alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2011046EN.01001203.xml

| 12.2.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 46/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.2.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 46/12

---

Judgment of the General Court of 16 December 2010 — LG Electronics v OHIM (KOMPRESSOR PLUS)

(Case T-497/09) (1)

1

(Community trade mark - Application for Community word mark KOMPRESSOR PLUS - Absolute ground for refusal - Descriptive character - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

2011/C 46/24

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: LG Electronics, Inc. (Seoul, South Korea) (represented by: J. Blanchard, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: A. Folliard-Monguiral, Agent)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 23 September 2009 (Case R 397/2009-1), relating to an application for registration as a Community trade mark of the word sign KOMPRESSOR PLUS.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders LG Electronics, Inc. to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders LG Electronics, Inc. to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 37, 13.2.2010.

1

---
Timothy Ivory CARPENTER, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 16-402.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 2, 2017.

Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed further herein *in forma pauperis is granted.* The motion of petitioner for appointment of counsel granted, and Harold Gurewitz Esquire, of Detroit, Michigan, is appointed to serve as counsel for the petitioner in this case.
Satya V. REDDI, petitioner, v. HUGHES & HUGHES LLP, et al.

No. 17-1462.

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.
<PAGE>

                                                                   Exhibit 10(b)

                           REPRESENTATION OF COUNSEL


I, Sandra M. DaDalt, in my capacity as counsel to Sun Life of Canada (U.S.)
Variable Account F (the "Account") have reviewed this Post-Effective
Amendment to the Registration Statement of the Account which is being filed
pursuant to paragraph (b) of Rule 485 under the Securities Act of 1933. Based
on my review of this Post-Effective Amendment and such other material
relating to the operations of the Account as I deemed relevant, I hereby
certify as of the date of filing this Amendment, that the Post-Effective
Amendment does not contain disclosure which would render it ineligible to
become effective pursuant to paragraph (b) of Rule 485.


I hereby consent to the filing of this representation as part of this
Post-Effective Amendment to the Registration Statement of the Account.


                                              /s/ SANDRA DADALT
                                              --------------------
                                              Sandra DaDalt, Esq.


April 3, 2000
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0001076641
<NAME> NIKU CORPORATION
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JAN-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             FEB-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JAN-31-2000
<CASH>                                          27,650
<SECURITIES>                                    16,865
<RECEIVABLES>                                   10,444
<ALLOWANCES>                                     2,183
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                54,841
<PP&E>                                           7,991
<DEPRECIATION>                                   1,943
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 112,525
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           22,150
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                    100,919
<COMMON>                                             1
<OTHER-SE>                                    (12,270)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   112,525
<SALES>                                          5,480
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 2,677
<CGS>                                              400
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    2,620
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                42,573
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   200
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 755
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (36,487)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (36,487)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (36,487)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (5.61)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (5.61)


</TABLE>
Brian FOSTER, petitioner, v. Robert L. TATUM.

No. 16-1424.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 16, 2017.

Motion of respondent for leave to proceed *in forma pauperis* granted. Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit denied.
#### Lucerne Properties, Inc., *Appellant,*v. John H. Vaill, *Appellee.*

Division B.

Decision filed February 19, 1929.

*Watson & Saussy,*for Appellant;

*Frank'Biherd,*for Appellee.

Per Curiam.

This cause having heretofore been submitted to the Court upon the transcript of the record of the decree herein, and briefs and argument of counsel for the respective parties, and the record having been seen and inspected, and the Court being now advised of its judgment to be given in the premises, it seems to the Court that there is no error in the said decree; it is; therefore, considered, ordered, and decreed by the Court that the said decree of the Circuit Court be, and the same is hereby affirmed.

Affirmed.

Whitfield, P. J., Buford, J., and Giblin, Circuit Judge, concur.
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 14th Amendment 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] Congresswoman Eleanor Holmes Norton’s office . . .

regarding this violation and many other severe violations 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 14th Amendment and using proper appointed legislation to

ensure the plaintiff’s 14th 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.

1
The 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
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

WING KEI HO and KAREN C. YEH HO,

Appellants,

v.

TRUIST BANK,

Appellee.

No. 4D2022-2798

[April 18, 2024]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm 

Beach County; John S. Kastrenakes, Judge; L.T. Case No. 

502017CA002390. 

Wing Kei Ho and Karen C. Yeh Ho, Boynton Beach, pro se. 

Arthur S. Barksdale IV of Alvarez, Winthrop, Thompson & Smoak, P.A., 

Orlando, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

MAY, LEVINE and KLINGENSMITH, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
Release: #4039-97 (CFTC Docket #97-12)

For Release: July 31, 1997

CFTC FILES ADMINISTRATIVE COMPLAINT CHARGING CURTIS McNAIR ARNOLD AND
    LONDON FINANCIAL, INC. WITH FRAUD AND FAILURE TO REGISTER IN CONNECTION
    WITH MARKETING, SALE AND TRADING OF PATTERN PROBABILITY STRATEGY
    TRADING SYSTEM

WASHINGTON -- The Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) announced
    the filing on July 30, 1997, of a five-count administrative complaint
    against Curtis McNair Arnold of Jupiter, Florida, and London
    Financial, Inc. (LFI), a Florida corporation with its principle place
    of business in Tequesta, Florida. Arnold is president and sole principal of
    LFI, and neither is registered with the CFTC in any capacity.

The CFTC complaint charges Arnold and LFI with violating the anti-fraud
    provisions of the Commodity Exchange Act and CFTC regulations since
    1994 by fraudulently soliciting customers to purchase a commodity futures
    trading system known as Pattern Probability Strategy (PPS).
    The complaint also alleges that the respondents since at least 1996 have
    expanded their fraudulent marketing to include other trading systems, some
    authored by Arnold and some by other system vendors.

Specifically, the complaint alleges that Arnold and LFI, among other
    things:

misrepresented Arnold's personal trading results and the historic
    profitability of PPS; and

failed to disclose that certain trading results were based on
    hypothetical trades, rather than on actual trading results.

Arnold and LFI are also charged with acting as unregistered commodity
    trading advisors, since at least 1992. Arnold is further charged in the
    complaint with acting as an unregistered commodity pool operator and as an
    unregistered associated person of a commodity pool operator.

A public hearing is to be held to determine whether the allegations in
    the complaint are true and to determine what sanctions should be imposed.
    Possible CFTC sanctions include:

-- a cease and desist order prohibiting the respondents from violating
    provisions of the CEA and CFTC regulations;

-- registration restrictions;

-- trading prohibitions; and

-- civil penalties of not more than the higher of $100,000 ($110,000 for
    violations committed after November 27, 1996) or triple the monetary gain
    to each respondent for each violation of the CEA and CFTC regulations,
    among other remedial sanctions.
Jhonny Corleyis GUEVARA, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 17-8451.

Supreme Court of the United States

May 14, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit denied.
John Michael TEDESCO, petitioner, v. PENNSYLVANIA.

No. 17-7956.

Supreme Court of the United States

July 16, 2018.

Petition for rehearing denied.
II-00667

From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

Denise Cameron <tatonkarunner@hotmail.com>

Thursday, December 2, 2010 12:44 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.

Denise Cameron

4357 Vireo Avenue

Bronx, NY 10470
Michael MINAS, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 17-7320.

Supreme Court of the United States

Feb. 20, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.
Glenn Patrick BRADFORD, petitioner, v. Richard BROWN, Superintendent, Wabash Valley Correctional Facility.

No. 16-1327.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 10, 2017.

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

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court 

Lansing, Michigan 

June 26, 2006 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 130644 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman, PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Justices 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 130644 

 COA: 255234 
 Wayne CC: 04-000371

MARK WALKER,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the January 10, 2006 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court. 

d0619 

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

June 26, 2006 

Clerk
Charles A. BOWSHER, petitioner, v. LEXINGTON-FAYETTE URBAN COUNTY GOVERNMENT.

No. 16-9497.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 2, 2017.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals of Kentucky denied.
John Christopher CANNON, petitioner, v. Lorie DAVIS, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division.

No. 17-5625.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 16, 2017.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied.
Michael Moshe PERRY, petitioner, v. MG ENTERPRISES, LLC, et al.

No. 17-5319.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 2, 2017.

Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed *in forma pauperis* denied, and petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit 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* ).
EXHIBIT 23.1



CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM



The Stockholders and Board of Directors

Blue
Martini Software, Inc.:



We consent to the incorporation by reference in the
registration statements (Nos. 333-42388, 333-55374, and 333-82928) on Form S-8 of Blue Martini Software, Inc. of our report dated February 7, 2005, except for Note 13, which is as of February 28, 2005, relating to the consolidated balance sheets of
Blue Martini Software, Inc. and subsidiaries as of December 31, 2004 and 2003, and the related consolidated statements of operations, stockholders equity and comprehensive loss, and cash flows for each of the years in the three-year period
ended December 31, 2004, which report appears elsewhere in this Form 10-K.



|                          |  |             
|------------------------- |  | ------------
|Mountain View, California |  | /s/ KPMG LLP
|March 29, 2005            |  |
EXHIBIT 13.2



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 amended Annual Report of Wealth Minerals Ltd. (the Company) on Form 20-F for the year ended November 30, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 14, 2008 (the Report), I, Michael W. Kinley, the Chief Financial Officer of the Company, 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:  March 14, 2008



/s/ Michael W. Kinley

Michael W. Kinley
Chief Financial Officer
# L_2007156EN.01003701.xml

| 16.6.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 156/37 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.6.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 156/37

---

Information relating to the entry into force of the Agreement between the European Community and the Russian Federation on the readmission of persons residing without authorisation

The Agreement between the European Community and Russia on the readmission of persons residing without authorisation entered into force on 1 June 2007, the procedure provided for in Article 22 of the Agreement having been completed on 20 April 2007.

---
Exhibit 10.81 Translated from Japanese  Loan Rate/Discharge Method/Interest Payment Method  5. Loan rate Annual 4.25%  
                      
                      
             Basic interest rate: Bs short-term prime rate If the basic interest is not a fixed rate, the loan rate shall be changed based on Article 4 below.  6. Discharge Method/Interest Payment Method  1) Equal principal Payment (incl. a lump sum payment on the due date)  Due date and payment interval
        Number of payments
        Amountp
        I
        1str
        n
        
        Fr.        Thru.        Every         m(s).;          Date:i
        s
        
        Fr.        Thru.        Every         m(s).;          Date:n
        tc
        ai
        lp
        la
        ml
        tIncreasedpaymt.
        Fr.        Thru.        Every         m(s).;          Date:Paymt. Due
        Final due date
        
        
        \137,500,000Paymt.Method
        Advance Paymt.
        
        Interval
        Every    m(s).Interest
        1st paymt. due
        June 22, 2009
        2nd paymt. due: July 31, 2009
        Due for 2nd paymt. and after
        EOM
  2) Equal installment payment  Due date and payment interval
        Number of payments
        AmountInterest for grace period
        1st due
        
        2nd and after: Fr.        Thru.        Every         m(s).;          Date:Principal
        1st
        
        
        
        Separately notified in writingand
        
        2nd
        Fr.        Thru.        Every         m(s).;          Date:
        times
        \interest
        Final
        Final due date
        
        
        Balance and the interest
  The interest during the grace period and the first payment amount for both the principal and shall be deteremined by Bs calculation method. In this case the amount may be different from the amount for the second payment and payments thereafter.  1   Deduction of the payment and interest:



7  Payment account (owned by the debtor)




Branch Name
        Account type
        Account No.
        The Name of the ownerNakano
        Ordinary deposit
        
        IA Partners, Inc.(The branch holding the account)



8  The deduction date:



The due dates specified in Article 6 above (however, the following business day if the dates fall on a bank holiday)



(to be continued to the next page)



Template for Monetary Loan (w/ covenant)     Sheet (2-1)  [To be stored 10 yrs. 8032 14.12]



2
# C_2010346EN.01003808.xml

| 18.12.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 346/38 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.12.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 346/38

---

Order of the President of the Court of 19 October 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Înalta Curte de Casație și Justiție — Romania) — Criminal proceedings v Gheorghe Kita

(Case C-264/10) (1)

1

()

2010/C 346/74

Language of the case: Romanian

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

---

(1)  OJ C 209, 31.7.2010.

1

---
Timothy James TAYLOR, petitioner, v. TEXAS.

No. 17-8305.

Supreme Court of the United States

May 21, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals of Texas, Fifth District denied.
Sean James HAGER, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 17-1531.

Supreme Court of the United States

June 18, 2018.

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