alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
AO 450 (Rev. 5/85) Judgment in a Civil Case r

United States District Court

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

UNITED STATES COMMODITY JUDGMENT FOR PERMANENT

FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION, INJUNCTION

v.

JAMES A. MAGGIO, TRADE MANAGEMENT, LLC, CASE NUMBER: C05-5766RJB 

an Oregon Limited Liabiltiy Company, and 

TRADE RISK MANAGEMENT, LLC, a 

Washington Limited Liability Company

 Jury Verdict. This action came before the Court for a trial by jury. The issues have been tried and the

jury has rendered its verdict.

 _X__ Decision by Court. This action came to trial or hearing before the Court. The issues have been tried

or heard and a decision has been rendered.

 

Pursuant to the oral findings of fact and conclusions of law made on the record in this matter, Plaintiff

is granted judgment for a permanent injunction as follows:

Defendants James A. Maggio, Trade Risk Management LLC, (Washington) and Trade Risk

Management LLC, (Oregon) and any other person or entity associated with them, including any

successor thereof, are permanently restrained, enjoined, and prohibited from, directly or

indirectly, from engaging in conduct that violates 7 U.S.C. section 6o(1)(A) and (B) and

Commodity Futures Trading Commission Regulations 17 C.F.R. section 4.41(a)(1) and (2)

(2002). The injunctive provisions of this Order shall be binding upon Defendants Maggio, Trade

Risk Management , LLC (Washington) and Trade Risk Management, LLC (Oregon) and any

person insofar as he or she is acting in the capacity of officer, agent, servant or attorney of

Defendants Maggio, Trade Risk Management LLC (Washington) and Trade Risk Management

LLC (Oregon) and any person who receives actual notice of this Judgment by personal service

or otherwise insofar as he or she is acting in active concert or participation with Defendants

Maggio, Trade Risk Management LLC (Washington) and Trade Risk Management LLC (Oregon).

Plaintiff is entitled to costs taxed by the clerk upon motion. 

November 15, 2007 BRUCE RIFKIN 

 Clerk

 /s/ Dara L. Kaleel

 By Dara L. Kaleel, Deputy Clerk

Case 3:05-cv-05766-RJB Document 79 Filed 11/15/07 Page 1 of 1
No. 61545.

#### Pan American Food Company, Inc. *v.*United States,

protest 302029-K (New York).

Opinion by

Donlon, J.

Plaintiff having raised no objection, the motion Was granted on the ground that the protest was prematurely filed.
|   | (1)    | the Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the year ended April 30, 2010 (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and |
|--------|--------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   |   |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      |
|   | (2)    | the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.                                                                                                      |

|          | KID’S BOOK WRITER INC. |
|---------------|------------------------------|
| July 29, 2010 |                         |   |
|          | By:                          | /s/ Hassan Salari |
|          |                         | Hassan SalariChief Executive OfficeChief Financial Officer |
|          |                         |   |
|          |                         |   |
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-7526

ROBERT TERRELL GRANT, Petitioner - Appellant,

v. GENE M. JOHNSON, Director Of Virginia D.O.C., Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Claude M. Hilton, Senior District Judge. (1:08-cv-00714-CMH-JFA)

Submitted: November 19, 2009 Decided: December 3, 2009

Before MOTZ, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Robert Terrell Grant, Appellant Pro Se. Gregory William Franklin, OFFICE OT THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

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

Robert Terrell Grant seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that any assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district

court is likewise debatable. See Miller-El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee , 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Grant has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. 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
AFS-11-346-E August 10, 2011

Exemption No. 8629C Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2005-22015

Ms. Jeanette Johnson Principal Lorenzo Walker Institute of Technology 3702 Estey Avenue Naples, FL 34104

Dear Ms. Johnson:

This letter is to inform you that we have granted your petition to extend Exemption No. 8629, as amended. It explains the basis for our decision and describes its effect.

The Basis for Our Decision

By letter dated April 29, 2011, you petitioned the Federal Aviation Adm inistration (FAA) on behalf of Lorenzo Walker Institute of Technology (LWIT) for an extension of Exemption No. 8629, as amended. That exemption from §§ 65.17(a), 65.19(b), and 65.75(a) of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) allows LWIT to conduct FAA oral and practical tests as an integral part of an approved curriculum and give the aviation mechanic general written test after students complete the general curriculum.

In your petition, you indicate that there has been no change in the conditions and reasons relative to public interest and safety that were the basis for granting the original exemption.

The FAA has determined that good cause exists for not publishing a summary of the petition

in the Federal Register because the requested extension of the exemption would not set a precedent, and any delay in acting on this petition would be detrimental to LWIT.2

Our Decision

The FAA has determ ined that the justification for the issuance of Exemption No. 8629, as amended, remains valid with respect to this exemption and is in the public interest. Therefore, under the authority provided by 49 U.S.C. 40113 and 44701, which the FAA Administrator has delegated to me, I grant your petition, subject to the conditions and

limitations listed below.

Conditions and Limitations

1. Before exercising the privileges of this exem ption, LWIT must provide its operations handbook to its certificate holding district o ffice (CHDO) and receive approval of the operations handbook from the CHDO.

2. LWIT’s operations handbook must contain the manner in which oral and practical tests are to be administrated. It must also contain the times and places at which LWIT intends to administer tests under this exemption.

3. LWIT’s operations handbook must contain procedures for retesting after failure of the oral or practical test for an instructional unit.

4. Before retesting after failure, LWIT must require a student to repeat the entire

instructional unit associated with the failed test and receive authorization from LWIT to retake the test. LWIT’s operations handbook must contain procedures for documenting and tracking compliance with all retesting procedures.

The Effect of Our Decision

Our decision extends the term ination date of Exemption No. 8629, as amended, to September 30, 2013, unless sooner superseded or rescinded.

Sincerely,

/s/

John W. McGraw Acting Director, Flight Standards

Service
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Michael Allen, Appellant.

[632 NYS2d 914]

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Renee White, J.), rendered December 17, 1992, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, and sentencing him to a term of 2 x/2 to 5 years, unanimously affirmed.

*349Upon exercise of our factual review powers, we find by a preponderance of the evidence that defendant knew and appreciated the consequences of his conduct or that such conduct was wrong. Concur—Ellerin, J. P., Rubin, Kupferman, Williams and Mazzarelli, JJ.
From: drjohn@hughes.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 6:00:11 PM

To Whom It May Concern:

I am writing today to ask in the strongest way possible that you rescind the unjust and coercive

mandate that all "contraceptives" and sterilization procedures be covered by private health insurance

with no co-pay to patients. If you do not reverse course I ask you to expand conscience protections for

any organizations that provide individual and group insurance and have moral or religious objections. I

strongly oppose the government forcing free insurance coverage on Americans especially for drugs and

devices that I oppose because some of these can cause an abortion (such as ella and Plan B).

I also ask you to reconsider your definition of religious employer and offer an authentic conscience

protection for any organization and business that has moral or religious objection to providing such

insurance to their employees. This legal mandate clearly violates the spirit of conscience laws which

prohibit government discrimination against those who object to various health services on moral or

religious grounds. The definition of "religious employer" in the regulation is so narrow as to only include

churches, but will still mean that a host of businesses and organizations that have conscience objections

will be required to choose between either violating their conscience or not being able to offer employees

health insurance.

Please protect the conscience rights of insurers, providers and people like me who object to being

forced by the federal government to offer or subsidize contraceptives and sterilization services, especially

when some of these drugs can take the life of early unborn children. No Americans should be forced by

the federal government to essentially subsidize services they object to. I again urge you in the strongest

way possible to reverse course and remove contraceptives and sterilizations from the list of mandatory

preventive services.

Sincerely,

John Vandiver

Heber Springs, AR 72543
Case 2:05-cv-01846-JLR Document 27 Filed 08/14/06 Page 1 of 2
Case 2:05-cv-01846-JLR Document 27 Filed 08/14/06 Page 2 of 2
Case 3:05-cr-05631-JPD Document 5 Filed 11/14/05 Page 1 of 1
From: sitarz@pacbell.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 5:57:23 PM

To Whom It May Concern:

I am writing today to ask in the strongest way possible that you rescind the unjust and coercive

mandate that all "contraceptives" and sterilization procedures be covered by private health insurance

with no co-pay to patients. If you do not reverse course I ask you to expand conscience protections for

any organizations that provide individual and group insurance and have moral or religious objections. I

strongly oppose the government forcing free insurance coverage on Americans especially for drugs and

devices that I oppose because some of these can cause an abortion (such as ella and Plan B).

I also ask you to reconsider your definition of religious employer and offer an authentic conscience

protection for any organization and business that has moral or religious objection to providing such

insurance to their employees. This legal mandate clearly violates the spirit of conscience laws which

prohibit government discrimination against those who object to various health services on moral or

religious grounds. The definition of "religious employer" in the regulation is so narrow as to only include

churches, but will still mean that a host of businesses and organizations that have conscience objections

will be required to choose between either violating their conscience or not being able to offer employees

health insurance.

Please protect the conscience rights of insurers, providers and people like me who object to being

forced by the federal government to offer or subsidize contraceptives and sterilization services, especially

when some of these drugs can take the life of early unborn children. No Americans should be forced by

the federal government to essentially subsidize services they object to. I again urge you in the strongest

way possible to reverse course and remove contraceptives and sterilizations from the list of mandatory

preventive services.

Sincerely,

Hans Sitarz

Valencia, CA 91355
IV 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. RES. 476 

Condemning bigotry, violence, and discrimination against Iranian-Americans. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JUNE 11, 2007 

Mr. MEEHAN (for himself, Mr. SHAYS, Mrs. MALONEY of New York, Mr. 

HONDA, Mr. MICA, Mr. WAXMAN, and Mr. CAMPBELL of California) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on 

the Judiciary 

RESOLUTION 

Condemning bigotry, violence, and discrimination against 

Iranian-Americans. 

Whereas Iranian-Americans serve as government officials, in 

the military and law enforcement, working to uphold the 

constitution of the United States and to protect all Americans; 

Whereas Iranian-Americans are vibrant, peaceful, and lawabiding citizens of the Baha’i, Christian, Jewish, Muslim, 

and Zoroastrian faiths, or are nonreligious; 

Whereas Iranian-Americans have greatly contributed to the 

social and economic fabric of American society; 

Whereas the United States condemns acts of bigotry, violence, and discrimination; 


hmoore on PRODPC68 with HMBILLS
2 

•HRES 476 IH 

Whereas the House of Representatives is seriously concerned 

regarding the findings of discriminatory enforcement of 

the immigration laws, leading to arbitrary detentions, denials of access to counsel, and deportations of nationals 

of Middle Eastern origin, including nationals of Iranian 

origin, as reported in the report of the Inspector General 

of the Department of Justice following September 11, 

2001; and 

Whereas the House of Representatives is concerned about the 

alarming number of reports of incidents of discrimination 

and bias-motivated crime against Americans of Middle 

Eastern descent, including Iranian-Americans, all across 

the Nation in the wake of the tragic events that unfolded 

on September 11, 2001: Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That the House of Representatives— 

2 (1) declares that government leaders and law 

3 enforcement personnel should ensure that the civil 

4 rights and civil liberties of all Americans, including 

5 Iranian-Americans, are fully protected; 

6 (2) condemns bigotry and any acts of violence 

7 or discrimination against any American, including 

8 Iranian-Americans; 

9 (3) encourages Iranian-Americans to share with 

10 local, State, and Federal elected officials as well as 

11 others in their community incidences of discrimina12 tion, in an effort to end stereotypes, correct mis13 conceptions, and convey instances of abuse against 

14 the Iranian-American community; and 


hmoore on PRODPC68 with HMBILLS
3 

•HRES 476 IH 

1 (4) calls upon local, State, and Federal law en2 forcement authorities to vigorously investigate and 

3 prosecute crimes committed against all Americans, 

4 including Iranian-Americans, that are based on ac5 tual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, 

6 or ethnicity. 

Æ 


hmoore on PRODPC68 with HMBILLS
No. 58679.

protests 137776-K, etc. (San Francisco).

#### The Joseph Abrams Company et al. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise and the issues involved herein are similar in all material respects to the facts and issues in Abstracts 57670 and 57671, the collector was directed to re-reliquidate the entries in accordance with the mandate of this court in its respective original decisions and to refund duties accordingly.
From: glohunt0119@yahoo.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 8:24:22 PM

To Whom It May Concern:

I am writing today to ask in the strongest way possible that you rescind the unjust and coercive

mandate that all "contraceptives" and sterilization procedures be covered by private health insurance

with no co-pay to patients. If you do not reverse course I ask you to expand conscience protections for

any organizations that provide individual and group insurance and have moral or religious objections. I

strongly oppose the government forcing free insurance coverage on Americans especially for drugs and

devices that I oppose because some of these can cause an abortion (such as ella and Plan B).

I also ask you to reconsider your definition of religious employer and offer an authentic conscience

protection for any organization and business that has moral or religious objection to providing such

insurance to their employees. This legal mandate clearly violates the spirit of conscience laws which

prohibit government discrimination against those who object to various health services on moral or

religious grounds. The definition of "religious employer" in the regulation is so narrow as to only include

churches, but will still mean that a host of businesses and organizations that have conscience objections

will be required to choose between either violating their conscience or not being able to offer employees

health insurance.

Please protect the conscience rights of insurers, providers and people like me who object to being

forced by the federal government to offer or subsidize contraceptives and sterilization services, especially

when some of these drugs can take the life of early unborn children. No Americans should be forced by

the federal government to essentially subsidize services they object to. I again urge you in the strongest

way possible to reverse course and remove contraceptives and sterilizations from the list of mandatory

preventive services.

Sincerely,

Gloria Hunt

Bluffton, IN 46714
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-40414

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

WALTER MAURICIO GONZALEZ-DONIS,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 7:11-CR-2032-1

Before KING, CLEMENT, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Walter Mauricio

Gonzalez-Donis has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in

accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v.

Flores, 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Gonzalez-Donis has filed a response. We

have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected

therein, as well as Gonzalez-Donis’s response. We concur with counsel’s

assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. 

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

February 19, 2013

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 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 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

 Case: 12-40414 Document: 00512147017 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/19/2013
No. 12-40414

Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is

excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. 

See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.

2

 Case: 12-40414 Document: 00512147017 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/19/2013
**Exhibit 31.2**  

**CERTIFICATION**  

**Pursuant to Section 302 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**  

I, PeterMessineo, certify that: 

     1. Ihave reviewed this Annual Report on Form 10-K of IC Places, Inc. as of December31, 2011; 

     2. Basedon my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of amaterial fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statementsmade, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, notmisleading with respect to the period covered by this report; 

     3. Basedon my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial informationincluded in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financialcondition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, andfor, the periods presented in this report; 

     4. Theregistrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishingand maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange ActRules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) and internal control over financialreporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for theregistrant and have: 

     a)Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosurecontrols and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure thatmaterial information relating to the registrant, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularlyduring the period in which this report is being prepared; 

     b)Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused suchinternal control over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision,to provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financialreporting and the preparation of financial statements for external purposes inaccordance with generally accepted accounting principles; 

     c)Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls andprocedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectivenessof the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period coveredby this report based on such evaluation; and 

     d)Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (theregistrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that hasmaterially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and 

     5. Theregistrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our mostrecent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to theregistrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board ofdirectors (or persons performing the equivalent functions): 

     a)All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operationof internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely toadversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize andreport financial information; and 

 

----