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

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                           2,366
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                          19,253
<DEPRECIATION>                                   3,690
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  18,703
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                         15,619
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                       2,064
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    18,703
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 2,266
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    1,736
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 383
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                     67
<INCOME-TAX>                                         3
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                 64
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                        64
<EPS-BASIC>                                       3.39<F1>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     3.39<F1>
<FN>
<F1>Net income per limited partner unit.
</FN>


</TABLE>
EXHIBIT
32.2





CERTIFICATION





Certification
Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (Subsections (a) and
(b) of


Section
1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code)





Pursuant
to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of
section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code), each of the
undersigned officers of Innocom Technology Holdings, Inc., a Nevada corporation
(the "Company"), does hereby certify, to such officer's knowledge,
that:





The
Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2008 (the
"Form 10-K") of the Company fully complies with the requirements of section
13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and information contained
in the Form 10-K fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
condition and results of operations of the Company.





A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to
Innocom Technology Holdings, Inc. and will be retained by Innocom Technology
Holdings, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its
staff upon request.





Date:
      April ___, 2009
                
                
                /s/
      Cheung Wai Hung, EddieCheung
      Wai Hung, Eddie, Chief Financial
Officer
State of INDIANA, et al., plaintiffs, v. Commonwealth of MASSACHUSETTS.

No. 149, Original.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 16, 2018.

The Solicitor General is invited to file a brief in this case expressing the views of the United States.
Jessica Jhoana TELLEZ, petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS, III, Attorney General.

No. 17-121.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 2, 2017.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.
# C_2012073EN.01000901.xml

| 10.3.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 73/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.3.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 73/9

---

Order of the Court of 13 October 2011 — Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE v European Commission

(Case C-560/10 P) (1)

1

(Appeal - Public service contracts - Management and maintenance of the ‘Your Europe’ portal - Rejection of the tender - Regulations (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 and No 2342/2002 - Full copy of the evaluation report - Principles of transparency and equal treatment - Rights to good administration and to a fair hearing - Errors of law - Distortion of the evidence - Clear inadmissibility - Clearly unfounded ground of appeal)

2012/C 73/14

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Appellant: Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE (represented by: N. Korogiannakis, dikigoros)

Appellant:

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: S. Delaude and N. Bambara, Agents)

Other party to the proceedings:

Re:

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) of 9 September 2010 in Case T-300/07 Evropaïki Dynamiki v Commission annulling the Commission’s decision of 13 July 2007 rejecting the tender submitted by Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE in tendering procedure ENTR/05/78 for Lot 2 (Infrastructure Management) for the management and maintenance of the ‘Your Europe’ portal and awarding that contract to another tenderer

Evropaïki Dynamiki

Commission

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The appeal is dismissed. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The appeal is dismissed.

| 2. | Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE shall pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE shall pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 72, 5.3.2011.

1

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


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
     Textainer Equipment Income Fund II, LP
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                         0000853086
<NAME>                        Textainer Equipment Income Fund II, LP
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000
<CURRENCY>                                     US Dollars
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                   MAR-31-1997
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                1
<CASH>                                         1,578
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  4,951
<ALLOWANCES>                                   1,030
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               19
<PP&E>                                         63,852
<DEPRECIATION>                                 23,487
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 45,883
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          2,156
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       0
<OTHER-SE>                                     43,727
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   45,883
<SALES>                                        0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               2,524
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  1,848
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               (31)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                707
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            0
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   707
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  0
        



</TABLE>
VACATE ORDER AND DISMISS and Opinion Filed April 17, 2023 

# S

In The 

### Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05-22-01316-CV JOHN SEAY, Appellant V. DEL ROY FUNDS, LP, Appellee On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 5 Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. CC-22-06072-E MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Molberg, Carlyle, and Smith Opinion by Justice Molberg This is an appeal from an order in a forcible detainer lawsuit awarding possession of the subject property to appe llee. Before the Court is appellee’s motion to dismiss the appeal as moot. A ppellee recites in the motion that a writ of possession was executed, and appellant is no longer in possession of the property. The only issue in a forcible detainer su it is the right to immediate possession of the premises. See Olley v. HVM, L.L.C. , 449 S.W.3d 572, 575 (Tex. App.— Houston [14th Dist.] 2014, pet. denied). Unless an appella nt has a potentially meritorious claim of right to current, ac tual possession, the issue of possession and–2– the case become moot when the appe llant is no longer in possession of the premises. See Marshall v. Hous. Auth. of City of San Antonio , 198 S.W.3d 782, 787, 790 (Tex. 2006). When a case becomes moot on appeal, an appellate court must vacate the trial court’s judgment and dismiss the case. See City of Dallas v. Woodfield , 305 S.W.3d 412, 416 (Tex. A pp.—Dallas 2010, no pet.). More than ten days have passed sin ce appellee filed its motion to dismiss and appellant has not filed a response. Because nothing in the record before us shows appellant has a potentially meritori ous claim of right to current, actual possession of the property, we grant appe llee’s motion, vacate the trial court’s December 2, 2022 order, and dismiss the case. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 42.3(a); Marshall , 198 S.W.3d at 790.

221316F.P05 /Ken Molberb / KEN MOLBERG JUSTICE–3– 

# S

Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas JUDGMENT JOHN SEAY, Appellant

No. 05-22-01316-CV V. DEL ROY FUNDS, LP, Appellee On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 5, Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. CC-22-06072- E. Opinion delivered by Justice Molberg. Justices Carlyle and Smith participating.

In accordance with this Cour t’s opinion of this date, we VACATE the trial court’s December 2, 2022 order and DISMISS the case.
We ORDER that appellee DEL RO Y FUNDS, LP recover its costs of this appeal from appellant JOHN SEAY.

Judgment entered April 17, 2023
Ferdinand REYNOLDS, petitioner, v. Kirk GERSTEL.

No. 15-9502.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 3, 2016.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.
Benjamin J. WILKINSON, petitioner, v. MISSOURI.

No. 17-1167.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 16, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals of Missouri, Eastern District denied.
Louis YOUNGER, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 17-7987.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 16, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit denied.
Ernest MONROE, petitioner, v. Tim CHRISTIANSON.

No. 17-5260.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 2, 2017.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit denied.
Derek Mitchell BAILEY, petitioner, v. Lorie DAVIS, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division

No. 17-8054.

Supreme Court of the United States

May 14, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied.
Philip MUIR, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 17-8893.

Supreme Court of the United States

June 11, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit denied.
Tremein HOSKINS, petitioner, v. David PIERCE, Warden, et al.

No. 17-5282.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 2, 2017.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit denied.
II-00713

From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

Frank Hill <au760@lafn.org>

Thursday, December 2, 2010 12:12 PM

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.

Frank Hill

11509 Hatteras Strreet

North Hollywood, CA 91601
David PILVER, petitioner, v. HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY, FLORIDA, et al.

No. 17-1447.

Supreme Court of the United States

May 29, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit denied.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE>  5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS IN THE QUARTERLY REPORT ON FORM 10-Q OF INPRISE CORPORATION
FOR THE SIX ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 1996 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS. THE AMOUNTS HAVE BEEN RESTATED TO
INCLUDE THE OPERATIONS OF VISIGENIC SOFTWARE, INC. FOR THE PERIOD THEN ENDED.
THE AMOUNTS SHOWN ARE IN THOUSANDS, EXCEPT EARNINGS PER SHARE AMOUNTS.
</LEGEND>
<RESTATED>
        
<S>                             <C> 
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                         101,008
<SECURITIES>                                     4,801
<RECEIVABLES>                                   45,229
<ALLOWANCES>                                    22,497
<INVENTORY>                                      1,221
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               141,806
<PP&E>                                         216,184
<DEPRECIATION>                                 101,305
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 267,062
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           75,549
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           420
<OTHER-SE>                                     177,112
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   267,062
<SALES>                                         76,340
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                85,261
<CGS>                                           13,287
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   20,324
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               120,642
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   677
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 810
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (52,109)
<INCOME-TAX>                                       (51)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (52,058)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (52,058)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (1.18)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (1.18)
         

</TABLE>
Ronnie Lee ALSTON, petitioner, v. Thomas P. DORE, et al.

No. 16-9558.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 2, 2017.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied.
# C_2011130EN.01000702.xml

| 30.4.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 130/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.4.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 130/7

---

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 3 March 2011 — European Commission v Kingdom of Belgium

(Case C-134/10) (1)

1

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 2002/22/EC - Article 31 - Criteria for awarding ‘must-carry’ status - General interest objectives permitting the award of that status - Impact of the number of end-users of communications networks on the award of that status - Principle of proportionality)

2011/C 130/12

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: A. Nijenhuis and C. Vrignon, Agents)

Applicant:

Defendant: Kingdom of Belgium (represented by: M. Jacobs and T. Materne, Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Incorrect transposition of Article 31 of Directive 2002/22/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on universal service and users’ rights relating to electronic communications networks and services (Universal Service Directive) (OJ 2002 L 108, p. 51) - Criteria for the award of the ‘must-carry’ status concerning radio and television - General interest objectives for the award of such status - Impact of the number of the network’s end-users on the award of such status - Principle of proportionality

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Declares that, by failing correctly to transpose Article 31 of Directive 2002/22/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on universal service and users’ rights relating to electronic communications networks and services (‘Universal Service Directive’), the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under the provisions of that Directive and Article 56 TFEU. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Declares that, by failing correctly to transpose Article 31 of Directive 2002/22/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on universal service and users’ rights relating to electronic communications networks and services (‘Universal Service Directive’), the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under the provisions of that Directive and Article 56 TFEU.

| 2. | Orders the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 161, 19.6.2010.

1

---
1106.

#### Mathews *v.*The State.

Conviction of assault with intent to rape, from Bibb superior court — Judge Felton. December 16, 1907.

Submitted April 21,

Decided May 7, 1908.

*Richard, Curd, John B. Cooper,*for plaintiff in error.

*William Brunson,*contra.

Hill, C. J.

The assignments of error are entix-ely without merit, and the verdict is fully supported by the evidence. *Judgment affirmed.*
II-Oll61

From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

Jim Allen <jimallyn24@aol.com>

Wednesday, December 1, 2010 11:01 PM

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.

Jim Mlen

26A Main

Newtown, CT 06470
James ST. LOUIS, petitioner, v. DELAWARE.

No. 17-8313.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 30, 2018.

Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed *in forma pauperis* denied, and petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Delaware dismissed. See Rule 39.8. As petitioner has repeatedly abused this Court's process, the Clerk is directed not to accept any further petitions in noncriminal matters from petitioner unless the docketing fee required by Rule 38(a) is paid and petition submitted in compliance with Rule 33.1. See *Martin v. District of Columbia Court of Appeals,*506 U.S. 1, 113 S.Ct. 397, 121 L.Ed.2d 305 (1992) (*per curiam* ).