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


<ARTICLE>                     5

<S>                             <C>                           <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR                          YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              SEP-30-2000                   DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                   SEP-30-2000                   DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                         18,956                        0
<SECURITIES>                                   0                             0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  127,279                       138,917
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0                             0
<INVENTORY>                                    0                             0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               146,235                       138,917
<PP&E>                                         109,507                       35,673
<DEPRECIATION>                                 32,674                        19,704
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 227,828                       170,146
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          127,267                       410,732
<BONDS>                                        203,170                       135,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0                             0
<PREFERRED>                                    10                            10
<COMMON>                                       17,856                        10,000
<OTHER-SE>                                     (120,475)                     (385,596)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   227,828                       170,146
<SALES>                                        737,054                       712,286
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               737,054                       712,286
<CGS>                                          0                             0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  1,684,179                     1,119,880
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               0                             0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0                             0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             19,914                        15,553
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (967,039)                     (423,147)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0                             0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            0                             0
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0                             0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0                             0
<CHANGES>                                      0                             0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (967,039)                     (423,147)
<EPS-BASIC>                                    (0.07)                        (0.04)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (0.07)                        (0.04)






</TABLE>
# CIUGINAL
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA DA 21-0130
STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiffand Appellee,
v. STEPHEN DEAN PRUITT,

Defendant and Appcllant. 

# 1-ILLO NOV 2 9 2022 Bowen Greenwood Clerk of Supreme Court State nf Montana ORDER

Appellant Stephen Dean Pruitt appealstheJanuary 21,2021 Judgment oftheFourth Judicial District Court, Missoula County, in that court's Cause No. DC-31-2018-52 JA. Mr. Pruitt presents three arguments: (1) that the district court erred by allowing him to satisfy his financial conditions by performing community service; (2)that his counsel was ineffective at sentencing by not arguing that the court should waive the non-mandatory fees/surcharges; and (3) the court did not orally impose a $100 victim/witness surcharge but improperly includedthat surcharge inthewrittenjudgment and sentence. TheAttorney General's Office, with the knowledge and consent of the Mineral County Attorney's Office, in the interests ofjustice andjudicial economy, concedes under the particular facts presented in this record that remand is appropriate. Based on the particular facts presented and in the interests ofjustice, the parties stipulate the matter should be remanded to the district court with instructions to enter an amendedjudgment and sentence that: (1) waives the total $30 surcharge and $10 IT fee and;(2)strikes the $100 victim/witness fee. Mr. Pruitt agrees tovoluntary dismissal ofthe remainder ofhis appeal with prejudice. Having considered the Appellant's Opening Briefand the Joint Stipulation, Motion to Dismiss Appeal, and good cause appearing, 11/29/2022

Case Number: DA 21-0130IT IS HEREBY ORDERED this matter is remanded to the District Court to amend

the Judgment ofJanuary 21, 2021 to (1)waive the total $30 surcharge and $10 IT fee and; (2) strike the $100 victim/witness fee. The remainder ofMr. Pruitt's appeal is dismissed with prejudice. Dated this

# e \lay ofNovember, 2022.

hief 2 4 ,

2 Justices
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                                            9
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                   MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                         3,649,290
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                         35,900,575
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                               2,949,000
<TRADING-ASSETS>                               0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                    1,674,491
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                         652,320
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                           651,204
<LOANS>                                        39,001,107
<ALLOWANCE>                                    540,825
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 49,580,132
<DEPOSITS>                                     42,960,453
<SHORT-TERM>                                   0
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                            187,232
<LONG-TERM>                                    306,764
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          1,865,495
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       0
<OTHER-SE>                                     4,260,188
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                 49,580,132
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                1,018,916
<INTEREST-INVEST>                              42,056
<INTEREST-OTHER>                               16,774
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                               1,077,746
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                             416,323
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             423,122
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                          654,624
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                  35,000
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                             0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                515,841
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                195,832
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                     240,853
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   240,853
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  0.13
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  0.13
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                 6.00
<LOANS-NON>                                    310,279
<LOANS-PAST>                                   28,311
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                               0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                338,590
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                               503,014
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                  865
<RECOVERIES>                                   3,676
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                              540,825
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                           210,000
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                            0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                        330,825
        

</TABLE>
Frank DIPPOLITO, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES, et al.

No. 17-6961.

Supreme Court of the United States

Jan. 8, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit denied.
Nathan E. GUNDY, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 16-8617.

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.
NO. 30722
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI # I
MICHAEL C. TIERNEY, Petitioner,

vs. DELANIE PRESCOTT-TATE, Deputy Prosecuting Attorney, Respondent.

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

ORDER (By: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, Acoba, and Duffy, JJ. and Circuit Judge Crandall, assigned by reason of vacancy) Upon consideration of petitioner Michael C. Tierney's petition for a writ of mandamus, it appears that petitioner fails to demonstrate a clear and indisputable right to relief. See Kema v. Gaddis, 91 Hawai # i 200, 204, 982 P.2d 334, 338 (1999) (A writ of mandamus is an extraordinary remedy that will not issue unless the petitioner demonstrates a clear and indisputable right to relief and a lack of alternative means to redress adequately the alleged wrong or obtain the requested action.). Therefore,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the clerk of the appellate court shall process the petition for a writ of mandamus without payment of the filing fee. Electronically Filed Supreme Court 30722 16-NOV-2010 02:05 PMIT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the petition for a writ of

mandamus is denied.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai # i, November 16, 2010.
/s/ Mark E. Recktenwald /s/ Paula A. Nakayama /s/ Simeon R. Acoba, Jr. /s/ James E. Duffy, Jr. /s/ Virginia L. Crandall

2
##### 



Exhibit 31.1 CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 I, Craig S. Fawcett, certify that:  1.
    I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of XATA Corporation;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 small business issuer as of, and for, the
periods presented in this report;4.
    The small business issuer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 small business issuer 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 small business issuer, 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 small business issuer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 small business issuers internal
control over financial reporting that occurred during the small business issuers most
recent fiscal quarter (the small business issuers fourth fiscal quarter in the case of
an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially
affect, the small business issuers internal control over financial reporting; and  5.
    The small business issuers other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on
our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the small
business issuers auditors and the audit committee of the small business issuers board of
directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):  (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 small business issuer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 small business issuers internal control over
financial reporting. February 11, 2005 Signature:
    
    /s/ Craig S. FawcettName:
    
    Craig S. FawcettPrint Title:
    
    Chief Executive Officer
Jay Edward GLENEWINKEL, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 17-9120.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 1, 2018.

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

<ARTICLE> UT
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<BOOK-VALUE>                                  PER-BOOK
<TOTAL-NET-UTILITY-PLANT>                   62,758,830
<OTHER-PROPERTY-AND-INVEST>                 46,397,806
<TOTAL-CURRENT-ASSETS>                      11,258,128
<TOTAL-DEFERRED-CHARGES>                             0
<OTHER-ASSETS>                               3,711,772
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             124,126,536
<COMMON>                                    21,719,528
<CAPITAL-SURPLUS-PAID-IN>                   24,680,677
<RETAINED-EARNINGS>                         22,278,468
<TOTAL-COMMON-STOCKHOLDERS-EQ>              68,678,673
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                 12,780,170
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-NET>                        23,750,000
<SHORT-TERM-NOTES>                                   0
<LONG-TERM-NOTES-PAYABLE>                            0
<COMMERCIAL-PAPER-OBLIGATIONS>                       0
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-CURRENT-PORT>                3,000,000
<PREFERRED-STOCK-CURRENT>                            0
<CAPITAL-LEASE-OBLIGATIONS>                          0
<LEASES-CURRENT>                                     0
<OTHER-ITEMS-CAPITAL-AND-LIAB>              15,917,693
<TOT-CAPITALIZATION-AND-LIAB>              124,126,536
<GROSS-OPERATING-REVENUE>                   25,938,417
<INCOME-TAX-EXPENSE>                         3,221,119
<OTHER-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                           0
<TOTAL-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                  18,598,700
<OPERATING-INCOME-LOSS>                      7,339,717
<OTHER-INCOME-NET>                             899,395
<INCOME-BEFORE-INTEREST-EXPEN>               8,239,112
<TOTAL-INTEREST-EXPENSE>                     1,058,100
<NET-INCOME>                                 3,959,893
<PREFERRED-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                    336,216
<EARNINGS-AVAILABLE-FOR-COMM>                3,623,677
<COMMON-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                     2,687,836
<TOTAL-INTEREST-ON-BONDS>                            0
<CASH-FLOW-OPERATIONS>                       8,571,208
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .80
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .80
        

</TABLE>
```
 
 
NATURAL GAS ICE HENRY HUB - ICE OTC                                  Code-023391
FUTURES ONLY POSITIONS AS OF 07/27/10                         |
--------------------------------------------------------------| NONREPORTABLE
      NON-COMMERCIAL      |   COMMERCIAL    |      TOTAL      |   POSITIONS
--------------------------|-----------------|-----------------|-----------------
  LONG  | SHORT  |SPREADS |  LONG  | SHORT  |  LONG  | SHORT  |  LONG  | SHORT
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(Contracts of 2,500  MMBTU'S)                        OPEN INTEREST:    4,165,978
COMMITMENTS
 291,688   67,424  1451697  2378711  2610877  4122096  4129998   43,882   35,980

CHANGES FROM 07/20/10 (CHANGE IN OPEN INTEREST:    -94,092)
  36,249    4,423 -147,291   44,100   69,437  -66,942  -73,431  -27,150  -20,661

PERCENT OF OPEN INTEREST FOR EACH CATEGORY OF TRADERS
     7.0      1.6     34.8     57.1     62.7     98.9     99.1      1.1      0.9

NUMBER OF TRADERS IN EACH CATEGORY (TOTAL TRADERS:      224)
      42       36       70      141      129      216      202
```

----

Updated July 30, 2010
Pamela Suzanne HARNDEN, petitioner, v. MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, et al.

No. 17-8616.

Supreme Court of the United States

June 25, 2018.

Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed *in forma pauperis* denied. Petitioner allowed until July 16, 2018, 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.
ZHI GUO, aka Han Gao, petitioner, v. INDEPENDENT CHINESE PEN CENTER, INC., et al.

No. 17-46.

Supreme Court of the United States

Dec. 4, 2017.

Petition for rehearing denied.
<PAGE>

                                                                   Exhibit 10(b)

                           REPRESENTATION OF COUNSEL


I, Sandra M. DaDalt, in my capacity as counsel to Sun Life (N.Y.) Variable
Account C (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 Post-Effective Amendment, that the 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 5, 1999
Karly C. BAILEY, petitioner, v. Benjamin S. CARSON, et al.

No. 16-9071.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 2, 2017.

Motion of Bruce R. Jacob for leave to file a brief as *amicus curiae* granted. Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals of Maryland denied.
Lamon Sandel DONNELL, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 17-495.

Supreme Court of the United States

Nov. 06, 2017.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied.
Christopher P. DOWNEY, petitioner, v. DEPARTMENT OF the ARMY, et al.

No. 17-383.

Supreme Court of the United States

Jan. 8, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth 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 Quarterly Report of Indevus Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2003 as filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Glenn L. Cooper, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350, as adopted pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of2002, that to the best of my knowledge: (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 result of operations of the Company. 

 

By: /s/    GLENN L. COOPER                

        Chief Executive Officer 

        August 13, 2003
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4604 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 4604

  To clarify the clearing exemption for small financial institutions 
                   under the Commodity Exchange Act.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            October 4, 2019

    Mr. Dunn (for himself and Mr. Cox of California) introduced the 
   following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Agriculture

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To clarify the clearing exemption for small financial institutions 
                   under the Commodity Exchange Act.

    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 ``Small Financial Institution 
Certainty Act''.

SEC. 2. CERTAINTY FOR SMALL HOLDING COMPANIES.

    Section 2(h)(7)(C)(ii) of the Commodity Exchange Act (7 U.S.C. 
2(h)(7)(C)(ii)) is amended to read as follows:
                            ``(ii) Small financial entity exclusion.--
                        Such definition shall not include any--
                                    ``(I) insured depository 
                                institution with total assets of 
                                $10,000,000,000 or less;
                                    ``(II) farm credit system 
                                institution with total assets of 
                                $10,000,000,000 or less;
                                    ``(III) credit union with total 
                                assets of $10,000,000,000 or less;
                                    ``(IV) bank holding company (as 
                                defined in section 2 of the Bank 
                                Holding Company Act of 1956) that has 
                                aggregated assets, including the assets 
                                of its subsidiaries, of $10,000,000,000 
                                or less; or
                                    ``(V) savings and loan holding 
                                company (as defined in section 10 of 
                                the Home Owners' Loan Act of 1933) that 
                                has aggregated assets, including the 
                                assets of its subsidiaries, of 
                                $10,000,000,000 or less.''.
                                 <all>
```
Miguel Alvarado RAMIREZ, Sr., petitioner, v. ARIZONA.

No. 17-5898.

Supreme Court of the United States

Nov. 13, 2017.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals of Arizona, Division One denied.
# L_2011138EN.01000101.xml

| 26.5.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 138/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.5.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 138/1

---

Information concerning the date of entry into force of the Convention on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters, signed in Lugano on 30 October 2007

The Convention on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (1), signed in Lugano on 30 October 2007, entered into force between the European Union and the Swiss Confederation on 1 January 2011 and between the European Union and Iceland on 1 May 2011, in accordance with Article 69(5) of the Convention.

1

---

(1)  
  OJ L 147, 10.6.2009, p. 5. The explanatory report to the Convention was published in OJ C 319, 23.12.2009, p. 1.

1

---