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

Commodity Futures Trading Commission 

CEA CASES 

NAME: JOSEPH M. STEWART 

DOCKET NUMBER: STIPULATION 75 

DATE: SEPTEMBER 29, 1965 

DOCUMENT TYPE: STIPULATION OF COMPLIANCE 

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

BEFORE THE SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE 

In re: Joseph M. Stewart 

Stipulation of Compliance Under the Commodity Exchange Act No. 75 

The Secretary of Agriculture has reason to believe that Joseph M. Stewart has 

violated the provisions of the Commodity Exchange Act (7 U.S.C., Chapter 1) and 

the regulations of the Secretary of Agriculture promulgated thereunder (17 CFR, 

Chapter 1). No complaint with respect to such violations has been issued and 

the said Joseph M. Stewart is desirous of disposing of the matter by entering 

into a stipulation of compliance as authorized by section 0.4(a) of the Rules of 

Practice under the Commodity Exchange Act (17 CFR, Part 0). Therefore, the said 

Joseph M. Stewart stipulates the following facts are true: 

(1) Joseph M. Stewart an individual whose address is 141 West Jackson 

Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604, is now and was on August 13, 1965, a 

registered floor broker under the Commodity Exchange Act and a member of the 

Board of Trade of the City of Chicago, a duly designated contract market under 

the Commodity Exchange Act. 

(2) On August 13, 1965, Joseph M. Stewart executed 65 transactions in 

regulated commodity futures on the Board of Trade of the City of Chicago but 

failed to prepare a trading card or other 

record clearly identifying the opposite floor broker or other person with whom 

each of such transactions was executed. 

The Secretary of Agriculture has advised Joseph M. Stewart that his failure 

to keep full and complete records of futures transactions, as described above, 

was in violation of section 4g of the Commodity Exchange Act and section 1.35 of 

the regulations under the' Commodity Exchange Act. 

The said Joseph M. Stewart agrees to desist from such acts and practices in 

the future. He further understands and agrees that this stipulation shall be 

admissible as evidence of such acts and practices in any future proceeding based 

upon acts or practices in addition to those referred to herein which may be 

brought against him by the Secretary of Agriculture under the provisions of the 

said act. He also understand that it is the practice of the Commodity Exchange 

Authority to make stipulations of compliance a matter of public record. 

Done at Chicago, Illinois, this 29 day of September 1965 

[SEE SIGNATURE IN ORIGINAL] 

Witnessed by: 

[SEE SIGNATURE IN ORIGINAL] 

[SEE SIGNATURE IN ORIGINAL] 
Page 2 

LOAD-DATE: June 16, 2008 
Page 3
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-6745

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

TYMON JAMES WELLS,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Rock Hill. Cameron McGowan Currie, Senior

District Judge. (0:10-cr-00869-CMC-1; 0:13-cv-02683-CMC)

Submitted: October 22, 2014 Decided: December 22, 2014

Before MOTZ and KING, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit 

Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Tymon James Wells, Appellant Pro Se. Robert Frank Daley, Jr., 

Assistant United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for 

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Tymon James Wells seeks to appeal the district court’s 

order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. The 

order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues 

a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B)

(2012). 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) (2012). 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 

(2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (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. 

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude 

that Wells 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
3

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before 

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
#### Michael E. SPREADBURY, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. U.S. DEPARTMENT of Health & Human Services; et al., Defendants—Appellees.

No. 10-35901.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Dec. 19, 2011.*

Filed Jan. 11, 2012.

Michael E. Spreadbury, Hamilton, MT, 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 **

Michael E. Spreadbury appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing for lack of standing his action alleging that demolition and construction activities related to the Rocky Mountain Laboratories (the “Laboratories”) in Hamilton, Montana violated the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, 42 U.S.C. §§ 4321 et seq. (the “Act”). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). *Barren v. Harrington,*152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir.1998) (order). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Spreadbury’s action for failure to satisfy constitutional and prudential standing requirements. First, Spreadbury failed to describe how defendants’ alleged construction activities in violation of the Act resulted in an injury to his personal, concrete interests. *See Nuclear Info. & Res. Serv. v. NRC,*457 F.3d 941, 949-50 (9th Cir. 2006) (setting forth constitutional standing requirements). Second, Spreadbury failed to allege how defendants’ alleged actions injured him within the zone of interests protected by the Act. *See Ashley Creek Phosphate Co. v. Norton,*420 F.3d 934, 940 (9th Cir.2005) (setting forth prudential standing requirements).

Spreadbury’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.
#### Wade ROBERTSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Shiraz QADRI; et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 09-15355.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

*220Submitted Sept. 13, 2010.*

Filed Oct. 6, 2010.

Wade Robertson, Stanford, CA, pro se.

Peter Dixon, Esquire, Michael Kenneth Johnson, Esquire, Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP, San Francisco, CA, for Defendants-Appellees.

Before: SILVERMAN, CALLAHAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Wade Robertson appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment in his action alleging false imprisonment and false arrest, and from the order denying his motion for reconsideration. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the district court’s dismissal for lack of diversity jurisdiction, and review for clear error its factual determinations. *Kroske v. U.S. Bank Corp.,*432 F.3d 976, 979 (9th Cir.2005). We review for an abuse of discretion the denial of leave to amend, *Ahlmeyer v. Nev. Sys. of Higher Educ.,*555 F.3d 1051, 1055 (9th Cir.2009), and the denial of a motion for reconsideration, *Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah County, Or. v. ACandS, Inc.,*5 F.3d 1255, 1262 (9th Cir.1993). We affirm.

The district court did not clearly err by finding that Robertson failed to establish that he was domiciled in a state different from defendants, and thus properly dismissed for lack of diversity jurisdiction. *See Lew v. Moss,*797 F.2d 747, 750 (9th Cir.1986) (listing factors for courts to consider in determining domicile, and reviewing for clear error district court’s determination of domicile); *see also Kanter v. Warner-Lambert Co.,*265 F.3d 853, 857-58 (9th Cir.2001) (“the party asserting diversity jurisdiction bears the burden of proof’).

The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Robertson leave to amend to allege a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 because amendment would have been futile. *See Ahlmeyer,*555 F.3d at 1055 (“futility of amendment alone can justify the denial of a motion [to amend]”); *Guerrero v. Gates,*442 F.3d 697, 703-05 (9th Cir.2006) (concluding that section 1983 claims were barred by *Heck v. Humphrey,*512 U.S. 477, 114 S.Ct. 2364, 129 L.Ed.2d 383 (1994), even though plaintiff was no longer in custody, because success on the claims would necessarily imply the invalidity of plaintiffs convictions). Robertson’s res judicata argument is unpersuasive.

The district court also did not abuse its discretion by denying Robertson’s motion for reconsideration. *See Sch. Dist. No. 1J,*5 F.3d at 1263.

Robertson’s request for judicial notice is granted, and his request for a stay is denied.

AFFIRMED.

**

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

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. RES. 113 

Providing amounts for the expenses of the Permanent Select Committee 

on Intelligence in the One Hundred Eleventh Congress. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 3, 2009 

Mr. REYES submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the 

Committee on House Administration 

RESOLUTION 

Providing amounts for the expenses of the Permanent Select 

Committee on Intelligence in the One Hundred Eleventh 

Congress. 

1 Resolved, 

2 SECTION 1. AMOUNTS FOR COMMITTEE EXPENSES. 

3 For the expenses of the Permanent Select Committee 

4 on Intelligence (hereafter in this resolution referred to as 

5 the ‘‘Committee’’), including the expenses of all staff sala6 ries, there shall be paid, out of the applicable accounts 

7 of the House of Representatives for committee salaries 

8 and expenses, not more than $10,850,000 for the One 

9 Hundred Eleventh Congress. 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with BILLS
2 

•HRES 113 IH 

1 SEC. 2. SESSION LIMITATIONS. 

2 Of the amount specified in section 1— 

3 (1) not more than $5,387,500 shall be available 

4 for expenses incurred during the period beginning at 

5 noon on January 3, 2009, and ending immediately 

6 before noon on January 3, 2010; and 

7 (2) not more than $5,462,500 shall be available 

8 for expenses incurred during the period beginning at 

9 noon on January 3, 2010, and ending immediately 

10 before noon on January 3, 2011. 

11 SEC. 3. VOUCHERS. 

12 Payments under this resolution shall be made on 

13 vouchers authorized by the Committee, signed by the 

14 Chairman of the Committee, and approved in the manner 

15 directed by the Committee on House Administration. 

16 SEC. 4. REGULATIONS. 

17 Amounts made available under this resolution shall 

18 be expended in accordance with regulations prescribed by 

19 the Committee on House Administration. 

Æ 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with BILLS
Page 1 

Commodity Futures Trading Commission 

CEA CASES 

NAME: CHEF-REDDY FOODS, PETER J. TAGGARES, AND KENNETH L. RAMM 

DOCKET NUMBER: 200 

DATE: MAY 31, 1973 

DOCUMENT TYPE: CEASE AND DESIST ORDER 

CEA Docket No. 200 

Name: Chef-Reddy Foods, Peter J. Taggares, and Kenneth L. Ramm 

Effective May 31, 1973 

Order 

Effective immediately, respondents Chef-Reddy Foods, Peter J. Taggares and 

Kenneth L. Ramm shall henceforth cease and desist from manipulating or 

attempting to manipulate the market price of any commodity in interstate 

commerce, or for future delivery on or subject to the rules of any contract 

market. 

Done at Washington, D.C. 

MAY 31 1973 

[SEE SIGNATURE IN ORIGINAL] 

Judicial Officer 

Office of the Secretary 

LOAD-DATE: June 16, 2008 
Page 2 
Page 3
<TABLE> <S> <C>

     <ARTICLE> 5
     <LEGEND>
     This exhibit 27.1 contains restated information for all
     applicable periods in accordance with Regulation S-K, Item
     601(c)(2)(iii) to reflect the Company's adoption of 
     Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No. 128.
     </LEGEND>
     <RESTATED> 
     <CIK> 0000745026
     <NAME> NS GROUP, INC.
     <MULTIPLIER> 1,000
     <CURRENCY> U.S.
            
     <S>                      <C>           <C>           <C>
     <PERIOD-TYPE>             6-MOS        9-MOS         YEAR
     <FISCAL-YEAR-END>   SEP-27-1997    SEP-27-1997   SEP-27-1997
     <PERIOD-START>      SEP-29-1996    SEP-29-1996   SEP-29-1996
     <PERIOD-END>        MAR-29-1997    JUN-28-1997   SEP-27-1997
     <EXCHANGE-RATE>               1              1             1
     <CASH>                    1,744          5,028         6,998
     <SECURITIES>             18,057         16,155       188,345
     <RECEIVABLES>            51,423         62,744        63,863
     <ALLOWANCES>                854            930           712
     <INVENTORY>              64,221         72,435        73,474
     <CURRENT-ASSETS>        160,552        184,672       364,921
     <PP&E>                  274,641        275,659       278,779
     <DEPRECIATION>          146,762        150,988       154,962
     <TOTAL-ASSETS>          301,920        322,520       500,316
     <CURRENT-LIABILITIES>    70,974         86,041       137,990
     <BONDS>                 163,722        162,689        76,424
     <PREFERRED-MANDATORY>         0              0             0
     <PREFERRED>                   0              0             0
     <COMMON>                 51,829         53,047       262,980
     <OTHER-SE>                7,318         12,411         9,835
     <TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>  
                              301,920       322,520       500,316
     <SALES>                  216,277       349,130       481,170
     <TOTAL-REVENUES>         216,277       349,130       481,170
     <CGS>                    188,197       301,696       412,845
     <TOTAL-COSTS>            188,197       301,696       412,845
     <OTHER-EXPENSES>               0             0             0
     <LOSS-PROVISION>               0             0             0
     <INTEREST-EXPENSE>        12,168        18,298        24,261
     <INCOME-PRETAX>            3,294        10,088        19,182
     <INCOME-TAX>                 876         2,740         5,478
     <INCOME-CONTINUING>        2,418         7,348        13,704
     <DISCONTINUED>                 0             0             0
     <EXTRAORDINARY>                0             0       (9,256)
     <CHANGES>                      0             0             0
     <NET-INCOME>               2,418         7,348         4,448
     <EPS-PRIMARY>                .18           .53           .31
     <EPS-DILUTED>                .17           .52           .30
             

</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM JUST LIKE
HOME, INC. FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1999, AND
BALANCE SHEET AS OF DECEMBER 31, 1999, AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                         363,981
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   61,597
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               539,225
<PP&E>                                         244,018
<DEPRECIATION>                                 120,793
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 664,400
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,834,796
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        12,310
<OTHER-SE>                                 (1,804,227)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   664,400
<SALES>                                      3,697,383
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                3,919,936
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               813,334
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              73,326
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (1,836,254)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (1,836,254)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (1,836,254)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.19)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.19)


</TABLE>
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. James ROCKETT, III, a/k/a James Rocket, a/k/a James Rockett, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 10-6961.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Oct. 19, 2010.

Decided: Oct. 28, 2010.

James Rockett, III, Appellant Pro Se. Darryl James Mitchell, Assistant United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for Ap-pellee.

*849Before DUNCAN, KEENAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

James Rockett, III, seeks to appeal the district court’s order treating his Fed. R.Civ.P. 60(b) motion as a successive 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp.2010) motion, and dismissing it on that basis. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certifícate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006); *Reid v. Angelone,*369 F.3d 363, 369 (4th Cir.2004). 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). 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 Rockett has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal.

Additionally, we construe Rockett’s notice of appeal and informal brief as an application to file a second or successive § 2255 motion. *United States v. Wines-tock,*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, not previously discoverable by due diligence, that would be sufficient to establish by clear and convincing evidence that, but for constitutional error, 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). Rockett’s claims do not satisfy either of these criteria. Therefore, we deny authorization to file a successive § 2255 motion.

Finally, we deny Rockett’s motion to seal and motion to subpoena or submit witness statements. 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.*
Page 1 

Commodity Futures Trading Commission 

CEA CASES 

NAME: A. E. ALBERT, AND A. E. ALBERT AND SONS, INC. 

DOCKET NUMBER: 64 

DATE: DECEMBER 29, 1954 

DOCUMENT TYPE: SUPPLEMENTAL ORDER 

NOTE: ANOTHER VERSION OF THIS DOCUMENT IS REPORTED IN THE AGRICULTURAL DECISIONS 

AT 13 AGRIC. DEC. 1140, ATTACHED TO THE END OF THE DECISION AND ORDER 

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

BEFORE THE SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE 

In re A. E. Albert, and A. E. Albert and Sons, Inc., Respondents 

CEA Docket No. 64 

Supplemental Order 

On December 28, 1954, an order was entered in this proceeding, effective 

January 3, 1955, directing all contract markets to deny all trading privileges 

on such markets to A. E. Albert and A. E. Albert and Sons, Inc. The denial of 

trading privileges to A. E. Albert did not state the period of denial. Such 

period is fifteen (15) days. 

Done at Washington, D. C., this 

29 day of December, 1954 

/s/ Thomas J. Flavin 

Judicial Officer 

LOAD-DATE: June 12, 2008 
Page 2