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

Commodity Futures Trading Commission 

CEA CASES 

NAME: SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE V. ELMER C. KIMBALL 

DOCKET NUMBER: 17 

DATE: FEBRUARY 3, 1940 

DOCUMENT TYPE: COMPLAINT 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

BEFORE THE SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE 

DOCKET NO. CE-A 17 

Secretary of Agriculture, Complainant, v. Elmer G. Kimball, Respondent. 

Complaint and Notice of Hearing Under the Commodity Exchange Act. 

There being reason to believe that the respondent hereinafter named has 

violated and is violating the Commodity Exchange Act (7 U. S. C., 1934 ed., and 

Supp. IV, § 1-17a), and the rules and regulations promulgated pursuant thereto, 

this complaint is issued alleging the following: 

1. 

Elmer C. Kimball is an individual trading and doing business at Chicago, 

Illinois, who was on December 15, 1939 and has been continuously since that time 

registered with the Secretary of Agriculture as a futures commission merchant 

and floor broker. 

2. 

The respondent, Elmer C. Kimball, on December 15, 1939 and continuously since 

that date, has been a member of the Board of Trade 

of the City of Chicago, a contract market designated by the Secretary of 

Agriculture, and on various dates after December 15, 1939, including December 

16, 19 and 20, 1939, in connection with orders to make and the asking of futures 

contracts in the commodities named in the Commodity Exchange Act on contract 

markets, which contracts may be used for hedging or determining the price basis 

of transactions in interstate commerce in the commodities involved, wilfully and 

knowingly and without the prior consent of persons from whom he had received 

such orders became the buyer in respect to selling orders of such persons and 

the seller in respect to buying orders of such persons, all in violation of the 

Commodity Exchange Act and the Rules and Regulations promulgated pursuant 

thereto. 

THEREFORE, the respondent is hereby notified to be and appear before a 

referee to be appointed by the Secretary of Agriculture at a hearing to be held 

at 10:00 a.m. on February 26, 1940, in Room 1831, South Building, Department of 

Agriculture, Washington, D. C., or at such other times and places as may be 

determined by the referee, and then and there show cause, if any there be, why 

an order shall not be made revoking the registrations of the respondent as a 

futures commission merchant and floor broker, and directing that all contract 

markets, until further notice of the Secretary of Agriculture, refuse all 

trading privileges to the respondent. 

IT IS ORDERED that this complaint and notice of hearing be [ILLEGIBLE TEXT] 

on the named respondent, by delivery of a true copy hereof to him by an employee 
Page 2 

of the Department of Agriculture or by registered mail, at least three days 

prior to the date herein not for hearing. 

Done at Washington, D. C., this 3rd day of February, 1940. Witness my hand 

and the seal of the Department of Agriculture. 

Secretary's File Room 

(Signed) 

[SEE SIGNATURE IN ORIGINAL] 

Assistant Secretary of Agriculture. 

LOAD-DATE: June 16, 2008 
Page 3
Page 1 

Commodity Futures Trading Commission 

CEA CASES 

NAME: SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE V. ADRIAN ETTINGER, EWING W. BRAND, AND ETTINGER 

& BRAND 

DOCKET NUMBER: GFA-6 

DATE: 1934 

DOCUMENT TYPE: SUMMARY OF CASE 

NOTE: PROCEEDING BEFORE THE GRAIN FUTURES COMMISSION UNDER THE GRAIN FUTURES ACT 

GFA Docket No. 6 

Adrian Ettinger, 

Ewing W. Brand, and 

Ettinger & Brand, respondents 

A complaint issued by the Secretary of Agriculture on January 9, 1934, 

alleged that the respondents, members of the Chicago Board of Trade, made grain 

futures contracts in the months of May, June, and July 1933 for certain 

individuals and concealed the identity of such persons by carrying their 

accounts in the names of fictitious persons and persons having no trades 

whatsoever, and that on or about August 14, 1933, respondents submitted false 

records to a representative of the Department of Agriculture. 

The purpose of the misrepresentation was to conceal joint action on the part 

of several persons in their trading. 

On November 13, 1934, the Grain Futures Commission ordered all contract 

markets to deny trading privileges to the respondents for a period of six 

months, effective December 1, 1934. 

LOAD-DATE: December 15, 2008 
Page 2
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



I, Markus R. Ernst, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section
1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 , that:



| | (1) | the quarterly report on Form 10-Q of GBS Enterprises Incorporated for the fiscal quarter ended June 30, 2012 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 Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
operations of GBS Enterprises Incorporated.
| | --- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|Date: August 20, 2012 | /s/Markus R. Ernst                          
|--------------------- | --------------------------------------------
|                      | Markus R. Ernst                             
|                      | Chief Financial Officer                     
|                      | (Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)
No. 361.

#### Seifer Furniture Co. *v.*Surprise, Trustee in Bankruptcy.

October 14, 1935.

*Mr. Edward Rothbart*for petitioner.

No appearance for respondent.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit denied.
Certification of Principal Executive Officer and Principal Financial Accounting Officer






Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as created by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned officer of Urigen Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (the “Company”) hereby certifies, to such officer’s knowledge, that:




(i)      the accompanying Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the fiscal year ended June 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




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






August 10, 2012
By:
/s/ Daniel Vickery, Ph.D.DANIEL VICKERY, PH.D.Chair and Principal Accounting Officer

(Principal Signing Officer)
Exhibit 23.1





CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM





We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements (Forms S-3D Registration Statement Nos. 333-40211 and 333-130721) and in the Registration Statements (Forms S-8 Registration Statements Nos. 333-60089, 333-128278, and 333-109018) pertaining to certain stock award, stock option, stock incentive and stock bonus plans of Community Bank Shares of Indiana, Inc., of our report dated March 29, 2011, appearing in this annual report on Form 10-K for Community Bank Shares of Indiana, Inc. for the year ended December 31, 2010.














/s/ Crowe Horwath LLP





Louisville, Kentucky


March 29, 2011
| **-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------** |
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| DOCUMENT: | **CL** | **25** |
|-----------|--------|--------|

|  | **Ridder,        Chris** |
|--|---------------------------|

| DATE: | 6/13/97 | FR        PAGE: | N/A | PAGES: | 1 |
|-------|---------|------------------|-----|--------|---|

|  | **-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------** |
|--|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| **-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------** |
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| DOCUMENT: | **CL** | **26** |
|-----------|--------|--------|

|  | **Chicago        Mercantile Exchange** |
|--|-----------------------------------------|

| DATE: | 9/12/97 | FR        PAGE: | N/A | PAGES: | 9 |
|-------|---------|------------------|-----|--------|---|

|  | **-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------** |
|--|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| **-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------** |
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| DOCUMENT: | **CL** | **27** |
|-----------|--------|--------|

|  | **Lind-Waldock & Company** |
|--|--------------------------------|

| DATE: | 9/12/97 | FR        PAGE: | N/A | PAGES: | 4 |
|-------|---------|------------------|-----|--------|---|

|  | **-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------** |
|--|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

First
    Previous
Next
Last
## In The Court of Appeals Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana

_______________________________

06

- 20

- 00012

- CR

_______________________________
ROCK ALLEN CONNER , Appellant

V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee

On Appeal from the 3rd District Court Anderson County, Texas Trial Court No. 87CR

- 18

- 33754

Before Morriss, C.J., Burgess and Stevens, JJ.2 

### O R D E R
Our review of the clerk’s record in this case indicates that it contains “sensitive data” as that phrase is defined in Rule 9.10 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P . 9.10(a). Sensitive data includes “a driver’s license number, passp ort number, social security number, tax identification number or similar government

- issued personal identification number.”
T EX
. R. A PP
. P . 9.10(a)(1). The clerk’s record includes a social security number. Rule 9.10(b) states, “Unless a court orders oth erwise, an electronic or paper filing with the court, including the contents of any appendices, must not contain sensitive data.” T EX
. R. A PP
. P . 9.10(b). Rule 9.10(g) provides, “A court may also order that a document be filed under seal in paper form or electronic form, without redaction.” T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 9.10(g). Therefore, because the clerk’s record contains sensitive data, we order the clerk of this Court or her appointee, in accordance with Rule 9.10(g), to seal the electronically filed clerk’s rec ord in this case.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
BY THE COURT
Date: August 31, 2020
#### BARNA CONSHIPPING, S.L., Plaintiff-Appellant v. COMMERCIAL METALS CO., Defendant-Appellee.

No. 09-20611.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

June 23, 2010.

Frederick William Mahley, Strasburger & Price, Houston, TX, David N. Ventker, *445Daniel R. Warman, Ventker *&*Warman, P.L.L.C., Norfolk, VA, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

George H. Bowles, Williams Mullen, Virginia Beach, VA, for Defendant-Appellee.

Before JOLLY, SMITH, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

After studying the briefs, hearing argument, and reviewing the record, we conclude that the district court correctly decided this case. Specifically, the appellant’s complaint fails to allege, first, any facts sufficient to show abandonment, *see Adams v. Unione Mediterranea Di Sicurta,*220 F.3d 659, 671 (5th Cir.2000); second, it has failed to establish that it is a party to or third-party beneficiary of any maritime contract that would give it a maritime lien, *see Norfolk S. Ry. Co. v. Kirby,*543 U.S. 14, 31-32, 125 S.Ct. 385, 160 L.Ed.2d 283 (2004). The judgment of the district court is therefore

AFFIRMED.

*

 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.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Willie Brian WILLIAMS, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 11-7162.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Feb. 9, 2012.

Decided: Feb. 14, 2012.

*260Willie Brian Williams, Appellant Pro Se. Julie Jackson Allen, Marc Harry Pachón, Office of the United States Attorney, Jack Hanly, Assistant United States Attorney, Jeffrey L. Shih, Special Assistant United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.

Before WILKINSON, AGEE, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Willie Brian Williams seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing his unauthorized successive 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2011) motion for lack of jurisdiction. The order is not appeal-able unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2006). A certificate of ap-pealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. *Slack v.*McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); *see Miller-El v. Cockrell,*537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. *Slack,*529 U.S. at 484-85, 120 S.Ct. 1595. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Williams has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal.

Additionally, we construe Williams’s notice of appeal and informal brief as an application to file a second or successive § 2255 motion. *United States v. Winestock,*340 F.3d 200, 208 (4th Cir.2003). In order to obtain authorization to file a successive § 2255 motion, a prisoner must assert claims based on either: (1) newly discovered evidence that would be sufficient to establish by clear and convincing evidence that no reasonable factfinder would have found the movant guilty of the offense; or (2) a new rule of constitutional law, previously unavailable, made retroactive by the Supreme Court to cases on collateral review. 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255(h)(1)-(2). Williams’s claims do not satisfy either of these criteria. Therefore, we deny authorization to file a successive § 2255 motion.

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*
No. 576.

#### Helvering, Commissioner of Internal Revenue, *v.*Pennsylvania Company for Insurance on Lives and Granting Annuities et al.

December 9, 1935.

Solicitor Genera? *Reed*for petitioner.

*Mr. Maurice Bower Saul*for respondents.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit denied.
IV 

111TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. RES. 1272 

Commemorating the 40th anniversary of the May 4, 1970, Kent State 

University shootings. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 20, 2010 

Mr. RYAN of Ohio (for himself, Mr. GRAYSON, Ms. BALDWIN, Mr. BOCCIERI, 

Mr. BOUCHER, Mr. CONYERS, Ms. DELAURO, Mr. DRIEHAUS, Mr. FILNER, Ms. FUDGE, Mr. GRIJALVA, Mr. HARE, Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas, Ms. KAPTUR, Ms. KILROY, Ms. LEE of California, Mr. 

LEWIS of Georgia, Mr. LOEBSACK, Ms. MOORE of Wisconsin, Mr. MORAN

of Virginia, Mr. POLIS of Colorado, Mr. QUIGLEY, Ms. RICHARDSON, Mr. 

RUSH, Mr. SPACE, Ms. SUTTON, and Mr. WILSON of Ohio) submitted the 

following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Education 

and Labor 

RESOLUTION 

Commemorating the 40th anniversary of the May 4, 1970, 

Kent State University shootings. 

Whereas the year 2010 marks the 40th anniversary of the 

Kent State University shootings that occurred on May 4, 

1970; 

Whereas, on such date, Ohio National Guardsmen opened fire 

on Kent State students who were protesting the United 

States invasion of Cambodia and the ongoing Vietnam 

War; 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with BILLS
2 

•HRES 1272 IH 

Whereas four unarmed students (Allison Krause, Jeffrey Miller, Sandra Scheuer, and William Schroeder) were killed 

and nine others (Alan Canfora, John Cleary, Thomas 

Grace, Dean Kahler, Joseph Lewis, Donald MacKenzie, 

James Russell, Robert Stamps, and Douglas Wrentmore) 

were injured; 

Whereas the site of the May 4 shootings was entered in the 

National Register of Historic Places, the official list of 

the Nation’s historic places worthy of preservation, in 

February 2010; 

Whereas, to preserve the memory of the May 4 shootings and 

encourage inquiry, learning, and reflection, Kent State 

has established a number of resources, including the May 

4 Memorial, individual student memorial markers and 

scholarships in memory of the four students mentioned 

above who were killed, an experimental college course entitled ‘‘May 4, 1970 and its Aftermath’’, and an annual 

commemoration sponsored by the May 4 Task Force; and 

Whereas Kent State has engaged the internationally renowned design services firm, Gallagher & Associates, to 

assist in the development of the May 4 visitors center as 

a central place where individuals can explore and better 

understand the May 4 shootings: Now therefore be it 

1 Resolved, That the House of Representatives, in com2 memoration of the 40th year anniversary of the Kent 

3 State University shootings that occurred on May 4, 

4 1970— 

5 (1) recognizes the tragedy of the May 4 shoot6 ings and the implications that the shootings have 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with BILLS
3 

•HRES 1272 IH 

1 had not only on Kent State and the local commu2 nity, but also on the Nation and the world; and 

3 (2) applauds the development of the May 4 visi4 tors center as an additional primary resource to pre5 serve and communicate the history of the May 4 

6 shootings, its larger ethical and societal context and 

7 impact, and its enduring meaning for our democratic 

8 Nation. 

Æ 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with BILLS
#### Ronnie ORE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CORRECTIONAL OFFICER PORTER, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 06-7462.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Dec. 14, 2006.

Decided: Dec. 21, 2006.

Ronnie Ore, Appellant Pro Se.

Before MICHAEL, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Ronnie Ore seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing without prejudice his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint for failure to respond to the court’s interrogatories designed to particularize his claim. This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (2000), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (2000); Fed. R.Civ.P. 54(b); *Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp.,*337 U.S. 541, 69 S.Ct. 1221, 93 L.Ed. 1528 (1949). The order that Ore seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. *See Domino Sugar Corp. v. Sugar Workers Local Union 392,*10 F.3d 1064, 1067 (4th Cir.1993). Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. 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.*
```

[Federal Register: June 6, 2002 (Volume 67, Number 109)]
[Notices]
[Page 38941]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr06jn02-42]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION


Sunshine Act Meeting Notice

Agency Holding the Meeting: Commodity Futures Trading Commission.

Time and Date: 10:30 a.m., Wednesday, June 26, 2002.

Place: 1155 21st St., NW., Washington, DC., 9th Floor Conference Room.

Status: Closed.

Matters to be Considered: Rule Enforcement Review.

Contact Person for More Information: Jean A. Webb, 202-418-5100.

Jean A. Webb,
Secretary of the Commission.
[FR Doc. 02-14347 Filed 6-4-02; 2:47 pm]
BILLING CODE 6351-01-M
```

�
# FCM Data April 2017
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 1413 Introduced in House (IH)]

111th CONGRESS
  2d Session
H. RES. 1413

 Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that the holding 
      in Miranda v. Arizona may be interpreted to provide for the 
 admissibility of a terrorist suspect's responses in an interrogation 
without administration of the Miranda warnings, to the extent that the 
 interrogation is carried out to acquire information concerning other 
                       threats to public safety.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 27, 2010

 Mr. Tiahrt submitted the following resolution; which was referred to 
                     the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
 Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that the holding 
      in Miranda v. Arizona may be interpreted to provide for the 
 admissibility of a terrorist suspect's responses in an interrogation 
without administration of the Miranda warnings, to the extent that the 
 interrogation is carried out to acquire information concerning other 
                       threats to public safety.

    Resolved, That it is sense of the House of Representatives that the 
``public safety'' exception announced in New York v. Quarles (467 U.S. 
649 (1984)) to the holding in Miranda v. Arizona (384 U.S. 436 (1966)) 
may be interpreted such that the responses of a person interrogated in 
connection with an act of terrorism who has not been administered the 
warnings described in Miranda are admissible as evidence against that 
person in a criminal prosecution, to the extent that the interrogation 
is carried out because of a reasonable concern that the person has 
information about other threats to public safety.
                                 <all>
```