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

<ARTICLE> 5
<S>                                 <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                       6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                   OCT-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                      NOV-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                        APR-30-1997
<CASH>                                   18,939
<SECURITIES>                            107,812
<RECEIVABLES>                           251,217
<ALLOWANCES>                           (57,552)
<INVENTORY>                          10,912,191
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                              0
<PP&E>                                5,772,794
<DEPRECIATION>                      (2,119,777)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                       19,221,528
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                         0
<BONDS>                              61,202,669
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                         0
<PREFERRED>                                   0
<COMMON>                              3,484,560
<OTHER-SE>                         (46,395,632)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>         19,221,528
<SALES>                               4,001,076
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                      4,299,634
<CGS>                                 2,992,472
<TOTAL-COSTS>                         3,894,607
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                              0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                              0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                       76,275
<INCOME-PRETAX>                         341,359
<INCOME-TAX>                            146,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                     195,359
<DISCONTINUED>                                0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                               0
<CHANGES>                                     0
<NET-INCOME>                            195,359
<EPS-PRIMARY>                               .06
<EPS-DILUTED>                                 0
        

</TABLE>
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

September 22, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

136499 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman, 

Justices 

v SC: 136499 

 COA: 283884 

Wayne CC: 06-012728

PRESTON COWANS,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the March 31, 2008 order 

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

that the question presented should be reviewed by this Court. 

p0915 

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. 

September 22, 2008 

 Clerk
State v. Marvin Wade Millsaps

374P13-6

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

June 9, 2016

Barry H. Bloch, Assistant Attorney General, Sarah Kirkman, District Attorney, For State of North Carolina.

Marvin W. Millsaps, Pro Se.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 15th of April 2016 by Defendant to Consider Universal Rights be Reinstated:

"Motion Dismissed by order of the Court in conference, this the 9th of June 2016."
# In the Court of Criminal

Appeals of Texas

══════════ No. WR

- 92,812

- 01

══════════

EX PARTE THEODORE CHARLES SCHMIDT ,

Applicant

═══════════════════════════════════════ On Application for a Writ of Habeas Corpus Cause No. 1204964

- A in the 182nd District Court

F rom Harris County

═══════════════════════════════════════

Y EARY , J., filed a concurring opinion , in which S LAUGHTER , J. joined.

Applicant was convicted in 2010 of capital murder and sentenced
to life imprisonment. The Fourteenth Court of Appeals affirmed his
conviction in 2012

. Schmidt v. State , No. 14

- 10

- 00 713

- CR (Tex. App.

— Houston [14th Dist.] Mar

. 15 , 201 2 ) (mem. op., not designated for publication).SCHMIDT

– 2

In January 2021, Applicant filed an application for writ of habeas corpus in the county of conviction. T EX

. C ODE C RIM

. P ROC . art. 11.07. In his application, he alleges six grounds related to new DNA evidence, ineffective assistance of counsel, and false testimony

. Today, the Court remands this application to the trial court to fur ther develop the record. I join the Court’s remand order. But I write separately to address my thoughts concerning the doctrine of laches and its possible application to this case. See Ex parte Smith , 444 S.W.3d 661 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014) (holding a trial court has the authority to sua sponte consider the doctrine of laches); Ex parte Bazille , ___ S.W.3d ___,
No. WR

- 89,851

- 02, 2022 WL 108348 (Tex. Crim. App. Jan. 12, 2022) (Yeary, J., concurring). The doctrine of laches ought to be considered in a case like this one. Applicant’s trial occurred in 2010 , but this writ application was not filed until over ten years later. The record is also silent regarding circumstances that may excuse Applicant’s delay, and at least some explanation for the long delay in fili ng should be provided. Consistent with this Court’s precedent, the trial court may, sua sponte , give Applicant the opportunity to explain the reasons for the delay. It may also give the State’s prosecutors and/or former counsel for Applicant an opportunity to state whether Applicant’s delay has caused any prejudice to their ability to defend against Applicant’s claims. 1 And

1 “Our revised approach will permit courts to more broadly consider the diminished memories of trial participants and the diminished availability of the State’s evidence, both of which may often be said to occur beyond five years after a conviction becomes f inal.” Ex parte Perez , 398 S.W.3d 206, 216 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) (citing Ex parte Steptoe , 132 S.W.3d 434, 437

– 39 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004) (Cochran, J., dissenting)).SCHMIDT

– 3

ultimately, the trial court may include findings of fact and conclusions of law concerning the doctrine of laches in its response to this Court’s
remand order. With these additional thoughts, I join the Court’s order.

FILED : May 11, 2022 DO NOT PUBLISH
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 22-6860

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

JAMES ERNEST GANDY, JR.,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at 

Greensboro. Catherine C. Eagles, District Judge. (1:20-cr-00040-CCE-1)

Submitted: November 22, 2022 Decided: November 29, 2022

Before HARRIS and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit 

Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

James Ernest Gandy, Jr., Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 22-6860 Doc: 6 Filed: 11/29/2022 Pg: 1 of 2
2

PER CURIAM:

James Ernest Gandy, Jr., appeals the district court’s order denying his 18 U.S.C. 

§ 3582(c)(1)(A) motion for compassionate release. We review a district court’s denial of 

a compassionate release motion for abuse of discretion. United States v. Kibble, 992 F.3d 

326, 329 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 142 S. Ct. 383 (2021). We have reviewed the record and 

conclude that the court did not abuse its discretion and sufficiently explained the reasons 

for the denial. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. United States v. Gandy, 

No. 1:20-cr-00040-CCE-1 (M.D.N.C. July 21, 2022). We dispense with oral argument 

because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this 

court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

USCA4 Appeal: 22-6860 Doc: 6 Filed: 11/29/2022 Pg: 2 of 2
Stephanie D. LUECK, Plaintiff, v. Frank S. LUECK, Defendant.

No. COA15-334.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

May 3, 2016.

**Case Reported Without Published Opinion**

Dismissed and Remanded.
NORAL OSWALD SCOTT,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

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. 1D16-1462

___________________________/

Opinion filed June 2, 2017.

An appeal from an order of the Circuit Court for Santa Rosa County.

Ross M. Goodman, Judge.

Noral Oswald Scott, pro se, Appellant. 

Andy Thomas, Public Defender, Steven L. Seliger, Assistant Public Defender, 

Tallahassee, for Appellant. 

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Trisha Meggs Pate, Tallahassee Bureau Chief, 

Criminal Appeals, Office of the Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

LEWIS, B.L. THOMAS, and ROWE, JJ., CONCUR.
----

(2004/C 65 E/184)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2547/03

by Joan Vallvé (ELDR) to the Council

(31 July 2003)

Subject:   Linguistic coexistence as reflected in Spanish passports

The resolution of 10 July 1995 (1) requires all Member States to adjust the format of their passports by replacing the term ‘European Communities’ with ‘European Union’.

In connection with this adjustment, a proposal has been tabled in the Spanish Congress of Deputies to recognise the coexistence of official languages in the passports issued to citizens living in an autonomous community where there is more than one official language. The Spanish Government, however, refuses to accept that proposal, citing the resolution of 23 June 1981 (2).

Given that Article I-3 of the draft Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe states that ‘The Union shall respect its rich cultural and linguistic diversity’ and Article II-22, moreover, stipulates that The Union shall respect cultural, religious and linguistic diversity', thus echoing the Charter of Fundamental Rights, and having regard to the conclusions arising from European Year of Languages, as laid down by decision of Parliament and the Council: will the Council amend the above resolution so as to enable all the official languages of a Member State to be incorporated in that state's passports?

Joint answer

to Written Questions E- 2520/03 and E-2547/03

(17 November 2003)

The Council draws the attention of the Honourable Members to the fact that the Treaty of the European Union does not provide for Community competence in this field.

----

(1)OJ C 200, 4.8.1995, p. 1.

(2)OJ C 241, 19.9.1981, p. 1.

----
Written Statement of the Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
                          Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.1350

          Solely for the purposes of complying with 18 U.S.C. ss.1350, I, the
undersigned Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of LaCrosse
Footwear, Inc. (the "Company"), hereby certify, based on my knowledge, that the
Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the year ended December 31, 2002
(the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in the Report
fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results
of operations of the Company.



/s/ David P. Carlson
------------------------------------
David P. Carlson
March 27, 2003
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3673 Introduced in House (IH)]

113th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 3673

 To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to treat amounts paid for 
    umbilical cord blood banking services as medical care expenses.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            December 5, 2013

 Mr. Schock (for himself and Mr. Kind) 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 treat amounts paid for 
    umbilical cord blood banking services as medical care expenses.

    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 ``Family Cord Blood Banking Act''.

SEC. 2. AMOUNTS PAID FOR UMBILICAL CORD BLOOD BANKING SERVICES TREATED 
              AS MEDICAL CARE EXPENSES.

    (a) In General.--Paragraph (1) of section 213(d) of the Internal 
Revenue Code of 1986 (defining medical care) is amended by striking 
``or'' at the end of subparagraph (C), by striking the period at the 
end of subparagraph (D) and inserting ``, or'', and by inserting after 
subparagraph (D) the following new subparagraph:
                    ``(E) for private umbilical cord blood banking 
                services provided by any accredited umbilical cord 
                blood bank which is in compliance with the regulations 
                under section 361 of the Public Health Service Act (42 
                U.S.C. 264).''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section shall 
apply to taxable years beginning after December 31, 2013.
                                 <all>
```
*Pursuant to Local Rule 47.5, the court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except

under the limited circumstances set forth in Local Rule 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

_____________________

No. 95-40427

Summary Calendar

_____________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

PEDRO AGUILAR, JR.,

Defendant-Appellant.

_________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the

Eastern District of Texas

USDC No. 1:94-CR-94

_________________________________________________________________

April 16, 1996

Before JOLLY, JONES, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Pedro Aguilar, Jr., appeals his sentence of 34 months'

imprisonment for possession of marijuana with the intent to

distribute it. He argues that the district court erred in

including information as relevant conduct and by enhancing his

offense level for possession of a firearm.

We have reviewed the record and the brief, and we conclude

that the district court did not err. The information objected to

as relevant conduct was either harmlessly included or included
-2-

without clear error. See United States v. Kings, 981 F.2d 790, 795

n.11 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 113 S.Ct. 2450 (1993); United States

v. Bethley, 973 F.2d 396, 401 (5th Cir. 1992), cert. denied, 507

U.S. 935 (1993). The enhancement for Aguilar's possession of

firearms was also not clearly erroneous. United States v. Paulk,

917 F.2d 879, 882 (5th Cir. 1990).

A F F I R M E D.
**Exhibit 32**





**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 RG Global Lifestyles, Inc. 
(the “Company”) on Form 10-QSB for the period ending June 30, 2006 as filed
      with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”),
      we, Louis L. Knickerbocker, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and William
      C. Hitchcock, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, respectively certify,
      pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §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.






/s/
                Louis L. Knickerbocker
            
            
            /s/
                William C. HitchcockLouis
                L. Knickerbocker
            
            William
                C. HitchcockChief
                Executive Officer
            
            Chief
                Financial OfficerAugust
                21, 2006
            
            August
                21, 2006
STATE of North Carolina v. Shan Edward CARTER.

No. 131P04-3.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

March 17, 2016.

Sherri Lawrence, Assistant Attorney General, for State of N.C.

Shan Edward Carter, for Carter, Shan Edward.

Ben R. David, District Attorney, for State of N.C.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed by Defendant on the 25th of February 2016 in this matter for a writ of certiorari to review the order of the North Carolina Court of Appeals, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:

> "Dismissed by order of the Court in conference, this the 17th of March 2016."

ERVIN, J. recused.
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

September 22, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 136435(54) Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman, 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Justices 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 136435 

 COA: 276351 

Macomb CC: 2006-003800-FH 

BENSON DARNELL JACKSON,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the motion for reconsideration of this Court’s July 29, 2008 

order is considered, and it is DENIED, because it does not appear that the order was 

entered erroneously. 

d0915 

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. 

September 22, 2008 

 Clerk
### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03

- 21

- 00121

- CV

In re Elizabeth Weston

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING FROM COMAL COUNTY

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

The petition for writ of mandamus is denied. See Tex. R. App. P. 52.8(a). We lift

the stay of the proceedings in the underlying case

. S ee id . R. 52.10.

_______________________ ___________________

Thomas J. B aker , Justice

Before Chief Justice Byrne, Justices Baker and Smith

Filed: July 1 6 , 2021
# C_2009193EN.01001801.xml

| 15.8.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 193/18 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.8.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 193/18

---

Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 1 July 2009 — Operator ARP v Commission

(Case T-291/06) (1)

1

(State aid - Scheme for restructuring aid granted by the Republic of Poland to a steel producer - Decision declaring the aid to be in part incompatible with the common market and ordering its recovery - Protocol No 8 on the restructuring of the Polish steel industry - Action for annulment - Interest in bringing proceedings - Admissibility - Concept of beneficiary - Article 14(1) of Regulation (EC) No 659/1999)

2009/C 193/25

Language of the case: Polish

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Operator ARP sp. z o.o. (Warsaw Poland) (represented: initially, by J. Szymanowska, subsequently, by J. Szymanowska and P. Rosiak, and, finally, by P. Rosiak, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: C. Giolito and A. Stobiecka-Kuik, Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Partial annulment of Commission Decision 2006/937/EC of 5 July 2005 on State aid C 20/04 (ex NN 25/04) in favour of Huta Częstochowa S.A. (OJ 2006 L 366, p. 1) to the extent to which it declares some of that aid to be incompatible with the common market and orders the Republic of Poland to effect its recovery.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls the first subparagraph of Article 3(2) of Commission Decision 2006/937/EC of 5 July 2005 on State aid C 20/04 (ex NN 25/04) in favour of Huta Częstochowa S.A. in so far as it concerns Operator ARP sp. z o.o.; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the first subparagraph of Article 3(2) of Commission Decision 2006/937/EC of 5 July 2005 on State aid C 20/04 (ex NN 25/04) in favour of Huta Częstochowa S.A. in so far as it concerns Operator ARP sp. z o.o.;

| 2. | Orders the Commission to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the Commission to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 310, 16.12.2006.

1

---
exv10w61






Exhibit
10.61 




AMENDMENT 2007-1




TO THE



GAIN CAPITAL HOLDINGS, INC.



2006 EQUITY COMPENSATION PLAN



     WHEREAS, GAIN Capital Holdings, Inc. (the “Company”) sponsors the GAIN Capital Holdings, Inc.
2006 Equity Compensation Plan (Amended and Restated, effective December 31, 2006) (the “Plan”) for
the benefit of certain of its and its subsidiaries’ employees, advisors, consultants and directors;



     WHEREAS, the Board of Directors of the Company (the “Board’’) desires to amend the Plan to
increase the total number of shares of common stock of the Company that may be issued or
transferred under the Plan by 200,000 shares, so that a total of 4,000,000 shares may be issued or
transferred under the Plan and desires to make certain other changes to update and clarify the
Plan; and



     WHEREAS, Section 16(a) of the Plan provides that the Board may amend the Plan at any time.



     NOW, THEREFORE, effective as of December     , 2007, the Plan is hereby amended as follows:




	 	1.	 	The first sentence of Section 3 (a) of the Plan shall be deleted and replaced
with the following:
	 
	 	 	 	“(a) Shares Authorized. Subject to adjustment as described
below, the aggregate number of shares of common stock of the Company
(“Company Stock”) that may be issued or transferred under the Plan is
4,000,000 shares.”
	 
	 	2.	 	Section 13(a)(ii) shall be deleted in its entirety and replaced with
the
following:
	 
	 	 	 	“(ii) The consummation of (i) a merger or consolidation of the Company with
another corporation where the stockholders of the Company, immediately prior to the
merger or consolidation, will not beneficially own, immediately after the merger or
consolidation, shares entitling such stockholders to more than 50% of all votes to
which all stockholders of the surviving corporation would be entitled in the
election of directors (without consideration of the rights of any class of stock to
elect directors by a separate class vote), (ii) a sale or other disposition of all
or substantially all of the assets of the Company, or (iii) a liquidation or
dissolution of the Company.”




 









 












	 	3.	 	Section 22 shall be deleted in its entirety and replaced with the following
	 
	 	 	 	“SECTION 22 California Requirements
	 
	 	 	 	If shares are repurchased by the Company pursuant to Section 12(d) of the Plan, the
repurchase right must be exercised for cash within 6 months after the date of the
Grantee’s termination of employment or service or within 6 months after exercise of
the applicable Option, whichever is later.”
	 
	 	4.	 	In all respects not amended, the Plan is hereby ratified and confirmed.





     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, and as evidence of the adoption of Amendment
2007-1 to the Plan as set forth herein, the Board has caused this Amendment 2007-1 to be
executed by the undersigned officer of the Company this         day of December 2007.



	 	 	 	 	 	 	 

	 	 	GAIN CAPITAL HOLDINGS, INC.	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 

	 	By:
	 	/s/
Glenn H. Stevens

	 	 
	 

	 	 	 	Name: Glenn H. Stevens	 	 
	 

	 	 	 	Title: CEO
STATE of North Carolina v. Joshua Donyell WALKER.

No. 392P15.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Jan. 28, 2016.

Craig M. Cooley, Cary, Attorney at Law, for Walker, Joshua Donyell.

Marc Bernstein, Special Deputy Attorney General, for State of North Carolina.

R. Andrew Murray, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 24th of November 2015 by Defendant in this matter for discretionary review of the decision of the North Carolina Court of Appeals pursuant to G.S. 7A-31, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:

> "Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 28th of January 2016."