alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
vii

Foreword

A decade ago the U.S. financial system experienced its worst crisis since the 1930s. 

Far from being confined to the U.S. banking industry, the crisis would turn out to be 

a global systemic event. Stemming the crisis required unprecedented actions by the 

U.S. government, including the FDIC, to restore confidence in financial markets and to 

address the problems of systemically important financial institutions.

The purpose of this volume is to present a firsthand account of the important role that 

the FDIC played in responding to the crisis. We hope it will serve as a guidepost for future 

policymakers who will someday be called upon to respond to the next period of financial 

instability. It also conveys an important lesson: We must not become complacent when 

economic and banking conditions appear strong. It is precisely during these times that 

the seeds can be sown for the next financial crisis. 

This study is organized into two parts. The first, Chapters 1 through 3, is an account 

of the origins of the crisis and the FDIC’s unprecedented use of emergency authorities to 

respond to financial market illiquidity and the problems of systemically important financial 

institutions. The second, Chapters 4 through 6, documents the challenges that the FDIC 

faced in carrying out its core missions of bank supervision, deposit insurance, and failedbank resolution. This seems to us the best framework for understanding the role that the 

FDIC played during the crisis and the lessons for the future.

Executives and staff from across the FDIC made important contributions to this history. 

I would like to extend a special thanks to Diane Ellis, Director of the FDIC Division of 

Insurance and Research, and to Fred Carns, her Principal Advisor, for leading this effort. 

I would also like to acknowledge Sheila C. Bair, the FDIC Chairman during the crisis, 

whose leadership was central to the FDIC’s response.

I believe this work will prove to be a valuable account of this extraordinary period in 

U.S. financial history and of the critical contributions made by the FDIC.

Martin J. Gruenberg

Chairman, FDIC

Washington, DC, November 30, 2017
## COURT OF APPEALS

SANDEE BRYAN MARION

CHIEF JUSTICE

KAREN ANGELINI

MARIALYN BARNARD

REBECA C. MARTINEZ

PATRICIA O. ALVAREZ

LUZ ELENA D. CHAPA

JASON PULLIAM

JUSTICES FOURTH COURT OF APPE ALS DISTRICT

CADENA

- REEVES JUSTICE CENTE R

300 DOLOROSA, SUIT E 3200

SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS 7 8205

- 3037

WWW.TXCOURTS.GOV/4TH COA.ASPX KEITH E. HOTTLE

CLERK OF COURT

TELEPHONE

(210) 335

- 2635

FACSIMILE NO.

(210) 335

- 2762

November 25, 2015

Nicolas A. LaHood

District Attorney, Bexar County

101 W. Nueva, Suite 370

San An tonio, TX 78205

* DELIVERED VIA E

- MAIL * Michael D. Robbins

Bexar County Public Defender's

Office

101 W. Nueva, Ste. 370

San Antonio, TX 78205

- 3440

* DELIVERED VIA E

- MAIL *

RE: Court of Appeals Number: 04

- 15

- 00245

- CR

Trial Court Case Number: 2014CR0936

Style: Julio Alejandro Zuniga

v.

The State of Texas

Enclosed please find the order which the Honorable Court of Appeals has

issued in reference to the above styled and numbered cause.

If you should have any questions, please do not hesitate to con tact me.

Very truly yours,

KEITH E. HOTTLE, CLERK

______________________ Cecilia Barbosa

Deputy Clerk, Ext. 5

- 3221

cc: Michael Lee Young (DELIVERED VIA E

- MAIL)

# Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

November 25, 2015

N o. 04

- 15

- 00245

- CR

Julio Alejandro ZUNIGA,

Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 187th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2014CR0936

Honorable Raymond Angelini, Judge Presiding



### O R D E R

Appellant ’s brief was originally due to be filed with this court on October 25 , 2015

. We

granted Appellant ’s first motion for an extension of time to file the brief until November 20

,

2015

. On the due date

, Appellant filed his second motion for extension of time to file his brief

.

He requested a thirty

- day extension for a total extension of fifty

- seven days.

Appellant ’s motion is GRANTED. Appellant ’s brief must be filed with this court by

December 2 1 , 2015

.

_________________________________ Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said

court on this 25th day of November, 2015

.

___________________________________ Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
2008-1996.

#### State v. Sutton.

Cuyahoga App. No. 90172, 2008-Ohio-3677. It is ordered by the court, sua sponte, that this ease is no longer held for the decision in 2008-2037, *State v. Williams.*The case is now held for the decision in 2009-0232 and 2009-0328, *State v. Lanier,*Hamilton App. No. C-080162, 2008-Ohio-6906, and briefing remains stayed.

Pfeifer, Acting C.J.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Postal Service Board of Governors

## Board Votes to Close March 1, 2001, Meeting

By paper vote on February 22 and 23, 2001, the Board of Governors of the United States Postal Service voted unanimously to close to public observation its meeting scheduled for March 1, 2001, in Washington, DC, via teleconference.

# Item Considered:

1. Opinion and Further Recommended Decision of the Postal Rate Commission in Docket No. R2000-1.

# Persons Expected Attend:

Governors Ballard, Daniels, del Junco, Dyhrkopp, Fineman, Kessler, McWherter, Rider and Walsh; Postmaster General Henderson, Deputy Postmaster General Nolan, Secretary to the Board Hunter, and General Counsel Gibbons.

# General Counsel Certification:

The General Counsel of the United States Postal Service has certified that the meeting was properly closed under the Government in the Sunshine Act.

# Contact Person for More Information:

Requests for information about the meeting should be addressed to the Deputy Secretary of the Board, William T. Johnstone, at (202) 268-4800.

William T. Johnstone,

Deputy Secretary.

[FR Doc. 01-5126  Filed 2-27-01; 2:13 pm]

BILLING CODE 7710-12-M
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2787 Introduced in House (IH)]

103d CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2787

 To amend title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to specify certain 
  evidentiary matters relating to establishing an unlawful employment 
                 practice based on disparate treatment.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             July 28, 1993

   Mr. Mann introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                    Committee on Education and Labor

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to specify certain 
  evidentiary matters relating to establishing an unlawful employment 
                 practice based on disparate treatment.

    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 ``Employment Discrimination 
Evidentiary Amendment of 1993''.

SEC. 2. AMENDMENT.

    Section 706 of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. 2000e-5) is 
amended by adding at the end the following:
    ``(l)(1) An unlawful employment practice based on disparate 
treatment is established if--
            ``(A) the complaining party proves by a preponderance of 
        the evidence a prima facie case that the respondent engaged in 
        such practice; and
            ``(B) either--
                    ``(i) the respondent fails to produce any evidence 
                to rebut such case; or
                    ``(ii)(I) the respondent articulates, and produces 
                evidence of, one or more legitimate, nondiscriminatory 
                reasons for the conduct alleged to be the unlawful 
                employment practice; and
                    ``(II) the complaining party demonstrates that each 
                of such reasons is not true, but a pretext for 
                discrimination that is the unlawful employment 
                practice.
    ``(2) Paragraph (1) shall not be construed to specify the only mean 
by which an unlawful employment practice based on disparate treatment 
may be established.''.

                                 <all>
```
# Fourth Court of App eals

San Antonio, Texas

July 7, 2016

No. 04

- 16

- 00343

- CV

IN THE MATTER OF B.S.P

. ,

From the 289th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. CM2012JUV01933 Honorable Daphne Previti Austin , Judge Presiding



### O R D E R

On July 1, 2016, appellant filed a copy of a request for items to be included in a supplemental clerk’s record. We order Donna Kay McKinney, Bexar County District Clerk, to file the requested items in a supplemental clerk’s record by July 18, 2016

.

_________________________________ Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said

court on this 7th day of July, 2016

.

___________________________________ Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
<PAGE>
 
                                                                    EXHIBIT 11.1

                              YURIE SYSTEMS, INC.

                 COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER COMMON AND COMMON
             EQUIVALENT SHARES FOR THE THREE AND SIX MONTHS ENDED
                            JUNE 30, 1997 AND 1996

                                  (UNAUDITED)

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
 
 
                                             THREE MONTHS ENDED         SIX MONTHS ENDED
                                                  JUNE 30,                  JUNE 30,
                                             1997         1996         1997         1996
                                        -------------  -----------  -----------  -----------
 
<S>                                       <C>          <C>          <C>          <C>
Net Income                                $ 1,699,305  $   929,031  $ 2,614,117  $ 1,982,743
                                        =============  ===========  ===========  =========== 
 
Average shares outstanding during the      24,657,198   20,208,400   23,865,161   20,208,400
 period
 
Dilutive effect of stock options after
 application of treasury stock method       1,984,646    1,542,408    1,862,950    1,542,408
                                        -------------  -----------  -----------  -----------  
 
Average number of shares and equivalent
 shares outstanding during the period      26,641,844   21,750,808   25,728,111   21,750,808
                                        -------------  -----------  -----------  -----------  
 
Earnings per common and common
 equivalent share                         $       .06  $       .04  $       .10  $       .09 
                                        =============  ===========  ===========  =========== 
 
</TABLE>
## SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

## Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

870 CAF 10-02365
PRESENT: SCUDDER, P.J., CENTRA, FAHEY, GREEN, AND GORSKI, JJ.

IN THE MATTER OF COMMISSIONER OF GENESEE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES, ON BEHALF OF NAKEETA GIBSON, PETITIONER-RESPONDENT,

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

JERRELL J.T. JONES, RESPONDENT-APPELLANT.

CHARLES J. GREENBERG, BUFFALO, FOR RESPONDENT-APPELLANT.

Appeal from an order of the Family Court, Genesee County (Eric R. Adams, J.), entered November 9, 2010 in a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 4. The order committed respondent to the Genesee County Jail for a period of six months.

It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is unanimously reversed on the law without costs and the matter is remitted to Family Court, Genesee County, for a new hearing.

Memorandum: Respondent father appeals from an order confirming the Support Magistrate’s determination that he willfully failed to obey an order of Family Court and sentencing him to six months in jail. We agree with the father that the court erred in allowing him to proceed pro se at the confirmation hearing.

“A person who faces the possibility of imprisonment stemming from the willful violation of a previous order of the court has the right to the assistance of counsel” ( Matter of Scott v Scott , 62 AD3d 714, 715; see Family Ct Act § 262 [a] [vi]; Matter of Tanya T. McD. v Timothy E.D. , 63 AD3d 423; Matter of Keenan v Keenan , 51 AD3d 1075, 1077). “The deprivation of a party’s fundamental right to counsel is a denial of due process and requires reversal, without regard to the merits of the unrepresented party’s position . . . Although a party may proceed pro se, [a] court’s decision to permit a party who is entitled to counsel to proceed pro se must be supported by a showing on the record of a knowing, voluntary and intelligent waiver of [the right to counsel] . . . In order for the court to ensure that the waiver of the right to counsel is valid, the court must conduct a searching inquiry of [the] party . . .[, and] there must be a showing that the party was aware of the dangers and disadvantages of proceeding without counsel” ( Matter of Deon M. , 68 AD3d 1740, 1741- 1742 [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Matter of Kathleen K. , 17 NY3d 380; Matter of Casey N. , 59 AD3d 625, 627-628, lv denied 12 NY3d 710, 710). “Where, as here, the court fails to conduct a searching-2- 870 CAF 10-02365

inquiry, reversal is required” ( Deon M. , 68 AD3d at 1742). We therefore reverse the order and remit the matter to Family Court for a new hearing.

Entered: September 30, 2011 Patricia L. Morgan Clerk of the Court
I

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 2139

To amend title 44, United States Code, to authorize appropriations for

the National Historical Publications and Records Commission.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

MAY 18, 1993

Mr. CONDIT (for himself, Mr. CONYERS, Mr. THOMAS of Wyoming, and Mr.

SHARP) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Government Operations

A BILL

To amend title 44, United States Code, to authorize appropriations for the National Historical Publications and

Records Commission.

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

3 That section 2504(f) of title 44, United States Code is

4 amended by striking ‘‘(f)(1)’’ and all that follows through

5 the end of paragraph (1) and inserting the following:

6 ‘‘(f)(1) There are authorized to be appropriated to

7 the National Historical Publications and Records Commis8 sion such amounts as may be necessary to carry out this
2

•HR 2139 IH

1 chapter for each of fiscal years 1994, 1995, 1996, 1997,

2 and 1998.’’.

Æ
<PAGE>
                                                                    Exhibit 99.1





                      Statement of Chief Executive Officer

         Pursuant to Section 1350 of Title 18 of the United States Code





Pursuant to Section 1350 of Title 18 of the United States Code, the undersigned,
Joseph Esposito, the President and Chief Executive Officer of
eResearchTechnology, Inc. (the "Company"), hereby certifies that:

     The Company's Form 10-Q Quarterly Report for the period ended September 30,
     2002 (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a)
     of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

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







Dated:  November 13, 2002                /s/ Joseph Esposito
                                         --------------------------------------
                                         Joseph Esposito,
                                         President and Chief Executive Officer
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-6897

ALEX THOMAS HUNT, Petitioner - Appellant, versus E. E. WRIGHT, Warden, Respondent - Appellee.Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. T.S. Ellis, III, District Judge. (CA-99-795-AM) Submitted: January 11, 2001 Decided: January 17, 2001 Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and KING, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Alex Thomas Hunt, Appellant Pro Se. Eugene Paul Murphy, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Alex Thomas Hunt seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 & Supp. 2000). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we denya certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. See Hunt v. Wright , No. CA-99-795-AM (E.D. Va. filed June 5, 2000; entered June 7, 2000). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Wallace Drake, Appellant.

[4 NYS3d 456]

Appeal from a resentence of the Onondaga County Court (Joseph E. Fahey, J.), rendered October 19, 2011. Defendant was resentenced by imposing periods of postrelease supervision upon his convictions of attempted murder in the second degree, assault in the first degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree.

It is hereby ordered that the resentence so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.

Memorandum: Defendant was convicted in 2002 upon a jury verdict of attempted murder in the second degree (Penal Law §§ 110.00, 125.25 [1]), assault in the first degree (§ 120.10 [1]) and criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree (§ 265.03 [2]). At sentencing, County Court failed to impose a period of postrelease supervision (PRS) upon each count, as required by Penal Law § 70.45 (1). While defendant was serving his sentence, the court resentenced him pursuant to Correction Law § 601-d, to add the requisite periods of PRS. Defendant now contends that the resentencing violates his constitutional double jeopardy and due process rights. Even assuming, arguendo, that defendant’s contentions do not require preservation *(cf. People v Woods,*122 AD3d 1400, 1401 [2014]; *1383
      *People v Smikle,*112 AD3d 1357, 1358 [2013], *lv denied*22 NY3d 1141 [2014]; *see generally People v Williams,*14 NY3d 198, 220-221 [2010], *cert denied*562 US 947 [2010]), we nevertheless conclude that they lack merit.

Inasmuch as “defendant had not yet completed his originally imposed sentence of imprisonment when he was resentenced, his resentencing to a term including the statutorily required period of postrelease supervision did not violate the double jeopardy or due process clauses of the United States Constitution” (P*eople v Fox,*104 AD3d 789, 789-790 [2013], *lv denied*21 NY3d 943 [2013]; *see People v Lingle,*16 NY3d 621, 630-633 [2011]; *People v Ralph,*91 AD3d 796, 796-797 [2012], *lv denied*20 NY3d 1064 [2013]; *cf. Williams,*14 NY3d at 217). Defendant’s reliance on cases rejected by the Court of Appeals in *Lingle*is misplaced *(see Lingle,*16 NY3d at 632).

Present — Scudder, P.J., Lindley, Valentino and DeJoseph, JJ.
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2792 Introduced in House (IH)]

103d CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2792

To authorize the Secretary of Transportation to issue a certificate of 
   documentation with appropriate endorsement for employment in the 
      coastwise trade of the United States for the vessel PAI NUI.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             July 28, 1993

 Mr. Abercrombie introduced the following bill; which was referred to 
             the Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To authorize the Secretary of Transportation to issue a certificate of 
   documentation with appropriate endorsement for employment in the 
      coastwise trade of the United States for the vessel PAI NUI.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled, That notwithstanding 
section 27 of the Merchant Marine Act, 1920 (46 App. U.S.C. 883), the 
Act of June 19, 1886 (46 App. U.S.C. 289), and section 12106 of title 
46, United States Code, the Secretary of Transportation may issue a 
certificate of documentation with appropriate endorsement for 
employment in the coastwise trade of the United States for the vessel 
PAI NUI (Hawaii State Registration Number HA 6949 D).

                                 <all>
```
APPEALS ACCEPTED FOR REVIEW

2009-1520.

#### State v. Kupay-Zimerman.

Cuyahoga App. No. 92043, 2009-Ohio-3596.

Pfeifer and O’Connor, JJ., dissent.

Cupp, J., not participating.
#### Jouett E. ARNEY, et al., Plaintiffs, v. Steve DAVIES, et al., Defendants.

No. 90-3532-S.

United States District Court, D. Kansas.

March 18, 1991.

Jouett Edgar Arney, pro se.

ORDER

SAFFELS, District Judge.

This matter is before the court on a pro se civil rights complaint filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff, an inmate incarcerated at the Lansing Correctional Facility, Lansing, Kansas, filed this complaint on behalf of himself and those similarly situated. The relief sought includes damages, including back wages and penalties, which plaintiff alleges are owed to all state prisoners involved in the manufacture of prison-made goods in the past ten years.

In this action, plaintiff appears to allege a conspiracy among the defendants; state legislators, corrections officials, business owners in several states, and the United Parcel Service; to wrongfully sell and distribute prison-made goods in interstate commerce in violation of Í8 U.S.C. § 1761 and § 1762.

Having reviewed this complaint, the court concludes this action should be dismissed. First, the federal statutes cited, which concern the interstate transportation and labeling of products made by inmates, do not give rise to a private cause of action. *Wentworth v. Solem,*548 F.2d 773 (8th Cir.1977).

Further, to the extent plaintiff seeks to allege a conspiracy by implicating state legislators and officials with private defendants, he must present specific factual allegations which tend to show an agreement and concerted action. *Sooner Products Co. v. McBride,*708 F.2d 510 (10th Cir.1983). Plaintiff’s complaint appears simply to recite a list of sales of products from prison industries in support of his broad allegations. Even permitting this pro se complaint the liberal construction to which it is entitled, *see Haines v. Kerner,*404 U.S. 519, 92 S.Ct. 594, 30 L.Ed.2d 652 (1972), the court concludes plaintiff’s allegations are not sufficient to support his claim of conspiracy.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED this action is hereby dismissed.