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

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0000854663
<NAME> RMI TITANIUM
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                          40,705
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   66,688
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,327
<INVENTORY>                                    138,989
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               253,268
<PP&E>                                         159,472
<DEPRECIATION>                               (107,883)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 337,533
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           48,048
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           211
<OTHER-SE>                                     266,696
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   337,533
<SALES>                                        185,581
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               185,581
<CGS>                                          135,885
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  145,522
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               (1,423)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  57
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 41,425
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (4,038)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             45,463
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    45,463
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     2.22
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     2.20
        

</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 32.1


                  CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER
                                   PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


I, Nigel P. Ekern,  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 Net  Perceptions,  Inc. on Form 10-K for the year ended  December  31,
2004,  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 Net Perceptions, 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 31, 2005                    By: /s/ Nigel P. Ekern
                                            -----------------------------
                                            Name: Nigel P. Ekern
                                            Title: Chief Administrative Officer
```
 
 
WHEAT - KANSAS CITY BOARD OF TRADE                                   Code-001612
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 5,000 BUSHELS)                         OPEN INTEREST:      164,132
COMMITMENTS
  42,505   31,171   29,480   74,283   73,413  146,268  134,064   17,864   30,068

CHANGES FROM 05/25/10 (CHANGE IN OPEN INTEREST:      1,928)
     267   -2,666    1,733      -50    2,575    1,950    1,642      -22      286

PERCENT OF OPEN INTEREST FOR EACH CATEGORY OF TRADERS
    25.9     19.0     18.0     45.3     44.7     89.1     81.7     10.9     18.3

NUMBER OF TRADERS IN EACH CATEGORY (TOTAL TRADERS:      189)
      45       38       55       61       67      140      143
```

----

Updated June 4, 2010
Third District Court of Appeal

State of Florida

Opinion filed December 9, 2020.

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________

No. 3D20-523

Lower Tribunal No. 19-8275

________________

The Estate of Nomie Dell Jefferson, et al.,

Appellants,

vs.

City of Florida City, etc., et al.,

Appellees.

An Appeal from a non-final order from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade 

County, Carlos Guzman, Judge.

The Law Office of Wiley Hicks, and J. Wiley Hicks and Robert A. Schreiber, 

for appellants.

The Monestime Firm, and Regine Monestime; and Shutts & Bowen LLP, and 

Sidney C. Calloway and Suzanne M. Driscoll (Fort Lauderdale), for appellee City 

of Florida City.

Before FERNANDEZ, HENDON, and LOBREE, JJ. 

PER CURIAM.
2

Affirmed. Dade Cty. v. Paxson, 270 So. 2d 455 (Fla. 3d DCA 1972) 

(concluding that the condemning authority proved reasonable necessity for the 

taking); Faison v. Div. of Admin., Dep’t of Transp., 299 So. 2d 629 (Fla. 1st DCA 

1974) (stating that the trial judge was in the best position to evaluate and judge the 

credibility and weight to be accorded the testimony of the various witnesses); Rawls 

v. Leon Cty., 974 So. 2d 543 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008) (finding no evidence of bad faith 

or abuse of discretion, and competent substantial evidence to support the taking).
# C_2012200EN.01001102.xml

| 7.7.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 200/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.7.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 200/11

---

Judgment of the General Court of 22 May 2012 — Retractable Technologies v OHIM — Abbott Laboratories (RT)

(Case T-371/09) (1)

1

(Community trade mark - Opposition Procedure - Application for figurative Community mark FT - Earlier national word mark RTH - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

2012/C 200/21

Language of the case: German

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Retractable Technologies (Little Elms, Texas, USA) (represented by: K. Dröge, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (represented initially by C. Jenewein, then by G. Schneider and D. Walicka, agents)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Abbott Laboratories (Abbot Park, Illinois, USA)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM:

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 24 July 2009 (Case R 1234/2008-4) concerning opposition proceedings between Abbott Laboratories and Retractable Technologies, Inc.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action.

| 2. | Orders Retractable Technologies to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Retractable Technologies to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 282, 21.11.2009.

1

---
Lakshmi ARUNACHALAM, petitioner, v. FREMONT BANCORPORATION, et al.

No. 17-231.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 10, 2017.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit denied.
```
  
 
WHEAT - MINNEAPOLIS GRAIN EXCHANGE                                   Code-001626
OPTION AND FUTURES COMBINED POSITIONS AS OF 11/17/09          |
--------------------------------------------------------------| NONREPORTABLE
      NON-COMMERCIAL      |   COMMERCIAL    |      TOTAL      |   POSITIONS
--------------------------|-----------------|-----------------|-----------------
  Long  | Short  |Spreads |  Long  | Short  |  Long  | Short  |  Long  | Short
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(CONTRACTS OF 5,000 BUSHELS)                         OPEN INTEREST:       50,832
COMMITMENTS
   9,014    2,794    8,608   23,329   26,383   40,952   37,785    9,880   13,047

CHANGES FROM 11/09/09 (CHANGE IN OPEN INTEREST:     -2,083)
     300   -1,280      -70     -459    1,209     -228     -142   -1,855   -1,941

PERCENT OF OPEN INTEREST FOR EACH CATEGORY OF TRADER
    17.7      5.5     16.9     45.9     51.9     80.6     74.3     19.4     25.7

NUMBER OF TRADERS IN EACH CATEGORY (TOTAL TRADERS:       64)
       9       16       19       29       27       51       54
```

----

Updated November 20, 2009
Pui-Kwong CHAN, et al., petitioners, v. Baizhen YANG, et al.

No. 17-311.

Supreme Court of the United States

Jan. 8, 2018.

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

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE>     5

<S>                                        <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                              6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          APR-30-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               OCT-31-1999
<CASH>                                               0
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                       0
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           182285
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                          1417
<OTHER-SE>                                     (183702)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                         0
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                4340
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 (13939)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    (13939)
<EPS-BASIC>                                    (0.01)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (0.01)


</TABLE>
Steven T. LOGAN, petitioner, v. TEXAS.

No. 17-604.

Supreme Court of the United States

Jan. 8, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas denied.
William H. WAITS, III, petitioner, v. J&J MANAGEMENT SERVICE, INC.

No. 17-315.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 16, 2017.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals of Georgia denied.
Ralph LANSING, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 17-5483.

Supreme Court of the United States

Dec. 11, 2017.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit denied.
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________

J.S.T. CORPORATION,

Appellant

v.

INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION,

Appellee

ROBERT BOSCH LLC, ROBERT BOSCH, 

SISTEMAS AUTOMATRICES, S.A. DE C.V., 

FOXCONN INTERCONNECT TECHNOLOGY, LTD.,

Intervenors

______________________

2019-2308

______________________

Appeal from the United States International Trade 

Commission in Investigation No. 337-TA-1043.

______________________

Decided: July 10, 2020

______________________

JONATHAN MASSEY, Massey & Gail LLP, Washington, 

DC, argued for appellant. Also represented by 

CHRISTOPHER LAURENCE MAY; KENNETH GOLDMAN, San 

Francisco, CA; KEITH SCALA, Myers Bradford, Washington, 

DC. 

Case: 19-2308 Document: 74 Page: 1 Filed: 07/10/2020
2 J.S.T. CORPORATION v. ITC

 CLINT A. GERDINE, Office of the General Counsel, 

United States International Trade Commission, Washington, DC, argued for appellee. Also represented by DOMINIC 

L. BIANCHI, WAYNE W. HERRINGTON, SIDNEY A.

ROSENZWEIG. 

 MARK S. DAVIES, Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP, 

Washington, DC, argued for intervenors. Also represented 

by JORDAN COYLE, CHRISTOPHER J. HIGGINS, KATHERINE M.

KOPP; ALEXANDRA BURSAK, MATTHEW R. SHAHABIAN, New 

York, NY; MICHAEL CHOW, Irvine, CA; BAS DE BLANK, 

Menlo Park, CA. 

 ______________________

Before LOURIE, SCHALL, and DYK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

J.S.T Corporation (“JST”) appeals a determination by 

the United States International Trade Commission (“Commission”) finding no violation of 19 U.S.C. § 1337. Specifically, JST argues that the Commission erred in finding 

claims 2, 4, and 9–10 of U.S. Patent No. 7,004,766 to be not 

infringed and invalid. 

We agree with the Commission’s construction of “first 

holes” “to require that the first (elongated) holes at the periphery of the tine plate in the longitudinal direction must 

be closer to the periphery of the tine plate than any second 

hole.” J.A. 38. Because it is undisputed that the accused 

products do not infringe under this construction, we affirm 

the Commission’s finding of noninfringement.

We also agree with the Commission’s construction of 

“contact legs” to include legs that connect to ground and 

affirm the Commission’s holding that the asserted claims 

were anticipated by the Tyco Docking Station Connector.

AFFIRMED

Case: 19-2308 Document: 74 Page: 2 Filed: 07/10/2020
I 

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 4157 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to exclude the portion of 

a lump-sum social security benefit payment that relates to periods prior 

to the taxable year from the determination of household income. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

AUGUST 2, 2019 

Mr. NEGUSE (for himself and Mr. GOLDEN) introduced the following bill; 

which was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to exclude 

the portion of a lump-sum social security benefit payment that relates to periods prior to the taxable year 

from the determination of household income. 

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 ‘‘Fairness in Social Se5 curity Act of 2019’’. 


pamtmann on DSKBFK8HB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 4157 IH

1 SEC. 2. TREATMENT OF LUMP-SUM SOCIAL SECURITY BEN2 EFITS IN DETERMINING HOUSEHOLD IN3 COME. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 36B(d)(2) of the Internal 

5 Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by adding at the end 

6 the following new subparagraph: 

7 ‘‘(C) EXCLUSION OF PORTION OF LUMP8 SUM SOCIAL SECURITY BENEFITS.— 

9 ‘‘(i) IN GENERAL.—The term ‘modi10 fied adjusted gross income’ shall not in11 clude so much of any lump-sum social se12 curity benefit payment as is attributable to 

13 months ending before the beginning of the 

14 taxable year. 

15 ‘‘(ii) LUMP-SUM SOCIAL SECURITY

16 BENEFIT PAYMENT.—For purposes of this 

17 subparagraph, the term ‘lump-sum social 

18 security benefit payment’ means any pay19 ment of social security benefits (as defined 

20 in section 86(d)(1)) which constitutes more 

21 than 1 month of such benefits. 

22 ‘‘(iii) ELECTION TO INCLUDE EX23 CLUDABLE AMOUNT.—A taxpayer may 

24 elect (at such time and in such manner as 

25 the Secretary may provide) to have this 


pamtmann on DSKBFK8HB2PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 4157 IH

1 subparagraph not apply for any taxable 

2 year.’’. 

3 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

4 this section shall apply to taxable years beginning after 

5 December 31, 2018. 

Æ 


pamtmann on DSKBFK8HB2PROD with BILLS
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4157 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 4157

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to exclude the portion of a 
lump-sum social security benefit payment that relates to periods prior 
    to the taxable year from the determination of household income.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             August 2, 2019

Mr. Neguse (for himself and Mr. Golden) introduced the following bill; 
         which was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to exclude the portion of a 
lump-sum social security benefit payment that relates to periods prior 
    to the taxable year from the determination of household income.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Fairness in Social Security Act of 
2019''.

SEC. 2. TREATMENT OF LUMP-SUM SOCIAL SECURITY BENEFITS IN DETERMINING 
              HOUSEHOLD INCOME.

    (a) In General.--Section 36B(d)(2) of the Internal Revenue Code of 
1986 is amended by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
                    ``(C) Exclusion of portion of lump-sum social 
                security benefits.--
                            ``(i) In general.--The term `modified 
                        adjusted gross income' shall not include so 
                        much of any lump-sum social security benefit 
                        payment as is attributable to months ending 
                        before the beginning of the taxable year.
                            ``(ii) Lump-sum social security benefit 
                        payment.--For purposes of this subparagraph, 
                        the term `lump-sum social security benefit 
                        payment' means any payment of social security 
                        benefits (as defined in section 86(d)(1)) which 
                        constitutes more than 1 month of such benefits.
                            ``(iii) Election to include excludable 
                        amount.--A taxpayer may elect (at such time and 
                        in such manner as the Secretary may provide) to 
                        have this subparagraph not apply for any 
                        taxable year.''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section shall apply 
to taxable years beginning after December 31, 2018.
                                 <all>
```
Chauncey Luther MANN, III, petitioner, v. STRUCTURED ASSET MORTGAGE INVESTMENT II TRUST 2007-AR3, Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates Series 2007-AR3, et al.

No. 17-381.

Supreme Court of the United States

Nov. 27, 2017.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.
# Official Journal C 208/30 A

| | ISSN 1725-2423 |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 208 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 4930 August 2006 |

ISSN 1725-2423

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 208

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 4930 August 2006

---

| Notice No | Contents | page |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | I   Information |
| | Commission |
| 2006/C 208/1 | Commission communication in the framework of the implementation of the Council Directive 73/23/EEC of 19 February 1973 on the harmonisation of the laws of Member States relating to electrical equipment designed for use within certain voltage limits(Publication of titles and references of harmonised standards under the Directive)
   (1) | 1 |

Notice No

Contents

page

I   Information

Commission

2006/C 208/1

Commission communication in the framework of the implementation of the Council Directive 73/23/EEC of 19 February 1973 on the harmonisation of the laws of Member States relating to electrical equipment designed for use within certain voltage limits(Publication of titles and references of harmonised standards under the Directive)
   (1)

(Publication of titles and references of harmonised standards under the Directive)

1

---

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | (1)   Text with EEA relevance. |

---

(1)   Text with EEA relevance.

1

| EN | |
| --- | --- |

EN
Fontrise CHARLES, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 17-5754.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 30, 2017.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit denied.
BONAFIDE MASONRY, RETAILFIRST INSURANCE COMPANY AND CLAIMS CENTER SUMMIT , Appellant s ,

v.

RUSSELL R. SAXTON , Appellee

. IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D 14

- 4833

_____________________________/
Opinion filed March 5, 2015.
An appeal from an order of the Judge of Compensation Claims

. Ellen H. Lorenzen , Judge

. Date of Accident: February 1 0, 1988.
Mark S. Spangler of the Law Offices of Mark S. Spangler, P.A., Maitland , for Appellant s

. Michael J. Winer of the Law Office of Michael J. Winer, P.A., Tampa , for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

We dismiss this a ppeal of two nonfinal orders rendered by the Judge of
Compensation Claims on September 3, 2014, and September 23, 2014, respectively.Appellant s challenge the nonfinal orders under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure
9.180(b)(1)( A ) , which provides for appellate review of a nonfinal order adjudicating
jurisdiction. Appellant s , however, ha ve failed to demonstrate that the September 23,
2014, order denying its motion to di smiss “ adjudicates ” jurisdiction , as the term is

used in R ule 9.180(b)(1)(A)

. In the order , the JCC specifically declined to rule on
the jurisdictional question raised in Appellants’ motion, based on a lack of evidence.
The JCC advised Appellants to file an evidentiary motion supporting its allegations,
and rather than doing so, Appellants filed this premature appeal. Appellant also

failed to file a timely notice of appeal from the rendition of the September 3, 2014,

order. Accordingly, we dismiss this a ppeal for lack of appellate jurisdiction.
LEWIS, C.J., BENTON and THOMAS, JJ., CONCUR.

2
I 

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 3955 

To direct the United States Postal Service to designate a single, unique 

ZIP Code for Silver Cliff, Colorado, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JULY 24, 2019 

Mr. TIPTON introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee 

on Oversight and Reform 

A BILL 

To direct the United States Postal Service to designate a 

single, unique ZIP Code for Silver Cliff, Colorado, 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 ‘‘Silver Cliff Community 

5 Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. SINGLE, UNIQUE ZIP CODE FOR SILVER CLIFF, COL7 ORADO. 

8 Not later than 180 days after the date of the enact9 ment of this Act, the United States Postal Service shall 

10 designate a single, unique ZIP Code, to be numbered 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
2 

•HR 3955 IH

1 81249, applicable to the area encompassing only Silver 

2 Cliff, Colorado. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS