alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### §715q. Expenses of commission; authorization of appropriations

A sum sufficient to pay the necessary expenses of the commission and its members, not to exceed an annual expenditure of $7,500, is authorized to be appropriated out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated. Said appropriation shall be paid out on the audit and order of the chairman of said commission, which audit and order shall be conclusive and binding upon the Government Accountability Office as to the correctness of the accounts of said commission.

(Feb. 18, 1929, ch. 257, §18, 45 Stat. 1225; Pub. L. 87–812, Oct. 15, 1962, 76 Stat. 922; Pub. L. 108–271, §8(b), July 7, 2004, 118 Stat. 814.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

2004—Pub. L. 108–271 substituted "Government Accountability Office" for "General Accounting Office".

1962—Pub. L. 87–812 increased annual expenditures from not more than $5,000 to not more than $7,500 and corrected a misspelling of "commission".
Division of Economic and 

Risk Analysis

U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission

February 19, 2016
The Commission, as a matter of policy, 

disclaims responsibility for any private 

publication or statement by any of its 

employees. The views expressed herein are 

those of the authors, and do not necessarily 

reflect the views of the Commission or of 

the authors’ colleagues on the staff of the 

Commission.
Analysis Supporting the SEC’s 

Rulemaking 

Christof W. Stahel

Assistant Director
 Assets grew from $4.4 trillion in 2000 to $12.7 trillion in 2014

 Proportion invested in equity declined; alternative strategies still small

Growth in Assets held in US Mutual Funds

2000 2014

Assets 

Growth 

Rate

Assets % 

Growth 

Class 

Assets

Class 

Assets (%) Class 

Assets

Class 

Assets 

(%)

All 4,409,289 

12,678,62

4 7.80% 

US Equity 2,874,681 65.2% 5,642,977 44.5% 4.9% -2.7%

Foreign Equity 465,336 10.6% 1,956,005 15.4% 10.8% 2.7%

Mixed Strategy 324,303 7.4% 1,737,201 13.7% 12.7% 4.5%

General Bonds 240,067 5.4% 1,690,291 13.3% 15.0% 6.7%

US Municipal Bonds 277,579 6.3% 565,201 4.5% 5.2% -2.4%

Alternative Strategy 0 0% 333,920 2.6% n/a n/a

Foreign Bonds 19,170 0.4% 259,364 2.0% 20.4% 12.2%

Mortgage-Backed 

Securities 51,865 1.2% 229,546 1.8% 11.2% 2.9%

US Government Bonds 90,610 2.1% 165,527 1.3% 4.4% -3.4%

US Corporate Bonds 65,678 1.5% 98,592 0.8% 2.9% -4.4%


-0.07

-0.06

-0.05

-0.04

-0.03

-0.02

-0.01

0

Jan-99

Jul-99

Jan-00

Jul-00

Jan-01

Jul-01

Jan-02

Jul-02

Jan-03

Jul-03

Jan-04

Jul-04

Jan-05

Jul-05

Jan-06

Jul-06

Jan-07

Jul-07

Jan-08

Jul-08

Jan-09

Jul-09

Jan-10

Jul-10

Jan-11

Jul-11

Jan-12

Jul-12

Jan-13

Jul-13

Amihud Liquidity

-0.01

-0.01

-0.01

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

1999Q11999Q32000Q12000Q32001Q12001Q32002Q12002Q32003Q12003Q32004Q12004Q32005Q12005Q32006Q12006Q32007Q12007Q32008Q12008Q32009Q12009Q32010Q12010Q32011Q12011Q32012Q12012Q32013Q12013Q3

Asset-weighted Liquidity

P25 Median P75

Liquidity of U.S. Equities: 1999 - 2013

Liquidity of U.S. Equity Mutual Funds: 1999 - 2013

 

How do large outflows affect fund 

liquidity?

Equity Mutual Funds

Amihud Fund Liquidity 

Municipal Bond Funds

Relative Amount of Municipal Bonds

1 2 3 4 5 6 

Outflow -0.00047 -0.00037 0.035 0.046

[-2.18] [-1.70] [2.48] [3.21]

Inflow 0.00041 0.00047 -0.047 -0.037

[2.80] [3.25] [-2.64] [-2.06]

Outflow > Median Outflow -0.00077 0.024

[-2.17] [1.33]

Outflow =< Median Outflow 0.00043 0.095

[0.78] [2.64]

Inflow > Median Inflow 0.00046 -0.037

[1.75] [-1.40]

Inflow =< Median Inflow 0.00085 -0.012

[1.48] [-0.34]

Lipper class FE Yes Yes Yes n/a n/a n/a

Year-quarter FE Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Control variables No Yes Yes No Yes No

Observations 32,219 32,219 32,219 4,483 4,483 4,483
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Before the

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

May 17, 2021

In the Matter of

W O Group, Inc.,

File No. 500-1

ORDER OF SUSPENSION OF

TRADING

It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) that there is a 

lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of W O Group, Inc.

(“PAPA1”) (CIK No. 1757067), an inactive Florida corporation located in Scottsdale, Arizona

with a class of securities registered with the Commission pursuant to Securities Exchange Act of 

1934 ("Exchange Act") Section 12(g) because it is delinquent in its periodic filings with the 

Commission, having not filed any periodic reports since it filed a Form 10-Q for the period 

ended June 30, 2019. On December 17, 2020, the Commission’s Division of Corporation 

Finance (“Corporation Finance”) sent a delinquency letter to PAPA requesting compliance with 

its periodic filing requirements, which was delivered. As of April 1, 2021, the common stock of 

PAPA was quoted on OTC Link operated by OTC Markets Group Inc. (formerly “Pink Sheets”) 

(“OTC Link”), had six market makers, and was eligible for the “piggyback” exception of 

Exchange Act Rule 15c2-11(f)(3). 

 

1 The short form of each issuer’s name is also its stock symbol.
2

The Commission is of the opinion that the public interest and the protection of investors 

require a suspension of trading in the securities of the above-listed company. Therefore, it is 

ordered, pursuant to Section 12(k) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, that trading in the 

securities of the above-listed company is suspended for the period from 9:30 a.m. EDT on May 

18, 2021, through 11:59 p.m. EDT on June 1, 2021.

For the Commission, by the Division of Enforcement, pursuant to delegated authority.

Vanessa A. Countryman

Secretary
§ 252.3 Great Lakes vessels and tugboats arriving in the United States from Canada; special procedures. ( a ) *United States vessels and tugboats.* An immigration examination shall not be required of any crewman aboard a Great Lakes vessel of United States registry or a tugboat of United States registry arriving from Canada at a port of the United States who has been examined and admitted by an immigration officer as a member of the crew of the same vessel or tugboat or of any other vessel or tugboat of the same company during the current calendar year.
( b ) *Canadian or British vessels or tugboats.* An alien crewman need not be presented for inspection if the alien crewman: ( 1 ) Serves aboard a Great Lakes vessel of Canadian or British registry or aboard a tugboat of Canadian or British registry arriving at a United States port-of-entry from Canada;
( 2 ) Seeks admission for a period of less than 29 days;
( 3 ) Has, during the current calendar year, been inspected and admitted by an immigration officer as a member of the crew of the same vessel or tugboat, or of any other vessel or tugboat of the same company;
( 4 ) Is either a British or Canadian citizen or is in possession of a valid Form I-95 previously issued to him or her as a member of the crew of the same vessel or tugboat, or of any other vessel or tugboat of the same company;
( 5 ) Does not request or require landing privileges in the United States beyond the time the vessel or tugboat will be in port; and,
( 6 ) Will depart to Canada with the vessel or tugboat.
[62 FR 10388, Mar. 6, 1997]
§ 660.113 Construction. ( a ) No construction shall be undertaken on any FH project until plans, specifications, and estimates have been concurred in by the cooperator(s) and the FS, and approved in accordance with procedures contained in the statewide FH agreement.
( b ) The construction of FHs will be performed by the contract method, unless construction by the FHWA, the FS, or a cooperator on its own account is warranted under 23 U.S.C. 204(e).
( c ) Prior to final construction acceptance by the contracting authority, the project shall be inspected by the cooperator, the FS, and the FHWA to identify and resolve any mutual concerns.
§ 316.14 Adjudication—examination, grant, denial. ( a ) *Examination.* The examination on an application for naturalization shall be conducted in accordance with Section 335 of the Act.
( b ) *Determination* — ( 1 ) *Grant or denial.* Subject to supervisory review, the employee of the Service who conducts the examination under paragraph (a) of this section shall determine whether to grant or deny the application, and shall provide reasons for the determination, as required under section 335(d) of the Act.
( 2 ) *Appeal.* An applicant whose application for naturalization has been denied may request a hearing, which shall be carried out in accordance with section 336 of the Act.
#### § 333.2 Attachment of photographs to documents.

A photograph of the applicant must be securely and permanently attached to each certificate of naturalization or citizenship, or to any other document that requires a photograph, in a manner prescribed by USCIS.

[76 FR 53801, Aug. 29, 2011]
<PAGE>

<TABLE>
<S><C>
                          NOT VALID UNLESS COUNTERSIGNED BY TRANSFER AGENT
                        INCORPORATED UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE



      NUMBER                                   ST. GALLEN                                  SHARES
  --------------                                                                       -------------
      [SEAL]                            ACQUISITION CORPORATION                            [SEAL]
  --------------                                                                       -------------
                  AUTHORIZED COMMON STOCK: 20,000,000 SHARES - PAR VALUE: $.001


THIS CERTIFIES THAT



IS THE RECORD HOLDER OF

                     SHARES OF ST. GALLEN ACQUISITION CORPORATION COMMON STOCK


TRANSFERABLE ON THE BOOKS OF THE CORPORATION IN PERSON OR BY DULY AUTHORIZED ATTORNEY UPON SURRENDER
OF THIS CERTIFICATE PROPERLY ENDORSED. THIS CERTIFICATE IS NOT VALID UNTIL COUNTERSIGNED BY THE
TRANSFER AGENT AND REGISTERED BY THE REGISTRAR.

         WITNESS THE FACSIMILE SEAL OF THE CORPORATION AND THE FACSIMILE SIGNATURE OF ITS DULY
AUTHORIZED OFFICERS.


DATED:


         /s/ CANDACE BEAVER                                                   /s/ KEVIN DEVITO
-----------------------------------           [CORPORATE SEAL]                ----------------------------
                         SECRETARY                                            CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
</TABLE>
Case 16-00703-SCS Doc 37 Filed 08/01/17 Entered 08/01/17 11:52:15 Desc Main

 Document Page 1 of 2
Entered on Docket: August 1, 2017

Case 16-00703-SCS Doc 37 Filed 08/01/17 Entered 08/01/17 11:52:15 Desc Main

 Document Page 2 of 2
Case 16-71348-SCS Doc 5 Filed 04/18/16 Entered 04/18/16 11:35:52 Desc Main

 Document Page 1 of 3
Case 16-71348-SCS Doc 5 Filed 04/18/16 Entered 04/18/16 11:35:52 Desc Main

 Document Page 2 of 3
Case 16-71348-SCS Doc 5 Filed 04/18/16 Entered 04/18/16 11:35:52 Desc Main

 Document Page 3 of 3
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Before the

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

Release No. 85739 / April 29, 2019

The Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) announced the temporary 

suspension, pursuant to Section 12(k) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange 

Act”), of trading in the securities of Bitcoin Generation, Inc. (“BTGN”), of Bartlesville, 

Oklahoma, commencing at 9:30 a.m. EDT on April 29, 2019, and terminating at 11:59 p.m. EDT 

on May 10, 2019. 

The Commission temporarily suspended trading in the securities of BTGN due to concerns about 

the accuracy and adequacy of information in the marketplace about, among other things, (1) 

BTGN’s public statements regarding the viability and valuation of a bond that BTGN 

purportedly acquired from an entity based in the United Kingdom; (2) the amount of BTGN’s 

outstanding common stock; (3) stock promotional activity relating to BTGN and the market 

impact of such promotional activity; and (4) the accuracy and adequacy of current public 

information regarding BTGN’s financial condition.

The Commission cautions broker-dealers, shareholders, and prospective purchasers that they 

should carefully consider the foregoing information along with all other currently available 

information and any information subsequently issued by the company. 

Further, brokers and dealers should be alert to the fact that, pursuant to Rule 15c2-11 under the 

Exchange Act, at the termination of the trading suspension, no quotation may be entered unless 

and until they have strictly complied with all of the provisions of the rule. If any broker or dealer 

has any questions as to whether or not he has complied with the rule, he should not enter any 

quotation but immediately contact the staff in the Division of Trading and Markets, Office of 

Interpretation and Guidance, at (202) 551-5777. If any broker or dealer is uncertain as to what is 

required by Rule 15c2-11, he should refrain from entering quotations relating to BTGN’s 

securities until such time as he has familiarized himself with the rule and is certain that all of its 

provisions have been met. If any broker or dealer enters any quotation which is in violation of 

the rule, the Commission will consider the need for prompt enforcement action.

If any broker-dealer or other person has any information which may relate to this matter, they 

should immediately contact any of the following persons: Natalie Brunson, Assistant Regional 

Director, at (404) 842-7638; Amy Flaherty Hartman, Assistant Regional Director, Cyber Unit, at 

(312) 886-1457; Joshua Dickman, Senior Counsel, at (404) 842-7630; or Lucy Graetz, Senior 

Counsel, at (404) 842-7668. The Commission appreciates the assistance of the Financial 

Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA).
The Ho norable Pasco M. Bowman became Chief Judge of the United State s 1 Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit on April 18, 1998.



## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

_____________ No. 97-2156

_____________ Vurlon Murray, Jr., doing business * as Murray Farms, * * Appellant, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * Western District of Arkansas. Dan Glickman, Secretary of * Agriculture, * [UNPUBLISHED] * Appellee. *

_____________ Submitted: April 17, 1998 Filed: June 23, 1998

_____________ Before McMILLIAN, BOWMAN, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges. 1

_____________ PER CURIAM. Vurlon Murray, a farmer, alleges that his soybean crop was damaged by adverse we ather in 1994. He applied to the Department of Agriculture for disaster relie f benefits. The Department of Agriculture denied his application, and Murray soughtThe Honorable Harry F. Barnes, United States District Judge for the Western 2 District of Arkansas. -2- judici al review of this decision in the District Court. The District Court grante d 2 summary judgment to the Department of Agriculture, holdingthat the denial of benefits was not arbitrary or capricious. Having reviewed the record, we agree with the District Court. The administrative d ecision is supported by substantial evidence on the record as a whole. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons expressed in the District Court' s opinion. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. A true copy. Attest: CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
429 P.2d 656

#### The STATE of New Mexico ex rel., Thomas B. SHEARMAN, Thomas B. Shearman, Jr. and William Hugh Shearman, Petitioners, v. DISTRICT COURT OF the FIFTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT of the State of New Mexico WITHIN AND FOR CHAVES COUNTY, New Mexico, and Honorable George L. Reese, Jr., District Judge, Respondents.

No. 8448.

Supreme Court of New Mexico.

June 7, 1967.

CHAVEZ, Chief Justice, and NOBLE, MOISE, COMPTON and CARMODY, Justices, concurring.

Ordered that the petition for writ of prohibition be and the same is hereby denied.
UN PUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 18

- 6158

JEFFREY EMIL GROOVER

,

Petitioner

- Appellant

,

v.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

, Respondent

- Appellee

.

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

. James C. Dever III

, Chief District Judge. ( 5:17

- hc

- 02039

- D )

Submitted : April 19 , 2018 Decided: April 24, 2018

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and THACKER and HARRIS , Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

.

Jeffrey Emil Groover, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM:

Jeffrey Emil Groover , a federal prisoner, appeals the district court’s order denying

relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2012) petition. We have reviewed the record and find no

reversible error. * Accordingly, although we grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis, we

affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Groover v. United States , No. 5:17

- hc

02 039

- D (E.D.N.C. Feb. 6, 2018) . 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

* Groover relies on United States v. Hartwell , 448 F.3d 707, 715 (4th Cir. 2006), to argue that the district court was required to consid er his challenge s to the sentencing court’s subject matter jurisdiction . However, the district court properly concluded that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction to consider those challenges in a § 2241 petition. See United States v. Wheeler

, No. 16

- 607 3, __ F.3d __, 2018 WL 1514418, at *5 (4th Cir. Mar. 28, 2018) (holding that savings clause of 28 U.S.C. § 2255(e) (2012) is jurisdictional provision).
### §825i. Appointment of officers and employees; compensation

The Commission is authorized to appoint and fix the compensation of such officers, attorneys, examiners, and experts as may be necessary for carrying out its functions under this chapter; and the Commission may, subject to civil-service laws, appoint such other officers and employees as are necessary for carrying out such functions and fix their salaries in accordance with chapter 51 and subchapter III of chapter 53 of title 5.

(June 10, 1920, ch. 285, pt. III, §310, as added Aug. 26, 1935, ch. 687, title II, §213, 49 Stat. 859; amended Oct. 28, 1949, ch. 782, title XI, §1106(a), 63 Stat. 972.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Provisions that authorized the Commission to appoint and fix the compensation of such officers, attorneys, examiners, and experts as may be necessary for carrying out its functions under this chapter "without regard to the provisions of other laws applicable to the employment and compensation of officers and employees of the United States" have been omitted as obsolete and superseded.

Such appointments are subject to the civil service laws unless specifically excepted by those laws or by laws enacted subsequent to Executive Order No. 8743, Apr. 23, 1941, issued by the President pursuant to the Act of Nov. 26, 1940, ch. 919, title I, §1, 54 Stat. 1211, which covered most excepted positions into the classified (competitive) civil service. The Order is set out as a note under section 3301 of Title 5, Government Organization and Employees.

As to the compensation of such personnel, sections 1202 and 1204 of the Classification Act of 1949, 63 Stat. 972, 973, repealed the Classification Act of 1923 and all other laws or parts of laws inconsistent with the 1949 Act. The Classification Act of 1949 was repealed Pub. L. 89–554, Sept. 6, 1966, §8(a), 80 Stat. 632, and reenacted as chapter 51 and subchapter III of chapter 53 of Title 5. Section 5102 of Title 5 contains the applicability provisions of the 1949 Act, and section 5103 of Title 5 authorizes the Office of Personnel Management to determine the applicability to specific positions and employees.

"Chapter 51 and subchapter III of chapter 53 of title 5" substituted in text for "the Classification Act of 1949, as amended" on authority of Pub. L. 89–554, §7(b), Sept. 6, 1966, 80 Stat. 631, the first section of which enacted Title 5.

#### Amendments

1949—Act Oct. 28, 1949, substituted "Classification Act of 1949" for "Classification Act of 1923".

#### **Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries**

#### Repeals

Act Oct. 28, 1949, ch. 782, cited as a credit to this section, was repealed (subject to a savings clause) by Pub. L. 89–554, Sept. 6, 1966, §8, 80 Stat. 632, 655.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Before the

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934 

Release No. 92782 / August 27, 2021

ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDING

File No. 3-20162

In the Matter of

BlueCrest Capital Management 

Limited,

Respondent.

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

SECOND EXTENSION ORDER

The Division of Enforcement (“Division”) has requested an extension of time until 

December 31, 2021 to submit a Proposed Plan of Distribution under Rule 1101(a) of the 

Commission’s Rules on Fair Fund and Disgorgement Plans, 17 C.F.R. § 201.1101(a).

On December 8, 2020, the Commission issued an Order Instituting Administrative and 

Cease-and-Desist Proceedings Pursuant to Section 8A of the Securities Act of 1933 and Sections 

203(e) and 203(k) of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940, Making Findings, and Imposing 

Remedial Sanctions and a Cease-and-Desist Order (the “Order”)1 against BlueCrest Capital 

Management Limited (“BlueCrest” or the “Respondent”). In the Order, the Commission found 

that, from October 2011 through December 2015, BlueCrest engaged in a course of conduct 

stemming from its management of a proprietary hedge fund, BSMA Limited, that was 

detrimental to investors in BlueCrest’s flagship client hedge fund, BlueCrest Capital 

International. The Commission ordered the Respondent to pay $107,560,200 in disgorgement, 

 

1

 Securities Act Rel. No. 10896 (Dec. 8, 2020).
2

$25,154,306 in prejudgment interest, and a $37,285,494 civil money penalty, for a total of 

$170,000,000, to the Commission. The Commission also created a Fair Fund, pursuant to 

Section 308(a) of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, so the penalty paid, along with the 

disgorgement and interest paid, can be distributed to harmed investors (the “Fair Fund”).

The Fair Fund consists of the $170,000,000.00 paid by the Respondent. The Fair Fund 

has been deposited in an interest-bearing account at the U.S. Department of the Treasury’s 

Bureau of the Fiscal Service, and any accrued interest will be for the benefit of the Fair Fund.

On February 11, 2021, the Secretary, pursuant to delegated authority, issued an order 

extending the Division’s time until August 31, 2021 to submit a proposed plan of distribution.2 

The Division now believes an additional four months of time is needed. In its request for an 

extension of time, the Division states that additional time is needed to obtain information from 

the Respondent necessary to its completion of a distribution plan. 

Accordingly, for good cause shown, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Division’s 

request for an extension of time until December 31, 2021 to submit a Proposed Plan of 

Distribution is granted. 

For the Commission, by the Division of Enforcement, pursuant to delegated authority.3

Vanessa A. Countryman

Secretary 

 

2 Exchange Act Rel. No. 91102 (Feb. 11, 2021).

3

 17 C.F.R. § 200.30-4(a)(21)(i).