alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Smith Barney Futures Management LLC
                         388 Greenwich Street, 7th Floor
                          New York, New York 10013-2396

June 11, 2002


Winton Capital Management
1a. St. Mary Abbot's Place
Kensington, London W86LS, U.K.

Attention:  Mr. Martin Hunt

         Re:      Management Agreement Renewals

Dear Mr. Kemp:

     We are writing with respect to your  management  agreements  concerning the
commodity pools to which reference is made below (the "Management  Agreements").
We are extending the term of the Management Agreements through June 30, 2003 and
all other provisions of the Management Agreements will remain unchanged.

o        Smith Barney Principal Plus Futures Fund L.P. II
o        Smith Barney Diversified Futures Fund L.P.
o        AURORA 2001

    Please acknowledge receipt of this modification by signing one copy of this
letter and returning it to the attention of Mr. Daniel  McAuliffe at the address
above or fax to  212-723-8985.  If you have any  questions  I can be  reached at
212-723-5435.

Very truly yours,

SMITH BARNEY FUTURES MANAGEMENT LLC


By:      /s/ Daniel R. McAuliffe, Jr.
           -------------------------
         Daniel R. McAuliffe, Jr.
         Chief Financial Officer & Director


AGREED AND ACCEPTED
WINTON CAPITAL MANAGEMENT

By:        /s/ Martin Hunt
       -------------------------

Print Name: Martin Hunt
       -------------------------
        Chief Financial Officer
DRMcA/sr
#### § 605.54 Education of institutionalized persons.

A recipient to which this subpart applies and that operates or supervises a program or activity that provides aid, benefits, or services for persons who are institutionalized because of handicap shall ensure that each qualified handicapped person, as defined in § 605.3(k)(2), in its program or activity is provided an appropriate education, as defined in § 605.33(b). Nothing in this section shall be interpreted as altering in any way the obligations of recipients under subpart D.

[47 FR 8573, Mar. 1, 1982, as amended at 68 FR 51381, Aug. 26, 2003]
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA

RICHMOND DIVISION

THE REAL TRUTH ABOUT OBAMA, INC.,

Plaintiff,

v.

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION, et al.,

Defendants.

Action No. 3:08–CV–483

ORDER

THIS MATTER is before the Court on a Consent Motion to Stay Proceedings on the

Merits (Dock. No. 117).  Upon due consideration, and because the parties consent, the

Court GRANTS the Motion to Stay pending a decision from the Fourth Circuit on Plaintiff’s

request for a rehearing on the court’s resolution of Plaintiff’s preliminary injunction

motion.  The parties are DIRECTED to contact this Court within seven days after the Fourth

Circuit resolves the Plaintiff’s motion to provide a status report on the case before this

Court. 

Let the Clerk send a copy of this Order to all counsel of record.

It is SO ORDERED.

ENTERED this   17th    day of June 2010

                                    /s/                             

James R. Spencer

Chief United States District Judge

Case 3:08-cv-00483-JRS Document 118 Filed 06/17/10 Page 1 of 1
FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20463 

11/16/16 

FROM: 

MEMORANDUM 

TO: Patricia C. Orrock 

Chief Compliance Officer 

Thomas E. Hintermister 

Assistant Staff Director 

Audit Division 

Adav Noti ^ 

Associate General Counsel 

Policy Division 

Lorenzo Hoi loway 

Assistant General Coimsel 

Compliance Advice 

Margaret J. Forman 

Attomey 

SUBJECT: Interim Audit Report on the American Financial Services Association PAC (LRA 

1034) 

I. INTRODUCTION 

The Office of the General Coimsel has reviewed the proposed Interim Audit Report 

("proposed lAR") on the American Financial Services Association PAC. The proposed lAR 

contains two findings: Misstatement of Financial Activity (Finding 1), and Excessive 

Contributions Made to Federal Candidates (Finding 2).' We concur with the findings. If you 

have any questions, please contact Margaret J. Forman, the attomey assigned to this audit. 

' We recommend that the Commission consider this document in Executive Session because the Commission 

may eventually decide to pursue an investigation of matters contained in the proposed lAR. 11 C.F.R. §§ 2.4(a) and 

(b)(6).
United States District Court

District of Columbia

Republican National Committee et al.,

Plaintiffs

v.

Federal Election Commission,

Defendant

Civil Case No. 14-cv-853 (CRC) 

Stipulation Dismissing Plaintiffs and Action

The Federal Election Commission (“FEC”) and all Plaintiffs agree to the voluntary dismissal,

without condition or prejudice, of all Plaintiffs, all claims, and this action, i.e., Republican National Committee v. FEC, No. 14-cv-853 (CRC). This is “a stipulation of dismissal” under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), allowing dismissal without a court order.

The FEC and plaintiffs herein who were part of a consolidated en-banc proceeding before the

D.C. Circuit (No. 14-5241), as part of a certified proceeding under 52 U.S.C. 30110 pursuant to

this Court’s Certification Order (Docs. 36, and 37-2), have stipulated to dismissal of all plaintiffs, all claims, and that proceeding. (D.C. Cir. Doc. 1523274.)

By agreeing to this dismissal, the FEC does not waive any rights or arguments that may apply

in future cases.

1

Case 1:14-cv-00853-CRC Document 38 Filed 12/03/14 Page 1 of 3
Respectfully submitted,

/s/ James Bopp, Jr. 

James Bopp, Jr., DC Bar #CO 0041

jboppjr@aol.com

Richard E. Coleson*

rcoleson@bopplaw.com

Randy Elf*

relf@bopplaw.com

THE BOPP LAW FIRM, PC

1 South Sixth Street

Terre Haute, IN 47807-3510

812/232-2434 telephone

812/235-3685 facsimile

Counsel for Plaintiffs

*Admitted Pro Hac Vice

Lisa J. Stevenson (D.C. Bar No. 457628)

Deputy General Counsel — Law

lstevenson@fec.gov

Kevin Deeley

Acting Associate General Counsel

kdeeley@fec.gov

Harry J. Summers

Assistant General Counsel

hsummers@fec.gov

Greg J. Mueller (D.C. Bar No. 462840)

gmueller@fec.gov

Seth Nesin

Attorney

snesin@fec.gov

/s/ Charles Kitcher

Charles Kitcher (D.C. Bar No. 986226)

Attorney

ckitcher@fec.gov

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION

999 E Street NW

Washington, DC 20463

(202) 694-1650

Counsel for Defendant 

December 3, 2014

2

Case 1:14-cv-00853-CRC Document 38 Filed 12/03/14 Page 2 of 3
Certificate of Service

I certify that today I electronically filed the foregoing with the clerk of court using the

CM/ECF system, which will notify:

Kevin Deeley KDeeley@fec.gov 

JSadio@fec.gov

RFreeman@fec.gov

VGraham@fec.gov 

Harry Summers HSummers@fec.gov, 

JSadio@fec.gov

KDeeley@fec.gov 

RFreeman@fec.gov

VGraham@fec.gov 

Erin Chlopak EChlopak@fec.gov

DKolker@fec.gov 

JSadio@fec.gov

KDeeley@fec.gov 

VGraham@fec.gov 

Greg Mueller GMueller@fec.gov, 

 EChlopak@fec.gov

JSadio@fec.gov

KDeeley@fec.gov 

VGraham@fec.gov 

Seth Nesin SNesin@fec.gov

JSadio@fec.gov

KDeeley@fec.gov 

RFreeman@fec.gov

VGraham@fec.gov 

Charles Kitcher CKitcher@fec.gov

December 3, 2014 /s/ James Bopp, Jr. 

James Bopp, Jr., DC Bar #CO 0041

3

Case 1:14-cv-00853-CRC Document 38 Filed 12/03/14 Page 3 of 3
#### Annie Keefe, Respondent, *v.*George W. Lee et al., Appellants.

*Keefe*v. *Lee,*131 App. Div. 903, affirmed.

(Argued November 30, 1909;

decided December 17, 1909.)

Appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the fourth judicial department, entered November 9, 1907, affirming a judgment in favor of plaintiff entered upon a verdict and an order denying a motion for a new trial in an action to recover damages for an alleged assault.

*Theodore E. Hancock*for appellants.

*William L. Barnum*and *Edwin M. Wells*for respondent.

Judgment affirmed, with costs, on the ground that while we think that the admission of evidence of a previous suit for an assault by defendant, over his objection, was clearly erroneous, nevertheless as the evidence is ample and conclusive as to the assault perpetrated by the defendant, the court, in its power, overlooks the error and affirms the judgment; no opinion.

Concur: Cullen, Oh. J., Gray, Edward T. Bartlett, Haight, Willard Barlett, Hiscock and Chase, JJ.
# CE2010015EN.01009701.xml

| 21.1.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 15/97 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.1.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 15/97

---

Tuesday 21 October 2008Certain categories of agreements and concerted practices in the air transport sector (codified version) *

P6_TA(2008)0484

European Parliament legislative resolution of 21 October 2008 on the proposal for a Council regulation on the application of Article 81(3) of the Treaty to certain categories of agreements and concerted practices in the air transport sector (codified version) (COM(2008)0367 — C6-0272/2008 — 2008/0124(CNS))

2010/C 15 E/27

(Consultation procedure — codification)

The European Parliament,

The European Parliament

having regard to the Commission proposal to the Council (COM(2008)0367),

having regard to Article 83 of the EC Treaty, pursuant to which the Council consulted Parliament (C6-0272/2008),

having regard to the Interinstitutional Agreement of 20 December 1994 — Accelerated working method for official codification of legislative texts (1),

1

having regard to Rules 80 and 51 of its Rules of Procedure,

having regard to the report of the Committee on Legal Affairs (A6-0379/2008),

| A. | whereas, according to the Consultative Working Party of the Legal Services of the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission, the proposal in question contains a straightforward codification of the existing texts without any change in their substance, |
| --- | --- |

A.

whereas, according to the Consultative Working Party of the Legal Services of the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission, the proposal in question contains a straightforward codification of the existing texts without any change in their substance,

| 1. | Approves the Commission proposal as adapted to the recommendations of the Consultative Working Party of the Legal Services of the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Approves the Commission proposal as adapted to the recommendations of the Consultative Working Party of the Legal Services of the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission;

| 2. | Instructs its President to forward its position to the Council and the Commission. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Instructs its President to forward its position to the Council and the Commission.

---

(1)  OJ C 102, 4.4.1996, p. 2.

1

---
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

INDEPENDENCE INSTITUTE,

Plaintiff,

v. 

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION,

Defendant.

Civil Action No. 14-1500 (CKK) 

ORDER

(October 6, 2014) 

For the reasons set forth in the accompanying Memorandum Opinion, it is, this 6th day of 

October, 2014, hereby 

ORDERED that Plaintiff’s [3] Application for a Three Judge Court is DENIED; and it is 

further

ORDERED that Plaintiff’s [5] Motion for Preliminary Injunction is DENIED as MOOT; 

and it is further 

ORDERED that JUDGMENT is entered for the Defendant; and it is further 

ORDERED that this action is dismissed in its entirety. 

SO ORDERED.

This is a final, appealable Order. 

____/s/________________________ 

COLLEEN KOLLAR-KOTELLY 

United States District Judge

Case 1:14-cv-01500-CKK Document 23 Filed 10/06/14 Page 1 of 1
Density Measurement:

1. The empty vial weight was measured. 

2. The pic acid powder was poured inside the vial and the vial was tapped a few times on a table top to 

make sure there were no large voids present. The weight was recorded. 

3. The vial was emptied and filled with equal volume of water. The water volume was measured. 

4. The bulk density was measured by wt/volume.
# CE2009259EN.01012201.xml

| 29.10.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 259/122 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.10.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 259/122

---

Mediation in civil and commercial matters ***II

P6_TA(2008)0166

European Parliament legislative resolution of 23 April 2008 on the Council common position for adopting a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on certain aspects of mediation in civil and commercial matters (15003/5/2007 — C6-0132/2008 — 2004/0251(COD))

(2009/C 259 E/25)

(Codecision procedure: second reading)

The European Parliament,

The European Parliament

| — | having regard to the Council common position (15003/5/2007 — C6-0132/2008), |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to the Council common position (15003/5/2007 — C6-0132/2008),

| — | having regard to its position at first reading (1) on the Commission proposal to Parliament and the Council (COM(2004)0718), |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to its position at first reading (1) on the Commission proposal to Parliament and the Council (COM(2004)0718),

1

| — | having regard to Article 251(2) of the EC Treaty, |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to Article 251(2) of the EC Treaty,

| — | having regard to Rule 67 of its Rules of Procedure, |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to Rule 67 of its Rules of Procedure,

| — | having regard to the recommendation for second reading of the Committee on Legal Affairs (A6-0150/2008), |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to the recommendation for second reading of the Committee on Legal Affairs (A6-0150/2008),

1.   Approves the common position;

2.   Notes that the act is adopted in accordance with the common position;

3.   Instructs its President to sign the act with the President of the Council pursuant to Article 254(1) of the EC Treaty;

4.   Instructs its Secretary-General to sign the act, once it has been verified that all the procedures have been duly completed, and, in agreement with the Secretary-General of the Council, to have it published in the Official Journal of the European Union;

5.   Instructs its President to forward its position to the Council and the Commission.

---

(1)  OJ C 27 E, 31.1.2008, p. 129.

1

---
Exhibit 23.1

MOORE & ASSOCIATES, CHARTERED
  ACCOUNTANTS AND ADVISORS
  ------------------------
     PCAOB REGISTERED


          CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM
          --------------------------------------------------------


We consent to the use, in the statement on Form 10KSB of Tropical PC, Inc.,
of our report dated March 27, 2008 on our audit of the financial statements
of Tropical PC, Inc. as of December 31, 2007 and December 31, 2006, and the
related statements of operations, stockholders' equity and cash flows for the
years ended December 31, 2007 and December 31, 2006, and from inception on
September 22, 2004 through December 31, 2007, and the reference to us under
the caption "Experts."


/s/ Moore & Associates, Chartered
---------------------------------
    Moore & Associates Chartered
    Las Vegas, Nevada
    April 4, 2008


              2675 S. Jones Blvd. Suite 109, Las Vegas, NV 89146
                       (702)253-7499 Fax (702)253-7501

<PAGE>
#### §§ 605.24-605.30 [Reserved]
§ 800.104 Phased expansion, etc. ( a ) *Phase-in.* OPM may enter into a contract with a health insurance issuer to offer MSP options if the health insurance issuer agrees that: ( 1 ) With respect to the first year for which the health insurance issuer offers MSP options, the health insurance issuer will offer MSP options in at least 60 percent of the States;
( 2 ) With respect to the second such year, the health insurance issuer will offer the MSP options in at least 70 percent of the States;
( 3 ) With respect to the third such year, the health insurance issuer will offer the MSP options in at least 85 percent of the States; and
( 4 ) With respect to each subsequent year, the health insurance issuer will offer the MSP options in all States.
( b ) *Partial coverage within a State.* ( 1 ) OPM may enter into a contract with an MSP issuer even if the MSP issuer's MSP options for a State cover fewer than all the service areas specified for that State pursuant to § 800.110 of this part.
( 2 ) If an issuer offers both an MSP option and QHP on the same Exchange, an MSP issuer must offer MSP coverage in a service area or areas that is equal to the greater of: ( i ) The QHP service area defined by the issuer or,
( ii ) The service area specified for that State pursuant to § 800.110 of this part covered by the issuer's QHP.
( c ) *Participation in SHOPs.* ( 1 ) An MSP issuer's participation in a Federally-facilitated SHOP must be consistent with the requirements for QHP issuers specified in 45 CFR 156.200(g).
( 2 ) An MSP issuer must comply with State standards governing participation in a State-based SHOP, consistent with § 800.114. For these State-based SHOP standards, OPM retains discretion to allow an MSP issuer to phase-in SHOP participation in States pursuant to section 1334(e) of the Affordable Care Act.
( d ) *Licensed where offered.* OPM may enter into a contract with an MSP issuer who is not licensed in every State, provided that the issuer is licensed in every State where it offers MSP coverage through any Exchanges in that State and demonstrates to OPM that it is making a good faith effort to become licensed in every State consistent with the timeframe in paragraph (a) of this section.
* This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the

doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. The court

generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order

and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3. 

F I L E D

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

FEB 3 2000

PATRICK FISHER

Clerk

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

CLAUDE HAROLD SMITH, JR.,

a/k/a Doobie,

Defendant-Appellant.

No. 99-7095

(D.C. No. 99-CR-22-S)

(E.D. Okla.)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

Before TACHA, McKAY, and PORFILIO, Circuit Judges.

After examining appellant’s brief and appellate record, this panel has

determined unanimously to grant the parties’ request for a decision on the brief

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(f); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case

is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. 
2--

Claude H. Smith, Jr., pled guilty to one count of being a felon in possession

of a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g), 924(e). Mr. Smith objected to

that portion of the presentence report which recommended enhancement of his

sentence, pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 4B1.4(a) and 18 U.S.C. § 924(e) (Armed Career

Criminal provisions), in light of his previous felony convictions for violent

crimes. Mr. Smith argued that although he had been convicted on three occasions

of second degree burglary, in no instance had there been any record established

that his conduct was violent. The probation officer responded by noting that

burglary is listed as a violent offense in 18 U.S.C. § 924(e). The district court

adopted the presentence report over Mr. Smith’s objection, ruling that the

appropriate Guideline Offense Level was 24 with enhancement to Level 30 by

reason of the Armed Career Criminal provisions and criminal history level VI. 

Mr. Smith was sentenced to 210 months’ imprisonment plus 60 months’

supervised probation and fined $100.

Mr. Smith requested appeal of his sentence, and his attorney complied and

perfected the appeal. However, Mr. Smith’s attorney filed an Anders brief, see

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744-45 (1967), and a motion to withdraw,

stating that he believed the appeal has no merit.

“Review of a sentence enhancement under the Armed Career Criminal Act

is a legal issue subject to de novo review.” United States v. Moudy, 132 F.3d 618,
-3-

619 (10th Cir. 1998). Except for facial illegality, improper calculation, or clearly

erroneous fact findings, the court lacks jurisdiction for appellate review of a

sentence which is within the appropriate sentencing guideline range. See United

States v. Garcia, 919 F.2d 1478, 1480-81 (10th Cir. 1990). After thorough review

of the record, we have determined that there is no error in Mr. Smith’s sentencing,

and we hold that we lack jurisdiction for appellate review. 

Attorney Mark Green’s motion to withdraw is granted. This appeal is

hereby DISMISSED.

Entered for the Court

Monroe G. McKay 

Circuit Judge
#### Lewis *v.*Douglas County Co-operative Store.

Argued January 23,

Decided August 17, 1906.

Claim. Before Judge Bartlett. Douglas superior court. April 18, 1905.

*Joseph 8. James,*for plaintiff in error.

*J. U. McLarty*and *Roberts & Hutcheson,*contra.

Atkinson, J.

The verdict in this case was required by the evidence, and it was erroneous for the judge *to*grant a new trial.

*Judgment reversed.*

*All the Justices concur, except Fish, O. J., absent.*
§ 73.735-707 Holding office in professional societies. ( a ) Employees may be members of professional societies and be elected or appointed to office in such a society. Activity in professional associations is generally desirable from the point of view of both the Department and the employee. Employees shall avoid, however, any real or apparent conflict of interest in connection with such membership. For example, they must not: ( 1 ) Directly or indirectly commit the Department or any portion of it on any matter unless such action is taken in an official capacity;
( 2 ) Permit their names to be attached to documents the distribution of which would be likely to embarrass the Department; or
( 3 ) Serve in capacities involving them as representatives of non-Government organizations in dealing with the Government.
( b ) In undertaking any office or function beyond ordinary membership in a professional association, a Department employee must obtain advance approval in accordance with § 73.735-708 of this subpart in any situation in which his or her responsibilities as an officer would relate to his or her official duties or would create a real or apparent conflict of interest with responsibilities as a Department employee. For example, advance administrative approval must be obtained: ( 1 ) Before an employee who is responsible for review and approval of grants or contracts, or is in a supervisory position over those who conduct review and approval, may hold office, or be a trustee or member of the governing board, or the chairman or member of a committee, in any organization which has or is seeking a grant or contract with the bureau or comparable organizational unit in which he or she is employed;
( 2 ) Before an employee may hold office in an organization which customarily expresses publicly views on matters of legislative or administrative policy within the specific areas of concern to the Department.
Date of 

report 

----

1969 

Dec 8 

&ruutr nf tqt luittb ittttts 

NINETY-FIRST CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION {Convened Januar} 3, 19~ 

EXECUTIVE CALENDAR 

Prepated tmde1 the dttection of FRANCIS R. VALEO, Secretary of the Senate 

By GERALD A HAcKtTT, Executive Clerk 

Monda}, December 15, 1969 

NOMINATION 

Calendar Message Name of nominee 

I 

omce Predecessor 

No No 

AMBASSADOR 

695 645 Hemy J Tasca, of Pennsyl- \mb.1ss 1dor Ell.ti tordm tr1 

'.llll<L, a Fore1gn Seruce md Plcmpotcutnn of 

officer of the class of the Umtcd ct 1tes of 

career munster AmencJ. to Greece 

37-022-69-No 118 

US GOVERNMENT PRINTlHG OFFICE 1919
#### § 81.55 Consolidation.

The responsible Department official may provide for proceedings in the Department to be joined or consolidated for hearing with proceedings in other Federal departments or agencies, by agreement with such other departments or agencies. All parties to any proceeding consolidated subsequently to service of the notice of hearing or opportunity for hearing shall be promptly served with notice of such consolidation.