneys are ORDERED not to share the contents of the sealed record with any person except to the extent necessary to prepare their respective briefs. In the event the parties reference the sealed record in their respective briefs, they are ORDERED to comply with the following procedure:

1. The party filing the brief must file the brief in paper form only, with a cover letter informing the Clerk of this court that the brief references the sealed record. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 9.2(c)(3) (exception to electronic filing for documents under seal). 2. Concurrently, the party must file a notice stating whether the brief discloses protected information and where in the brief such information is disclosed. 3. Within seven days after the brief is filed, the opposing party may file a notice stating whether the brief discloses protected information and where in the brief such information is disclosed. 4. After receiving the notice or notices, this court will determine whether the brief or a portion of the brief will remain filed under seal. This court mayorder a party to file a redacted brief or order other measures less restrictive than

the sealing of the entire brief.

_________________________________ Lori I. Valenzuela, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said court on this 3rd day of January, 2023.

___________________________________ MICHAEL A. CRUZ, Clerk of Court
Release #4229-99 (CFTC Docket # 99-5)

For Release: January 12, 1999

CFTC FINDS THAT THE ANDERSONS, INC. OF MAUMEE, OHIO, OFFERED TO ENTER
    AND ENTERED INTO ILLEGAL FUTURES AND OPTION CONTRACTS; CFTC Order Accepting
    Settlement Offer Finds Convertible HTA Contracts and Option Features
    Contracts Violated the Commodity Exchange Act

WASHINGTON � The Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC)
    announced today that it issued an
    order instituting proceedings and simultaneously accepting an offer of
    settlement from The Andersons, Inc. (Andersons), an Ohio corporation
    headquartered in Maumee, Ohio, finding that Andersons offered to enter into
    and entered into illegal futures and option contracts in violation of
    sections 4(a) and 4c(b) of the Commodity Exchange Act (CEA) and CFTC
    regulation 32.2. Andersons operates 14 grain elevators in Ohio, Indiana,
    Michigan, and Illinois.

The CFTC's order, issued on January 12, 1999, finds that from
    January 1, 1994, through December 31, 1995, Andersons' commercial
    grain marketing program included Convertible Hedge to Arrive (HTA)
    contracts that constituted illegal futures contracts because they were not
    traded on a designated contract market. The order finds that these were
    contracts for the purchase or sale of a commodity for delivery in the
    future at a price or pricing formula that was agreed upon when the contract
    was initiated and undertaken principally to assume or shift price risk
    without delivery either to or from Andersons of the underlying commodity.
    Most significantly, the contract provided an effective means of liquidating
    the contract for cash. Because these contracts were thus used to shift
    price risk, they operated as futures contracts that, under the CEA and CFTC
    regulations, had to be traded on designated exchanges.

In addition, according to the CFTC's order, Andersons offered
    contracts that included option features that under certain circumstances
    could result in additional grain delivery obligations. The CFTC's
    order finds that these option features contracts had all of the
    characteristics of commodity options of a type that was prohibited at the
    time by the CEA and CFTC regulations.

Andersons, without admitting or denying the CFTC's findings, consents to
    the entry of the order that directs it to cease and desist from further
    violations of the CEA and Commission regulations, and directs it to pay a
    $200,000 civil monetary penalty. Under the settlement, Andersons also
    agrees to maintain its newly established procedures whereby a committee
    co-chaired by the President of its Agricultural Group and the Vice
    President of its Grain Division has the responsibility to review all new
    proposed types of HTA contracts and any type of contract involving option
    features for the legality of such contracts under the CEA and CFTC
    regulations.

CFTC Commissioner Barbara P. Holum dissented.

# # #
This report is confidential

JULY 2020

Bloomberg SEF LLC

March 2020 Market Volatility and Interest Rate 

Swap Trading
This report is confidential

BSEF : Summary 

• In March 2020, the market experienced unexpected volatility due to Covid19 resulting in an overall market increase in 

trading volumes. 

• Similarly to the market, BSEF experienced YTD highs in both gross notional and DV01 executed on the platform due to the 

increase in market volatility. 

• As market volatility increases, market participants naturally question their ability to access liquidity and their ability to

transfer risk at any given point during a trading day. 

• Despite the extreme volatility, BSEF observed an increase in hit rate as DV01 increased per trade, indicating BSEF 

participants were able to effectively transfer risk over the platform. 

• As such, this presentation will focus on:

• Overall market volatility compared to March 2019 

• Overall DV01 transacted on BSEF for the month of March 2020; and 

• Overall BSEF platform performance 

• Furthermore, this analysis focuses on performance as it relates to risk transfers particularly in times of market volatility or 

stress and excludes compression, roll (March is an IMM month) and portfolio maintenance trades as those trades tend to 

be more operational in nature. 
This report is confidential

BSEF : A Quick Look at March Volumes and Volatility 

Observations:

• Using the YLDVUS index, interest rate volatility peaked during the week of March 9th-13th 2020 compared to 

March 2019.

• As a result, BSEF also experienced peak trading volumes and increases when compared to March 2019:

• Gross Notional (ex lists): +16%

• DV01: +16%

• Tickets: +42%

• RFQ was the preferred execution method with an increase in the number of LPs in comp

Interest Rate Volatility March 2019 compared to March 2020
This report is confidential

BSEF : March 2020 Accepted Trades By DV01 Buckets

Observations:

• As DV01 increased, accepted trades increased, implying strong platform performance for large size trades

• Trade rejects were minimal across all buckets. 

• BSEF observed a slight increase in “passed” trades, as expected during times of market uncertainty. 
This report is confidential

BSEF : BSEF Trade Submission Performance 

Observations:

• Figure 1: BSEF daily trade count more than doubled during peak volatility. 

• Figure 2: BSEF trade processing request increased to more than 2000 trades/minute. 

*Figure 1: All trades submitted and processing Rate 

*Figure 2: Processing Rate increase for week of 3/9-3/13
This report is confidential

BSEF : Conclusion 

• March represented an unexpected market event, leading to a +220% increase in volatility as compared to March 2019, 

testing the SEF framework of execution, clearing and reporting. 

• BSEF believes that the current market structure of the swaps market performed well under stress.

• BSEF also values the consistent dialogue with participants, industry groups like ISDA and engagement with the CFTC. 

We look forward to continued conversations throughout the remainder of this year. 

• Thank you!
# Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

October 31, 2017

No. 04

- 17

- 00310

- CV

YATES ENERGY CORPORATION, EOG Resources, I nc., Jalapeno Corporation, ACG3 Mineral Interests, Ltd., Glassell Non

- Operated Interests, Ltd., and Curry Glassell

, Appellant s

v.

BROADWAY NATIONAL BANK, TRUSTEE OF THE MARY FRANCES EVERS TRUST, Appellee s

From the Probate Court No 2, Bexar County, Tex as

Trial Court No. 2015PC2618 Honorable Tom Rickhoff, Judge Presiding



### O R D E R

Appellees ’ motio n for extension of time to file their brief is granted. Time is extended to

November 17, 2017.

_________________________________ Marialyn Barnard, Justice

IN WI TNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said

court on this 31st day of October, 2017

.

___________________________________ KEITH E. HOTTLE

, Clerk of Co urt