alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Willie J. BURKE, Jr., petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 17-5606.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 2, 2017.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit denied.
Marvin BELSER, petitioner, v. Vonda R. EVANS, et al.

No. 16-9508.

Supreme Court of the United States

Dec. 11, 2017.

Petition for rehearing denied.
EXHIBIT 32.1


CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO


18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,


AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


In connection with the Annual Report of Extreme Networks, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K/A for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2014 , as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), the undersigned, in the capacities and on the dates indicated below, each hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of their knowledge:





|    |                                                                                                                                                
|--- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|(1) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and




|    |                                                                                                                                                     
|--- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|(2) | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.










/s/ EDWARD B. MEYERCORDEdward B. MeyercordPresident and Chief Executive OfficerJune 2, 2015





A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version 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.
I 

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 4356 

To amend the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act to allow certain individuals 

to terminate contracts for telephone, multichannel video programming, 

or internet access service, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

SEPTEMBER 17, 2019 

Mr. HARDER of California (for himself and Mr. WENSTRUP) introduced the 

following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Veterans’ Affairs 

A BILL 

To amend the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act to allow certain individuals to terminate contracts for telephone, 

multichannel video programming, or internet access service, and for other purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Protecting Families 

5 of Fallen Servicemembers Act’’. 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
2 

•HR 4356 IH

1 SEC. 2. TERMINATION OF CONTRACTS FOR TELEPHONE, 

2 MULTICHANNEL VIDEO PROGRAMMING, OR 

3 INTERNET ACCESS SERVICE BY CERTAIN IN4 DIVIDUALS UNDER SERVICEMEMBERS CIVIL 

5 RELIEF ACT. 

6 Section 305A(a) of the Servicemembers Civil Relief 

7 Act (50 U.S.C. 3956(a)) is amended by adding at the end 

8 the following new paragraph: 

9 ‘‘(4) ADDITIONAL INDIVIDUALS COVERED.—For 

10 purposes of this section, the following individuals 

11 shall be treated as a servicemember covered by para12 graph (1): 

13 ‘‘(A) A spouse or dependent of a service14 member who dies while in military service or a 

15 spouse or dependent of a member of the reserve 

16 components who dies while performing duty de17 scribed in subparagraph (C). 

18 ‘‘(B) A spouse or dependent of a service19 member who incurs a catastrophic injury or ill20 ness (as that term is defined in section 439(g) 

21 of title 37, United States Code), if the service22 member incurs the catastrophic injury or illness 

23 while performing duty described in subpara24 graph (C). 

25 ‘‘(C) A member of the reserve components 

26 performing military service or performing fullVerDate Sep 11 2014 01:15 Sep 18, 2019 Jkt 089200 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H4356.IH H4356

kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
3 

•HR 4356 IH

1 time National Guard duty, active Guard and 

2 Reserve duty, or inactive-duty training (as such 

3 terms are defined in section 101(d) of title 10, 

4 United States Code).’’. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
Frederick DEGRAFFENRIED, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 17-5693.

Supreme Court of the United States

Jan. 8, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit denied.
II-00939

From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

jane palmer <janepalmer@mindspring.com>

Thursday, December 2, 2010 9:52 AM

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.

jane palmer

5290 Greencastle Way

s, GA 30087
Marshall H. DION, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 17-5904.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 10, 2017.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit denied.
EXHIBIT 32.1



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with the annual report on Form 10-K of Varian Semiconductor
Equipment Associates, Inc. (the Company) for the period ended September 29, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the undersigned Chief Executive Officer of the
Company, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, 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.
| | --- |  | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                        |  |  |  |                                          
|----------------------- |  |  |  | -----------------------------------------
|Dated: December 7, 2006 |  |  |  | /s/    GARY E. DICKERSON                 
|                        |  |  |  | Gary E. Dickerson Chief Executive Officer
Patrick HANLON, et al., petitioners, v. Ernest Joseph ATENCIO, Surviving Father of Ernest Marty Atencio, et al.

No. 16-1474.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 16, 2017.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA MIDDLE DISTRICT WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., AS TRUSTEE FOR NMST 2004-1, Respondent

v. MARK DAVID FRANKEL AND CHRISTINE S. FRANKEL : : : : : : : : : : : : No. 220 MAL 2015 Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER PER CURIAM AND NOW , this 25th day of August, 2015, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is DENIED
.
**Exhibit 12.1**

 

**Computation of Ratioof Earnings To Fixed Charges**

 
|                                      |   | **For the Years Ended  December 31,** |   |
|-------------------------------------------|--------|--------------------------------------------|--------|
|                                      |   | **2003**                                   |   | **2002** |   | **2001** |   | **2000** |   | **1999** |   |
| Net income before Taxes                   |   | 17,971                                     |   | 15,244 |   | 13,032 |   | 10,845 |   | 3,320 |   |
| Fixed Charges:                            |   |                                       |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |
| Interest Expense                          |   | 13,119                                     |   | 12,402 |   | 13,015 |   | 14,084 |   | 14,566 |   |
| Interest Factor of Operating   Rents |   | 334                                        |   | 290 |   | 316 |   | 313 |   | 282 |   |
| Total Fixed Charges                       |   | 13,453                                     |   | 12,692 |   | 13,331 |   | 14,397 |   | 14,848 |   |
| Adjusted Earnings                         |   | 31,424                                     |   | 27,936 |   | 26,363 |   | 25,249 |   | 18,168 |   |
| Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges        |   | 2.3                                        |   | 2.2 |   | 2.0 |   | 1.8 |   | 1.2 |   |

 

----
Linda WOLICKI-GABLES, et vir, petitioners, v. DOCTORS SAME DAY SURGERY CENTER, LTD., dba Doctors Same Day Surgery Center.

No. 17-497.

Supreme Court of the United States

Nov. 27, 2017.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District denied.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

MARGARITA VEJO,

Plaintiff

- Appellant,

v. PORTLAND PUBLIC SCHOOLS, a public entity; et al.,

Defendants

- Appellees,

and
LEWIS & CLARK COLLEGE, an Oregon public benefit corporation; DOES, 1 through 50, inclusive,

Defendants. No. 18

- 36094

D.C. No. 3:14

- cv
- 01656

- AA

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Oregon Ann L. Aiken, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted October 18 , 2019 ** San Francisco, California

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 

# FILED

NOV 14 2019

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS2

Before: McKEOWN and PAEZ, Circuit Judges, and BASHANT, *** District Judge.
This is the second appeal in this case following the panel’s remand in a
Memorandum Dispo sition dated June 6, 201 8 . The parties are familiar with the
procedural history and the facts, so we do not repeat them here.
Although the panel did not explicitly rule on the state law discrimination

claim in the Memorandum Disposition , we did so "by necessary implication."

United States v. Lummi Indian Tribe , 235 F.3d 443, 452 (9th Cir. 2000) . At the
heart of both a § 1983 equa l protection claim and Oregon's public

accommodation

- discrimination statute , Or. Rev. Stat. § 659A.403 , is the question

of intentional discrimination. Compare Flores v. Morgan Hill Unified Sch. Dist. , 324 F.3d 1130, 1134 (9th Cir. 2003) ( "To establish a § 1983 equal protection
violation, the plaintiffs must show that the defendants, acting under color of state
law, discriminated against them as members of an identifiable class and that the
discrimination was intentional") with Harrington v. Airbnb

, Inc. , 348 F. Supp. 3d
1085, 1089 (D. Or. 2018) (Oregon's public

- accommodation

- discrimination statute
is a "discriminatory intent" statute, not a "discriminatory effect" statute, and
requires a showing of intentional discrimination). When we determined Vejo 's §

*** The Honorable Cynthia A. Bashant, United States District Judge for the Southern District of California, sitting by designation

.3

1983 claim failed due to the absence of intentional discrimination, we necessarily
implicated the failure of the Oregon public

- accommodation

- discrimination claim
as well. None of the exceptions to the application of the law

- of

- the

- case doctrine
apply here, nor does Vejo argue they do.
Vejo also argues that even if the law

- of

- the

- case doctrine applies to the state
law claim against Petra Callin (“Callin”) and Roberta Cooper (“Cooper”) , it does
not apply to the claim against Portland Public Schools (“P PS”)

. Blue Br. 11 . As
Vejo's state law claim against PPS is derivative of Callin and Cooper's conduct, it

fail s for the same reason.
We affirm the district court’s dismissal of the state law claim and the grant
of defendants’ renewed motion for summary j udgment with regard to the state law

claim.

AFFIRMED.
```
  
 
VIX FUTURES - CBOE FUTURES EXCHANGE                                  Code-1170E1
OPTION AND FUTURES COMBINED POSITIONS AS OF 06/30/09          |
--------------------------------------------------------------| NONREPORTABLE
      NON-COMMERCIAL      |   COMMERCIAL    |      TOTAL      |   POSITIONS
--------------------------|-----------------|-----------------|-----------------
  Long  | Short  |Spreads |  Long  | Short  |  Long  | Short  |  Long  | Short
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
($1000 X INDEX)                                      OPEN INTEREST:       27,016
COMMITMENTS
  11,573    5,472    4,953    3,028   13,853   19,554   24,278    7,462    2,738

CHANGES FROM 06/23/09 (CHANGE IN OPEN INTEREST:      2,440)
   3,558    2,705      568     -250      801    3,876    4,074   -1,436   -1,634

PERCENT OF OPEN INTEREST FOR EACH CATEGORY OF TRADER
    42.8     20.3     18.3     11.2     51.3     72.4     89.9     27.6     10.1

NUMBER OF TRADERS IN EACH CATEGORY (TOTAL TRADERS:       22)
      11        5        5        5        5       20       11
```

----

Updated July 6, 2009
Jeremy L. ADDISON, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 17-6106.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 30, 2017.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit denied.
Antonio P. FONTANA, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 17-6455.

Supreme Court of the United States

Nov. 27, 2017.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit denied.
#### Bertus Morrison et al., *Appellants,*v. Okeechobee Company, a Corporation, *Appellee.*

En Banc.

Decision filed March 2, 1929.

*B. O. Adcock*and *J. W. Cooper,*for Appellants;

*M. D. Carmichael*and *B. II. Lewis,*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 error in the said decree insofar 'as it allows a solicitor’s fee of $9,940.00. Brett v. The First National Bank of Marianna; Brooks v. Roberts, decided at this term. It is ordered that the chancellor may take testimony of the complainants as to the amount of solicitor’s fees within the terms of the mortgage agreed by them, to be paid to their *297solicitor for his services and amend the decree rendered by substituting such amount so proven for the sum allowed in the decree appealed from. Decree affirmed in other respects.

Terrell, C. J., and Whitfield, Ellis, Brown and Buford, J. J., concur.
Marshall McDANIEL, petitioner, v. Craig FOSTER, Warden.

No. 17-25.

Supreme Court of the United States

Dec. 11, 2017.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit denied.
Chad Lamont WILLIAMS, petitioner, v. David MITCHELL, Warden.

No. 17-5794.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 16, 2017.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied.
Eric Fabian CRUZ, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 17-6077.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 30, 2017.

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

<ARTICLE> 7
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AND THE CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS FILED 
AS PART OF THE QUARTERLY REPORT ON FORM 10-Q FOR THE QUARTERLY PERIOD ENDED 
JUNE 30, 1997 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH QUARTERLY 
REPORT ON FORM 10-Q.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<DEBT-HELD-FOR-SALE>                           350,513
<DEBT-CARRYING-VALUE>                                0
<DEBT-MARKET-VALUE>                                  0
<EQUITIES>                                          63
<MORTGAGE>                                       2,297
<REAL-ESTATE>                                      537
<TOTAL-INVEST>                                 382,162
<CASH>                                           9,823
<RECOVER-REINSURE>                              69,157
<DEFERRED-ACQUISITION>                          21,274
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 653,648
<POLICY-LOSSES>                                434,228
<UNEARNED-PREMIUMS>                                  0
<POLICY-OTHER>                                       0
<POLICY-HOLDER-FUNDS>                            4,740
<NOTES-PAYABLE>                                 26,180
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                            1,825
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        40,481
<OTHER-SE>                                       (233)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   653,648 
<PREMIUMS>                                       1,665
<INVESTMENT-INCOME>                              7,147
<INVESTMENT-GAINS>                                  32
<OTHER-INCOME>                                   2,448
<BENEFITS>                                       1,979
<UNDERWRITING-AMORTIZATION>                        752
<UNDERWRITING-OTHER>                             2,894
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    947
<INCOME-TAX>                                       265
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       682
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .12
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
<RESERVE-OPEN>                                       0
<PROVISION-CURRENT>                                  0
<PROVISION-PRIOR>                                    0
<PAYMENTS-CURRENT>                                   0
<PAYMENTS-PRIOR>                                     0
<RESERVE-CLOSE>                                      0
<CUMULATIVE-DEFICIENCY>                              0
        

</TABLE>
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA EASTERN DISTRICT COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, Respondent

v. WILLIE MCCLELLAN, Petitioner : : : : : : : : : : : No. 212 EAL 2014 Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER PER CURIAM AND NOW , this 21st day of August, 2014, the Petition for Allo wance of Appeal is DENIED
.
```
 
 
CRUDE OIL, LIGHT SWEET - ICE FUTURES EUROPE                          Code-067411
FUTURES ONLY POSITIONS AS OF 06/01/10                         |
--------------------------------------------------------------| NONREPORTABLE
      NON-COMMERCIAL      |   COMMERCIAL    |      TOTAL      |   POSITIONS
--------------------------|-----------------|-----------------|-----------------
  LONG  | SHORT  |SPREADS |  LONG  | SHORT  |  LONG  | SHORT  |  LONG  | SHORT
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(CONTRACTS OF 1,000 BARRELS)                         OPEN INTEREST:      531,836
COMMITMENTS
  48,481   15,945  127,718  336,678  370,636  512,877  514,299   18,959   17,537

CHANGES FROM 05/25/10 (CHANGE IN OPEN INTEREST:      7,618)
     856   -3,555   16,988   -9,974   -3,952    7,870    9,481     -252   -1,863

PERCENT OF OPEN INTEREST FOR EACH CATEGORY OF TRADERS
     9.1      3.0     24.0     63.3     69.7     96.4     96.7      3.6      3.3

NUMBER OF TRADERS IN EACH CATEGORY (TOTAL TRADERS:      109)
      15       17       31       64       73       99      105
```

----

Updated June 4, 2010
Marvin BELSER, petitioner, v. Brenda JAMES, et al.

No. 17-5420.

Supreme Court of the United States

Jan. 8, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit denied.
Jotham SIMMONS, petitioner, v. Jeremiah BEAM, et al.

No. 17-6325.

Supreme Court of the United States

Nov. 27, 2017.

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