alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Page 1 

Commodity Futures Trading Commission 

CEA CASES 

NAME: INTERNATIONAL COMMODITIES CORPORATION, AND RICHARD B. OTTENS 

DOCKET NUMBER: 227 

DOCUMENT TYPE: ISSUANCE OF COMPLAINT 

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Commodity Exchange Authority 

Washington, D. C. 20250 

ISSUANCE OF COMPLAINT -- CEA DOCKET NO. 227 

(Administrative Hearing Under the Commodity Exchange Act) 

A complaint and notice of hearing has been signed by the Assistant Secretary 

of Agriculture charging violation of the Commodity Exchange Act by: 

International Commodities Corporation, 

and Richard B. Ottens 

(Chicago, Illinois) 

The complaint charges that on a number of days during the period from January 

23, 1974, through March 21, 1974, International Commodities Corporation, a 

registered futures commission merchant of Chicago, Illinois, failed to properly 

segregate regulated commodity customers' funds. It also charges that the firm 

failed to meet minimum capital requirements as of October 31, 1973, and failed 

to prepare certain required records. 

The issuance of a complaint under the Commodity Exchange Act does not 

constitute proof of violation of the law. Such violation is established only 

when there has been a determination that the evidence substantiates allegations 

in the complaint. A determination is considered as having been made when a 

decision of the Administrative Law Judge becomes final, or after appeal, a 

decision is made by the Judicial Officer of the Department. Complaints are 

filed in the Office of the Hearing Clerk of the Department of Agriculture and 

are a matter of public record. Pending disposition of a complaint, it is the 

policy of the CEA not to comment or elaborate on charges contained therein or to 

discuss evidence on which it is based. 

A public hearing on the complaint will be held before the Administrative Law 

Judge in Chicago, Illinois, at a date and time to be specified at a later date. 

LOAD-DATE: June 16, 2008 
Page 2
Page 1 

Commodity Futures Trading Commission 

CEA CASES 

NAME: MILLER-LANE & CO. 

DOCKET NUMBER: 171 

DATE: JUNE 22, 1970 

DOCUMENT TYPE: CEASE AND DESIST ORDER 

Docket No. 171 

Name: Miller-Lane & Co. 

Effective On or about June 22, 1970 

Respondent Miller-Lane & Co. shall cease and desist from: (1) failing to 

treat and deal with customers' funds as belonging to such customers as required 

by section 4d of the Commodity Exchange Act (7 U.S.C. 6d, Supp. IV, 1969) and 

the regulations thereunder; (2) failing to hold customers' funds in segregated 

accounts as required by section 4d of the Commodity Exchange Act (7 U.S.C. 6d, 

Supp. IV, 1969) and the regulations thereunder; (3) failing to prepare and 

maintain (a) an accurate record as of the close of the market on each business 

day of the amount of money, securities and property which must be in segregated 

account in order to comply with the requirements of section 4d of the Commodity 

Exchange Act (7 U.S.C. 6d, Supp. IV, 1969) and the regulations thereunder, (b) a 

monthly computation of its net worth as required by section 1.10 of the 

regulations (34 F.R. 599), and (c) such other books and records relating to 

dealing in commodity futures in such form and manner and for such period as may 

be required by the Secretary of Agriculture; and (4) engaging as futures 

commission merchant within the meaning of the Commodity Exchange Act without 

meeting the minimum financial requirements prescribed by section 1.17 of the 

regulations (34 F.R. 599) issued under the Commodity Exchange Act. 

This order shall become effective on the date of service of a copy thereof 

upon respondents. 

Done at Washington, D. C. 

JUN 16 1970 

[SEE SIGNATURE IN ORIGINAL] 

Thomas J. Flavin 

Judicial Officer 

LOAD-DATE: June 16, 2008 
Page 2
|                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                             |
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Inst | Fidelity Emerging Markets Discovery Fund                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                             |
| **Supplement to theFidelity Advisor® Emerging Markets Discovery FundInstitutional ClassDecember 30, 2013Prospectus**
The following information replaces similar information for found in the "Fund Summary" section under the heading "Principal Investment Strategies" on page 4.
-  Allocating the fund's assets across emerging markets sectors, using different Fidelity managers. |

| X                                                                                                                                                                                                                             |
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| - Definition
Supplement Text Block.
+ References
No definition available.
+ Details**Name:**fit_SupplementTextBlock**Namespace Prefix:**fit_**Data Type:**nonnum:textBlockItemType**Balance Type:**na**Period Type:**duration |
#### Amaranth LLC et al., Appellants, v J.P. Morgan Chase & Co. et al., Respondents.

Submitted December 9, 2009;

decided February 11, 2010

Motion, insofar as it seeks leave to appeal as against J.E Morgan Chase & Co., dismissed upon the ground that as to said party the order sought to be appealed from does not finally determine the action within the meaning of the Constitution; motion, insofar as it seeks leave to appeal as against J.E Morgan Futures, Inc., denied.
Exhibit 32.2


CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO


18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,


AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K/A (Amendment No. 1) of Rent-A-Center, Inc. (the " Company ") for the period ended December 31, 2014, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the " Report "), I, Guy J. Constant, Executive Vice President - Finance, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer of the Company, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge:





|    |                                                                                                                      
|--- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|(1) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and




|    |                                                                                                                                                     
|--- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|(2) | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.










/s/ Guy J. Constant


Guy J. Constant


Executive Vice President - Finance, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer





Dated:  September 18, 2015








A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Rent-A-Center, Inc. and will be retained by Rent-A-Center, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.  The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 and is not being filed as part of the Report or as a separate disclosure document.
Proposed 2005 Amendment to 1996 Stock Option Plan



 EXHIBIT 10.3.1 
  
 Proposed 2005 Amendments to the 1996 Stock Option Plan (the “Plan”) 
  

	1.	Amendment to Increase the Number of Shares of Common Stock Which May Be Issued Under the Plan. 

  
 Section 4, entitled “NUMBER OF SHARES SUBJECT TO PLAN,” is amended and restated in its entirety as follows:

  
 “The stock to be offered under the Plan shall consist of
up to 6,000,000 shares of the Company’s Common Stock plus four percent (4%) of the total number of outstanding shares of Common Stock each year from 2001 until the termination of the Plan. If any Option granted hereunder shall expire or
terminate for any reason without having been exercised in full, the unpurchased shares subject thereto shall again be available for purposes of this Plan.” 
  


	2.	Amendment to Extend the Termination Date of the Plan. 

  
 Section 19, entitled “TERM OF PLAN,” is amended and restated in its entirety as follows: 
  
 “No Option shall be granted pursuant to the Plan after January 17,
2011 unless earlier terminated by the Board of Directors or extended by an amendment approved by the stockholders of the Company. The Plan was adopted by the Board on January 17, 1996. The Plan was approved by the shareholders on
September 12, 1996.”
No. 665

(October Term, 1934).

#### Herndon *v.*Georgia.

October 14, 1935.

295 U. S. 441.
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 1313 Introduced in House (IH)]

111th CONGRESS
  2d Session
H. RES. 1313

 Expressing support for designation of May as ``Child Advocacy Center 
     Month'' and commending the National Child Advocacy Center in 
        Huntsville, Alabama, on their 25th anniversary in 2010.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 29, 2010

Mr. Griffith submitted the following resolution; which was referred to 
                  the Committee on Education and Labor

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
 Expressing support for designation of May as ``Child Advocacy Center 
     Month'' and commending the National Child Advocacy Center in 
        Huntsville, Alabama, on their 25th anniversary in 2010.

Whereas, in May 1985, the National Child Advocacy Center opened its doors in 
        Huntsville, Alabama;
Whereas there are now more than 900 Child Advocacy Centers in the United States, 
        all based off of the first one in Huntsville, Alabama;
Whereas, in 2009, child advocacy centers served more than 260,000 children;
Whereas services are offered to children who are physically and sexually abused 
        entirely for free to the family;
Whereas child advocacy centers work to streamline the investigation process so 
        that the child may be helped most effectively;
Whereas this is done through a multidisciplinary team managing alleged cases of 
        abuse from the initial investigation all the way through prosecution;
Whereas, during this time, child advocacy centers offer medical, therapeutic, 
        and other support services to victim's and victim's families;
Whereas 1 in 4 girls and 1 in 7 boys will be sexually abused before the age of 
        18;
Whereas child advocacy centers also reach out to the community and sponsor 
        programs that help bring awareness to this problem;
Whereas education and support for communities has proven to be successful in 
        preventing abuse from occurring;
Whereas the United States Department of Health and Human Services sponsored the 
        Fourth National Incidence Study of Child Abuse and Neglect Report to 
        Congress which found that from 1993 to 2006 there was a 44 percent 
        decrease in the rate of sexual abuse; and
Whereas May would be an appropriate month to designate as ``Child Advocacy 
        Center Month'': Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved, That the House of Representatives--
            (1) supports the designation of ``Child Advocacy Center 
        Month''; and
            (2) commends the National Child Advocacy Center in 
        Huntsville, Alabama, on their 25th anniversary.
                                 <all>
```
#### Luis Lorenzo ARMENTERO, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. James E. TILTON, CDCR Secretary; Matthew Kramer, Warden, Folsom State Prison, Defendants—Appellees.

No. 08-16307.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Dec. 19, 2011.*

Filed Jan. 11, 2012.

Luis Lorenzo Armentero, Vacaville, CA, pro se.

Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Luis Lorenzo Armentero, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that prison lock-downs violated his constitutional rights. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the district court’s dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. *Resnick v. Hayes,*213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir.2000). We affirm.

*714The district court properly dismissed Armentero’s claim based on deliberate indifference to his medical needs because Armentero failed to allege that defendants were aware of an excessive risk to his health based on his placement in segregation during prison lockdowns. *See Toguchi v. Chung,*391 F.3d 1051, 1057 (9th Cir.2004).

To the extent that Armentero challenged the conditions of his confinement based on a lack of exercise, the district court properly dismissed his claim because Armentero failed to allege a substantial deprivation in his second amended complaint. *See May v. Baldwin,*109 F.3d 557, 565 (9th Cir.1997) (explaining that “a temporary denial of outdoor exercise with no medical effects is not a substantial deprivation” under the Eighth Amendment); *Ferdik v. Bonzelet,*963 F.2d 1258, 1262 (9th Cir.1992) (reference to original and first amended complaints was precluded by doctrine that an amended pleading supersedes the original pleading).

Armentero’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
EXHIBIT
        10.13

       

      Letter
        of Agreement

       

      This
        will
        suffice to cover our major points of agreement. Please have Mike transfer
        these
        agreement points to your standard lease:

       

      
        
          	 	
                  ·

                	
                  This
                    rental agreement, dated September 30, 2005, is between AeroGrow
                    International as tenant and Ken Dubach as landlord.

                
	 	 	 
	 	
                  ·

                	
                  Aerogrow
                    International will rent Ken Dubach's suite #38 at: 2885 E. Aurora
                    Ave.
                    Boulder, CO 80303

                
	 	 	 
	 	
                  ·

                	
                  $700.00
                    rent based on a month to month lease

                
	 	 	 
	 	
                  ·

                	
                  No
                    security deposit (as agreed due to previous tenancy)

                
	 	 	 
	 	
                  ·

                	
                  Rent
                    to begin one week from 10-3-2005

                
	 	 	 
	 	
                  ·

                	
                  30
                    days notice to vacate to be given by either party

                
	 	 	 
	 	
                  ·

                	
                  Landlord
                    may show unit with 24 hours notice

                
	 	 	 
	 	
                  ·

                	
                  Landlord
                    to pay taxes and insurance

                
	 	
                  ·

                	
                  Aerogrow
                    can begin basic repair of unit to include paint and minor repairs
                    not to
                    exceed $1000.00 for handyman fee of $25.00 per hour plus expenses,
                    to be
                    reimbursed by landlord within 15 days of submission of
                    bill

                


        

      

       

      
         

      

      Signed
        Kenneth F. Dubach, Date 09-30-05

       

      Signed
        Frederic Wiedemann, Date 09-30-05
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

ANTHONY J. CRAWFORD,

Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 601 MAL 2020

Petition for Allowance of Appeal 

from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 4th day of May, 2021, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is 

DENIED.
#### Emilio BAUTISTA-SERRANO, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Mary MITCHELL, Warden, Respondent—Appellee.

No. 11-7281.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Feb. 9, 2012.

Decided: Feb. 14, 2012.

Emilio Bautista-Serrano, Appellant Pro Se.

Before WILKINSON, AGEE, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Emilio Bautista-Serrano appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2241 (West 2006 *&*Supp. 2011) petition. The district court referred this case to a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) (2006). The magistrate judge recommended that relief be denied and advised Bautista-Serrano that failure to file timely objections to this recommendation could waive appellate review of a district court order based upon the recommendation.

The timely filing of specific objections to a magistrate judge’s recommendation is necessary to preserve appellate review of the substance of that recommendation when the parties have been warned of the consequences of noncompliance. *Wright v. Collins,*766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th Cir. 1985); *see also Thomas v. Arn,*474 U.S. 140, 106 S.Ct. 466, 88 L.Ed.2d 435 (1985). Bautista-Serrano has waived appellate review by failing to timely file objections after receiving proper notice. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court.

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.

*AFFIRMED.*
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 1380 Introduced in House (IH)]

111th CONGRESS
  2d Session
H. RES. 1380

   Applauding the State of Arizona for asserting its 10th Amendment 
rights, protecting its citizens, and safeguarding its jobs, and calling 
  upon the Administration to act immediately to enforce our Nation's 
                           immigration laws.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 20, 2010

Mr. Barrett of South Carolina submitted the following resolution; which 
             was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
   Applauding the State of Arizona for asserting its 10th Amendment 
rights, protecting its citizens, and safeguarding its jobs, and calling 
  upon the Administration to act immediately to enforce our Nation's 
                           immigration laws.

Whereas the 10th Amendment to the Constitution provides as follows: ``The powers 
        not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited 
        by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the 
        people.'';
Whereas citizens of the United States should not have to wait for the Federal 
        Government to enforce laws that are already on the books;
Whereas it is a violation of section 275(a) of the Immigration and Nationality 
        Act unlawfully to enter into the United States;
Whereas the State of Arizona, due to lack of action on the part of the Federal 
        Government, has taken on the task of fighting illegal immigration in 
        that State;
Whereas, on April 23, 2010, the Governor of Arizona signed into law SB 1070, the 
        Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act;
Whereas this law makes it a violation of Arizona State law for individuals to be 
        in that State without proper documentation; and
Whereas the bill protects against racial profiling and discrimination by stating 
        that the State ``may not consider race, color or national origin'' in 
        implementing the requirements of the Support Our Law Enforcement and 
        Safe Neighborhoods Act: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved, That the House of Representatives--
            (1) applauds the State of Arizona for asserting its 10th 
        Amendment rights, protecting its citizens, and safeguarding 
        American jobs; and
            (2) calls upon the Administration to act immediately to 
        enforce our Nation's immigration laws.
                                 <all>
```
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 11


                           FIRST BELL BANCORP, INC.
                       COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER SHARE
                               DECEMBER 31, 1999

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                           TWELVE          TWELVE
                                           MONTHS          MONTHS
                                           ENDED            ENDED
                                         12/31/99         12/31/99
                                         --------         --------
                                           BASIC        FULLY DILUTED
<S>                                     <C>             <C>
Net income applicable to common stock   $8,041,756        $8,041,756
                                        ----------        ----------


Weighted average shares outstanding      5,043,325         5,043,325

Add:  Option common stock equivalents            -           138,439

Less:  MRP shares                          242,384           242,384

Add:  Granted MRP shares                         -            64,714
                                        ----------        ----------

     Total Shares                        4,800,941         5,004,096
                                        ==========        ==========

Earnings per share                      $     1.68        $     1.61
                                        ==========        ==========
</TABLE>