alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
ANDREW GILL, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Civil Action No. 11-0084 (RWR) ) ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, ) ) Defendant. )

MEMORANDUM OPINION Now before the Court is defendant’s motion to dismiss. For the reasons discussed below, the motion will be granted, and the complaint will be dismissed as frivolous. Plaintiff alleges that “he is suffering . . . from a severe violation to the 14 thAmendment to the U.S. Constitution,” of such severity that “he was not allowed the same equal rights and access to an education that every person in the United States was allowed.” Compl. at 1. He further alleges that he “contact[ed] Congre sswoman Eleanor Holmes Norton’s office . . . regarding this violation and many other severe viol ations as well as a racist hate group attacking him and other facts.” Id. In addition to a claim under the Fourteenth Amendment, plaintiff also alleges a violation of the First Amendment, id. , apparently arising from the removal of a posting he made on a social networking site, see id. , Ex. B. He urges the defendant “and Congress [to] be more worried about abiding by the 14 thAmendment and using proper appointed legislation to ensure the plaintiff’s 14 th Amendment was not violated as it has been.” Id. at 2. Plaintiff demands that the defendant “pay . . . for . . . ruining the plaintiff’s good name a total of $500,000.” Id. at 3.
1The Court must dismiss a complaint if it is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i). In Neitzke v. Williams , 490 U.S. 319 (1989), the Supreme Court states that the trial court has the authority to dismiss not only claims based on an indisputably meritless legal theory, but also claims whose factual contentions are clearly baseless. Claims describing fantastic or delusional scenarios fall into the category of cases whose factual contentions are clearly baseless. Id . at 328. The Court has the discretion to decide whether a complaint is frivolous, and such finding is appropriate when the facts alleged are irrational or wholly incredible. Denton v. Hernandez , 504 U.S. 25, 33 (1992). Mindful that a complaint filed by a pro se litigant is held to a less stringent standard than that applied to a formal pleading drafted by a lawyer, see Haines v. Kerner , 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972), the Court concludes that the factual contentions of the plaintiff’s complaint are baseless and wholly incredible. For this reason, the complaint is frivolous and must be dismissed. 1 See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i). A separate Order accompanies this Memorandum Opinion.

___________/s/_________ RICHARD W. ROBERTS United States District Judge DATE: February 10, 2011

1 In light of this ruling, the Court declines to address defendant’s alternative bases for dismissal. 2
Exhibit 11



|                                                                                         |  |                                      |           |                                      |   |          
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |  | ------------------------------------ | --------- | ------------------------------------ | - | ---------
|                                                                                         |  | Three Months EndedSeptember 30, 2006 |           | Nine Months Ended September 30, 2006
|Income available to common stockholders                                                  |  | $                                    | 1,792,066 |                                      | $ | 5,123,520
|Weighted average shares outstanding                                                      |  |                                      | 4,975,542 |                                      |   | 4,975,542
|Basic earnings per share                                                                 |  | $                                    | 0.36      |                                      | $ | 1.03     
|Income for diluted earnings per share                                                    |  | $                                    | 1,792,066 |                                      | $ | 5,123,520
|Total weighted average common shares and equivalents outstanding for diluted computation |  |                                      | 4,978,792 |                                      |   | 4,979,832
|Diluted earnings per share                                                               |  | $                                    | 0.36      |                                      | $ | 1.03
Wesley PERKINS, petitioner, v. TEXAS.

No. 17-253.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 30, 2017.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals of Texas, Third District denied.
Ibrahim DONMEZ, petitioner, v. NEW YORK CITY DEPARTMENT OF CONSUMER AFFAIRS, et al.

No. 16-9708.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 2, 2017.

Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed *in forma pauperis* denied. Petitioner allowed until October 23, 2017, within which to pay the docketing fee required by Rule 38(a) and to submit a petition in compliance with Rule 33.1 of the Rules of this Court.
# L_2008047EN.01002901.xml

| 21.2.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 47/29 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.2.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 47/29

---

DECISION OF THE EEA JOINT COMMITTEE

No 109/2007

of 28 September 2007

amending Annex II (Technical regulations, standards, testing and certification) 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 II to the Agreement was amended by Decision of the EEA Joint Committee No 83/2007 of 6 July 2007 (1). |
| --- | --- |

(1)

Annex II to the Agreement was amended by Decision of the EEA Joint Committee No 83/2007 of 6 July 2007 (1).

| (2) | Commission Directive 2007/20/EC of 3 April 2007 amending Directive 98/8/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council to include dichlofluanid as an active substance in Annex I thereto (2) is to be incorporated into the Agreement, |
| --- | --- |

(2)

Commission Directive 2007/20/EC of 3 April 2007 amending Directive 98/8/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council to include dichlofluanid as an active substance in Annex I thereto (2) is to be incorporated into the Agreement,

HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:

Article 1

The following indent shall be added in point 12n (Directive 98/8/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council) of Chapter XV of Annex II to the Agreement:

| ‘— | 32007 L 0020: Commission Directive 2007/20/EC of 3 April 2007 (OJ L 94, 4.4.2007, p. 23).’ |
| --- | --- |

‘—

32007 L 0020: Commission Directive 2007/20/EC of 3 April 2007 (OJ L 94, 4.4.2007, p. 23).’

Article 2

The text of Directive 2007/20/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 29 September 2007, 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, 28 September 2007.

For the EEA Joint Committee

The President

Stefán Haukur JÓHANNESSON

---

(1)  
  OJ L 328, 13.12.2007, p. 25.

1

(2)  
  OJ L 94, 4.4.2007, p. 23.

2

(*1)  No constitutional requirements indicated.

*1

---
```
  
 
WHEAT - MINNEAPOLIS GRAIN EXCHANGE                                   Code-001626
OPTION AND FUTURES COMBINED POSITIONS AS OF 08/18/09          |
--------------------------------------------------------------| NONREPORTABLE
      NON-COMMERCIAL      |   COMMERCIAL    |      TOTAL      |   POSITIONS
--------------------------|-----------------|-----------------|-----------------
  Long  | Short  |Spreads |  Long  | Short  |  Long  | Short  |  Long  | Short
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(CONTRACTS OF 5,000 BUSHELS)                         OPEN INTEREST:       41,106
COMMITMENTS
   8,150    3,414    6,236   17,537   20,144   31,923   29,794    9,183   11,312

CHANGES FROM 08/11/09 (CHANGE IN OPEN INTEREST:      2,262)
    -152    1,041     -372      891      304      367      974    1,895    1,288

PERCENT OF OPEN INTEREST FOR EACH CATEGORY OF TRADER
    19.8      8.3     15.2     42.7     49.0     77.7     72.5     22.3     27.5

NUMBER OF TRADERS IN EACH CATEGORY (TOTAL TRADERS:       57)
       7       14       17       29       22       48       45
```

----

Updated August 21, 2008
FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________

No. 1D17-3687

_____________________________

RONALD NEWMAN,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Alachua County.

Mark W. Moseley, Judge.

July 19, 2018

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

ROBERTS, WETHERELL, and OSTERHAUS, JJ., concur.

_____________________________

Not final until disposition of any timely and 

authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 

9.331.

_____________________________

Ronald Newman, pro se, Appellant.
2

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.
Patricia Havrilla BEAN, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 17-7882.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 16, 2018.

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

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                         269,247
<SECURITIES>                                 1,824,812
<RECEIVABLES>                                    1,363
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                52,354
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,147,776
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           29,771
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                   2,118,005
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 2,147,776
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                72,608
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  129,108
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (56,500)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (56,500)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (56,500)
<EPS-BASIC>                                          0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (49.72)


</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 12.1

                            Section 302 Certification

I, Gary Freeman, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 20-F of Wealth Minerals Ltd.;

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(s)  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 period covered by the
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(s) 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 functions):


<PAGE>

      (a) All significant  deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or
operation of internal  control over  financial  reporting  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 controls over
financial reporting.


Date: May 30, 2005                      By: /s/ Gary Freeman
                                           -------------------------------------
                                        Name:   Gary Freeman
                                        Title:  Chief Executive Officer
CHUNG HOU HSIAO, petitioner, v. Mark HAZUDA, et al.

No. 17-1150.

Supreme Court of the United States

June 25, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.
Richard E. STANDRIDGE, petitioner, v. John SHARTEL, Warden.

No. 17-5924.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 30, 2017.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.
Torrey L. MACKEY, petitioner, v. Nancy A. BERRYHILL, Deputy Commissioner for Operations, Social Security Administration.

No. 17-7746.

Supreme Court of the United States

July 16, 2018.

Petition for rehearing denied.
John RE, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 17-5464.

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.
Supreme Raheem ACKBAR, petitioner, v. Lieutenant McPHERSON, et al.

No. 17-5507.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 10, 2017.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied.
# L_2008024EN.01005103.xml

| 29.1.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 24/51 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.1.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 24/51

---

Information relating to the entry into force of the Agreement between the European Community and the Republic of Serbia on the re-admission of persons residing without authorisation

The Agreement between the European Community and the Republic of Serbia on the re-admission of persons residing without authorisation entered into force on 1 January 2008, the procedure provided for in Article 22 of the Agreement having been completed on 12 November 2007.

---
**Exhibit
      32.2**





**CERTIFICATION
      OF PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER**


**PURSUANT
      TO**


**18
      U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**


**AS
      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**


**SECTION
      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**





I, Jonathan
      LaBarre ,
      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 of Stamford Industrial
      Group, Inc. on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2007 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 Annual Report on Form 10-K fairly
      presents in all material respects the financial condition and results of
      operations of Stamford Industrial Group, Inc.





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.





Date:
                March 17, 2008
            By:
            */s/
                Jonathan LaBarre*Name:
              Title:
            Jonathan
                LaBarre
              Chief
                Financial Officer, Treasurer and Secretary
# L_2008223EN.01004201.xml

| 21.8.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 223/42 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.8.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 223/42

---

DECISION OF THE EEA JOINT COMMITTEE

No 47/2008

of 25 April 2008

amending Annex II (Technical regulations, standards, testing and certification) 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 II to the Agreement was amended by Decision of the EEA Joint Committee No 155/2007 of 7 December 2007 (1). |
| --- | --- |

(1)

Annex II to the Agreement was amended by Decision of the EEA Joint Committee No 155/2007 of 7 December 2007 (1).

| (2) | Commission Regulation (EC) No 1064/2007 of 17 September 2007 amending Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2377/90 laying down a Community procedure for the establishment of maximum residue limits of veterinary medicinal products in foodstuffs of animal origin, as regards Avilamycin (2) is to be incorporated into the Agreement, |
| --- | --- |

(2)

Commission Regulation (EC) No 1064/2007 of 17 September 2007 amending Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2377/90 laying down a Community procedure for the establishment of maximum residue limits of veterinary medicinal products in foodstuffs of animal origin, as regards Avilamycin (2) is to be incorporated into the Agreement,

HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:

Article 1

The following indent shall be added in point 14 (Council Regulation (EEC) No 2377/90) of Chapter XIII of Annex II to the Agreement:

| ‘— | 32007 R 1064: Commission Regulation (EC) No 1064/2007 of 17 September 2007 (OJ L 243, 18.9.2007, p. 3).’ |
| --- | --- |

‘—

32007 R 1064: Commission Regulation (EC) No 1064/2007 of 17 September 2007 (OJ L 243, 18.9.2007, p. 3).’

Article 2

The text of Regulation (EC) No 1064/2007 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 26 April 2008, 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, 25 April 2008.

For the EEA Joint Committee

The President

Alan SEATTER

---

(1)  
  OJ L 124, 8.5.2008, p. 17.

1

(2)  
  OJ L 243, 18.9.2007, p. 3.

2

(*1)  No constitutional requirements indicated.

*1

---
Patrick Lamar ADGER, petitioner, v. TEXAS.

No. 17-5488.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 10, 2017.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals of Texas, Fifth District denied.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>               9
<LEGEND>
This  Schedule  contains  summary  financial  information  extracted  from the
unaudited financial statements for the twelve-month period ending December 31,
1999,  and is  qualified  in its  entirety  by  reference  to  such  financial
statements.
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                   0001077762
<NAME>                  First Bancorp, Inc.
<MULTIPLIER>            1,000
<CURRENCY>              U.S.Dollars


<S>                                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                           12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                       DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                          JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                            DEC-31-1999
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                         1.0
<CASH>                                  10112
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                  165
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                        0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                        0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>             102,804
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                  0
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                    0
<LOANS>                                 134,009
<ALLOWANCE>                             1,616
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                          258,096
<DEPOSITS>                              234,034
<SHORT-TERM>                            0
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                     4,984
<LONG-TERM>                             3,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                   0
<PREFERRED>                             0
<COMMON>                                877
<OTHER-SE>                              15,202
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>          258,096
<INTEREST-LOAN>                         12,040
<INTEREST-INVEST>                       5,810
<INTEREST-OTHER>                        251
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                        18,101
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                      7,990
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                      8,812
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                   9,919
<LOAN-LOSSES>                           240
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                      15
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                         10,060
<INCOME-PRETAX>                         3,192
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>              1,864
<EXTRAORDINARY>                         0
<CHANGES>                               0
<NET-INCOME>                            1,863
<EPS-BASIC>                             9.89
<EPS-DILUTED>                           9.89
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                          3.66
<LOANS-NON>                             0
<LOANS-PAST>                            83
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                        185
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                         0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                        1,421
<CHARGE-OFFS>                           67
<RECOVERIES>                            22
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                       1,616
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                    0
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                     0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                 1,616




</TABLE>
Sloan STANLEY, petitioner, v. WASHINGTON.

No. 17-7943.

Supreme Court of the United States

June 18, 2018.

Petition for rehearing denied.