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

Commodity Futures Trading Commission 

CEA CASES 

NAME: FELDSTEIN PRODUCE COMPANY, FULTON PRODUCTS CORPORATION, ALBERT FELDSTEIN, 

MEYER GETZ OR MICHAEL GETZ, ARANESS CORPORATION, BECKER BROKERAGE COMPANY, AND 

WOODSTOCK, INC. 

DOCKET NUMBER: 83 

DOCUMENT TYPE: ISSUANCE OF COMPLAINT 

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Commodity Exchange Authority 

Washington 25, D. C. 

ISSUANCE OF COMPLAINT - CEA DOCKET NO. 83 

(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: 

Feldstein Produce Company, 

Fulton Products Corporation, 

Albert Feldstein, 

Meyer Getz or Michael Getz, 

Araness Corporation, 

Becker Brokerage Company, and 

Woodstock, Inc. 

(All of Chicago, Illinois) 

The complaint charges that respondent Albert Feldstein, general manager of 

Feldstein Produce Company and Fulton Products Corporation, wholesale egg and 

poultry firms, failed to file required reports on egg futures transactions on 

the Chicago Mercantile Exchange, filed false reports, and exceeded speculative 

trading and position limits. The complaint also charges that Fulton Products 

Corporation and its vice president, Meyer Getz, filed false reports, and that 

futures commission merchants Araness Corporation, Becker Brokerage Company and 

Woodstock, Inc. in carrying transactions for respondent Feldstein failed to 

record the true parties to such trades and keep required books and records; and 

that the two latter respondents filed false reports. 

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 the Judicial Officer of the Department has made a determination that the 

evidence substantiates allegations in the complaint. Complaints are filed in 

the Office of the Hearing Clerk of the Department of Agriculture and are a 

matter of public record. Pending disposition by the Judicial Officer, it is the 

policy of the Commodity Exchange Authority not to comment or elaborate on 

charges contained in complaints or to discuss evidence on which they are based. 

A public hearing on the complaint is scheduled to be held before a referee at 

10:00 a.m., local time, July 15, 1958, in Room 1200, Board of Trade Building, 

141 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois. 

LOAD-DATE: June 12, 2008 
Page 2
No. 225.

#### Continental Oil Co. *v.*United States.

October 12, 1936.

The application for a writ of certiorari to the Court of Claims is dismissed upon the ground that it is premature, without prejudice to a renewal of the application after action by the Court of Claims on the *511motion for amendment of the special findings. The motion to defer consideration of the application for certiorari is denied.

*Mr. Arthur B. Hyman*for petitioner.

*Solicitor General Reed*for the United States.
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, 
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

The undersigned, John Dahle, the Chief Executive Officer of Bear River Resources, Inc., and Donald M. Prest, the Chief Financial Officer of Bear River Resources, Inc, each hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to his knowledge, the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of Bear River Resources, Inc., for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2008, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and that the information contained in the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and results of operations of Bear River Resources, Inc.

Date:  April 24, 2008

|"John Dahle"                                                                                              
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|John Dahle 
President, Chief Executive Officer, Principal Executive Officer and a director                
|"Donald M. Prest"                                                                                         
|Donald M. Prest
Secretary, Treasurer, Chief Financial Officer, Principal Accounting Officer and a director

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signatures that appear in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to Bear River Resources, Inc. and will be retained by Bear River Resources, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

__________
# CE2013131EN.01015501.xml

| 8.5.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 131/155 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.5.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 131/155

---

Wednesday 26 October 2011Conclusion and provisional application of the Cooperation Agreement on Satellite Navigation between the European Union and its Member States and the Kingdom of Norway ***

P7_TA(2011)0462

European Parliament legislative resolution of 26 October 2011 on the draft Council decision on the conclusion of the Cooperation Agreement on Satellite Navigation between the European Union and its Member States and the Kingdom of Norway (11114/2011 – C7-0184/2011 – 2011/0033(NLE))

2013/C 131 E/23

(Consent)

The European Parliament,

The European Parliament

| — | having regard to the draft Council decision (11114/2011), |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to the draft Council decision (11114/2011),

| — | having regard to the draft Cooperation Agreement on Satellite Navigation between the European Union and its Member States and the Kingdom of Norway (06647/2010), |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to the draft Cooperation Agreement on Satellite Navigation between the European Union and its Member States and the Kingdom of Norway (06647/2010),

| — | having regard to the request for consent submitted by the Council in accordance with Articles 171 and 172 and point (a) of the second subparagraph of Article 218(6), and Article 218(8) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (C7-0184/2011), |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to the request for consent submitted by the Council in accordance with Articles 171 and 172 and point (a) of the second subparagraph of Article 218(6), and Article 218(8) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (C7-0184/2011),

| — | having regard to Rules 81, 90(7) and 46(1) of its Rules of Procedure, |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to Rules 81, 90(7) and 46(1) of its Rules of Procedure,

| — | having regard to the recommendation of the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy (A7-0316/2011), |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to the recommendation of the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy (A7-0316/2011),

| 1. | Consents to the conclusion of the Agreement; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Consents to the conclusion of the Agreement;

| 2. | Instructs its President to forward its position to the Council, the Commission and the governments and parliaments of the Member States and of the Kingdom of Norway. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Instructs its President to forward its position to the Council, the Commission and the governments and parliaments of the Member States and of the Kingdom of Norway.

---
No. 675.

#### Polizio *v.*New York.

Court of Appeals of New York.

*Edward H..Levine*for petitioner.

*Howard R. Lonergan*for respondent.

Certiorari denied.
IV 

111TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. RES. 1375 

Recognizing the 90th anniversary of the 19th Amendment. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 19, 2010 

Mr. COOPER (for himself, Mr. TANNER, Mr. BOSWELL, Mrs. MALONEY, Mrs. 

NAPOLITANO, Ms. BERKLEY, Mr. COHEN, Mrs. BLACKBURN, Ms. 

FUDGE, Ms. SHEA-PORTER, Mr. MELANCON, Ms. MARKEY of Colorado, 

Ms. BORDALLO, Ms. MATSUI, Ms. LEE of California, Ms. ESHOO, Ms. 

JENKINS, Mr. GORDON of Tennessee, Mr. ROE of Tennessee, Mr. CHANDLER, Mrs. CHRISTENSEN, Mr. BACA, Mrs. SCHMIDT, Mr. MOORE of 

Kansas, Mr. SCHIFF, Mr. HILL, and Mrs. MCMORRIS RODGERS) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on 

the Judiciary 

RESOLUTION 

Recognizing the 90th anniversary of the 19th Amendment. 

Whereas full participatory rights by women are vital to democracy in the United States; 

Whereas women were denied the right to vote for 144 years 

after the Declaration of Independence was signed; 

Whereas the first Women’s Rights Convention was held in 

Seneca Falls, New York, in July 1848, sparking a decades-long struggle by women’s rights pioneers to gain the 

right to vote; 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HRES 1375 IH 

Whereas a constitutional amendment granting women’s suffrage nationwide was first introduced in the United 

States Congress in January 1878; 

Whereas in 1919, the 66th Congress of the United States 

passed a resolution proposing an amendment to the Constitution extending the right of suffrage to women; 

Whereas the aforesaid amendment was then ratified by the 

Legislatures of the States of Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, 

Kentucky, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, 

Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, 

New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Dakota, 

Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, 

South Dakota, Texas, Utah, Washington, West Virginia, 

Wisconsin, and Wyoming; and 

Whereas, on August 18, 1920, the Tennessee House of Representatives voted for ratification by a one-vote margin, 

passing the amendment in Nashville, Tennessee, becoming the 36th and final of the three-fourths of States 

needed to ratify the aforesaid amendment, entering it 

into the Constitution: Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That the House of Representatives— 

2 (1) recognizes the 90th anniversary of the rati3 fication of the 19th Amendment to the United 

4 States Constitution; 

5 (2) honors the contributions and achievements 

6 of women in United States politics; and 

7 (3) reaffirms its commitment to pursuing poli8 cies that achieve true political and social equality for 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with BILLS
3 

•HRES 1375 IH 

1 women, commensurate with their role in life in the 

2 United States and society. 

Æ 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with BILLS
### IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT KNOXVILLE May 2000 Session DANIEL RAY STANFILL v. KAR EN ELAINE WRIGHT STANFILL Appeal from the Fourth Circuit Court for Knox County

No. 60201 Bill Swann, Judge FILED August 14, 2000 No. E1999-01878-COA-R3-CV

In this post-divorce proce eding, t he trial court modified the judgment of divorce by changing the custody of Christopher Stanfi ll (DOB: February 1 2, 1993) from Kar en Elaine Wright St

anfill (“ Mother”) to Daniel Ray Stanfill (“Father”). The trial court also established Mother’s visitation rights with her son.

We affirm. Tenn. R. App. P. 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgment of the Circuit Court

Affirmed; Case Remanded C HARLES D. S USANO , J R ., J., delivered the opinion of the court, in which H OUSTON M. G ODDARD , P.J., and H ERSCHEL P. F RANKS , J., joined. Charles W. Swanson and Jason H. Long, Knoxville, Tennessee, for the appellant Karen Elaine Wright Stanfill. William C. Cremins, K

noxville, Tenness

ee, for the appe

llee Daniel Ray Sta

nfill. MEMORANDUM OPIN ION Mother contends that

the evidence preponderates against the trial court’s judgment finding a substantial and material change in circumstances warranting a change of Christopher’s custody from Mother to Father. She also contends that the evidence preponderates against the trial court’s decree establishing Mother’s rights of visitation with the child. The following well

-established prin

ciples control the

disposition of this ap

peal: While many proceedings in the law ar e factua lly-driven, this is particularly

true of custody cases, both on initial awards as well as in cases involving a reque

st to modify a previous award. Rogero v. Pitt , 759 S.W. 2d 109, 1 12 (Tenn. 1988). In such cases, a trial court has wide discretion, and we will not tamper with that discretion unless the facts demonstrate that the trier of fact ha s abused his

or her discretion.-2- Suttles v. Suttles , 748 S.W.2d 427, 429 (Tenn. 19 88). The welfare of the child is always the paramount consideration. Id

. Brumit v. Brumit , 948 S.W.2d 739, 740 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1997). We have reviewed

the record in this case. We find that the e vidence does not p

reponderate against the trial court’s decision to change custody, nor does it preponderate against the trial court’s de c ision regarding the appropriate amount of Mother’s visitation with Christopher. See Tenn. R. App. P. 13(d). Pursuant to the provisions of Tenn. Ct. App. R. 10(b), we affirm the judgment of the trial court by memorandum opinion, having det ermined that “a formal opinion would have no precedential value.” Id . Costs on appeal ar e taxed to the app

ellant.

___________________________________ CHARLES D. SUSANO, JR., JUDGE
EXHIBIT 32.1

  Certification by the Chief Executive Officer Pursuant to 18 U. S. C. Section
   1350, as Adopted Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002


Pursuant to 18 U. S. C. Section 1350, I, William A. Coskey, hereby certify that,
to the best of my knowledge, the Annual Report on Form 10-K of ENGlobal
Corporation for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2007 (the "Report") fully
complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and that the information contained in the
Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and
results of operations of ENGlobal Corporation.


Date: March 27, 2008                           //s// William A. Coskey
                                               William A. Coskey
                                               Chief Executive Officer


This certification accompanies this Report on Form 10-K pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required
by such Act, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the "Exchange Act"). Such
certification will not be deemed to be incorporated by reference into any filing
under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Exchange Act, except to the
extent that the Company specifically incorporates it by reference.
#### Anthony Clarke et al., Respondents, v The Morgan Contracting Corporation, Appellant. (And a Third-Party Action.)

[875 NYS2d 69]

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Mark Friedlander, J.), entered July 15, 2008, which, insofar as appealed from, granted plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability pursuant to Labor Law § 240 (1), and denied defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment dismissing plaintiffs’ claim pursuant to Labor Law § 241 (6), unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff, who was employed to perform carpentry work on a construction project at SUNY Downstate Medical Center, was injured when two metal stud beams that were being hoisted from the street were dropped from a sidewalk bridge and landed on his face, chest and shoulders. Plaintiffs met their burden of demonstrating that defendant’s failure to provide adequate safety devices was a contributing cause of plaintiffs injuries in violation of section 240 (1) (see *Kielar v Metropolitan Museum of Art,*55 AD3d 456, 458 [2008]; *Greaves v Obayashi Corp.,*55 AD3d 409 [2008]), and plaintiff was not, under any view of the evidence, the sole proximate cause of his injuries *(see Zuluaga v P.P.C. Constr., LLC,*45 AD3d 479, 480 [2007]; *Kyle v City of New York,*268 AD2d 192, 196 [2000], *lv denied*97 NY2d 608 [2002]).

The court properly denied defendant’s motion for summary *524judgment on plaintiffs’ section 241 (6) claim premised on Industrial Code (12 NYCRR) § 23-1.7 (a) (1). This rule is sufficiently specific to support a cause of action under section 241 (6) *(see Murtha v Integral Constr. Corp.,*253 AD2d 637, 639 [1998]), and a material question of fact remains as to whether the area where the accident occurred was an area “normally exposed to falling material or objects” (Industrial Code § 23-1.7 [a] [1]), and as to whether the sidewalk bridge without safety netting provided appropriate overhead protection to workers in that area.

We have considered defendant’s remaining arguments and find them unavailing. Concur — Tom, J.P., Saxe, Sweeny, Acosta and Freedman, JJ.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Francisco LUNA-RAMIREZ, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 09-41081

Summary Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Oct. 29, 2010.

James Lee Turner, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Marjorie A. Meyers, Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before JOLLY, GARZA and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Francisco Luna-Ramirez (Luna) has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). Luna has not filed a response. Our independent review of the record and counsel’s brief discloses no nonfrivolous issue for appeal. 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.

*

 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.
EXHIBIT 32.1



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 quarterly report of Options Media Group Holdings, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ending June 30, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, Scott Frohman, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:



1.

The quarterly 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 quarterly report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.





/s/ Scott FrohmanScott Frohman
Chief Executive Officer
(Principal Executive Officer)


Dated: August 14, 2009





In connection with the quarterly report of Options Media Group Holdings, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ending June 30, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, Steven Stowell, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:



1.

The quarterly 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 quarterly report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



/s/ Steven StowellSteven Stowell
Chief Financial Officer
(Principal Financial Officer)


Dated: August 14, 2009
EXHIBIT 32.2


                           SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATION


     In connection with the Quarterly Report of Palmdale  Executive Homes, Corp.
(the  "Company") on Form 10-Q for the quarter ending June 30, 2008 as filed with
the Securities  and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the  "Report"),  I,
Tricia A. Nickson,  Secretary and Treasurer of the Company, certify, pursuant to
18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that, to 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.


Date: July 17, 2008



                                        By: /s/ TRICIA A. NICKSON
                                            ________________________________
                                                Tricia A. Nickson
                                                Secretary and Treasurer
#### Peter POTOTSKY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Janet NAPOLITANO, Governor, State of Arizona; et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 05-16190.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Dec. 4, 2006.*

Filed Dec. 8, 2006.

Peter Pototsky, Tucson, AZ, pro se.

Charles Arnold Grube Fax, AGAZ — Office of the Arizona Attorney General, Phoenix, AZ, Michael Evan Owen, Esq., Tucson City Attorney, Tucson, AZ, Stephen A. Mensing, Esq., John Colin Doyle, Esq., Doyle-Mensing, P.C., Scottsdale, AZ, for Defendants-Appellees.

Before: GOODWIN, LEAVY, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Peter Pototsky appeals pro se from the district court’s order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1985(3) action alleging that various state and local officials violated his due process and equal protection rights. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, *Ove v. Gwinn,*264 F.3d 817, 821 (9th Cir.2001), and affirm.

The district court did not err when it concluded that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction over Pototsky’s claim because it was based on an alleged violation of state law. Section 1983 does not provide a cause of action for alleged violations of state law. *See id.*at 824; *see also Great Am. Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass’n v. Novotny,*442 U.S. 366, 372, 99 S.Ct. 2345, *63860 L.Ed.2d 957 (1979) (regarding section 1985(3)). Pototsky did not identify the federal constitutional right that he believed the state or local officials violated. Regarding his claim under section 1985(3), Pototsky also did not allege the requisite invidious animus against a suspect class. *See Griffin v. Breckenridge,*403 U.S. 88, 102, 91 S.Ct. 1790, 29 L.Ed.2d 338 (1971).

We deny Pototsky’s request for oral argument.

We deny as moot Pototsky’s motion to substitute a party.

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
# FCM Data March 2017