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

Commodity Futures Trading Commission 

CEA CASES 

NAME: THE SIEGEL TRADING CO., INC. 

DOCKET NUMBER: 159 

DATE: MARCH 2, 1970 

DOCUMENT TYPE: CEASE AND DESIST ORDER 

Docket No. 159 

Name: The Siegel Trading Co., Inc. 

Effective March 2, 1970 

Effective immediately, respondent The Siegel Trading Co., Inc., shall cease 

and desist from: (1) making, or causing to be made, any record purporting to 

show that any trade in commodity futures has been made for the account of any 

customer when no such trade has been made; (2) making, or causing to be made, to 

any customer any report or statement purporting to show that any trade in 

commodity futures has been made for the account of such customer when no such 

trade has been made; (3) failing to place in any customer's account any trade in 

commodity futures that is executed pursuant to such customer's order; and (4) 

failing to accurately compute and maintain: (a) records as of the close of the 

market on each business day, showing the amount of money, security and property 

owing or accruing to its customers which it is required to have in segregated 

account for such customers in order to comply with the requirements of section 

4d(2) of the Commodity Exchange Act; (b) records showing customers' trades and 

positions carried with other futures commission merchants; (c) daily records 

showing for each transaction executed by it on the Chicago Mercantile Exchange 

the identity of the customer for whose account the transaction was executed and 

the identity of the floor broker on the opposite side of the transaction, as 

required by section 1.35 of the regulations; and (d) such other books and 

records relating to its business of dealing in commodity futures in such form 

and manner and for such period as may be required by the Secretary of 

Agriculture. 

Done at Washington, D.C. 

March 2, 1970 

Thomas J. Flavin, [ILLEGIBLE TEXT] 

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

Commodity Futures Trading Commission 

CEA CASES 

NAME: MARTIN T. DYKE, III 

DOCKET NUMBER: 168 

DATE: MAY 25, 1970 

DOCUMENT TYPE: CEASE AND DESIST ORDER 

Docket No. 168 

Name: Martin T. Dyke, III 

Effective May 25, 1970 

Effective immediately the respondents 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 segregrated 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, and (b) 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; (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; and (5) wilfully causing, aiding, 

counseling, commanding or inducing any futures commission merchant to engage in 

any such act or practice. 

A copy of this Decision and Order shall be served on each of the parties and 

on each contract market. 

Done at Washington, D.C. 

MAY 25 1970 

[SEE SIGNATURE IN ORIGINAL] 

Thomas J. Flavin 

Judicial Officer 

 

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

Commodity Futures Trading Commission 

CEA CASES 

NAME: H. SACKS & SONS AND JULIUS SACKS 

DOCKET NUMBER: 80 

DOCUMENT TYPE: ISSUANCE OF COMPLAINT 

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Commodity Exchange Authority 

Washington 25, D. C. 

ISSUANCE OF COMPLAINT - CEA DOCKET NO. 80 

(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: 

H. Sacks & Sons and 

Julius Sacks 

East Quogue, Long Island, 

New York 

The complaint charges that on numerous occasions from September 20, 1957, 

through February 12, 1958, respondent H. Sacks & Sons held positions in potato 

futures on the New York Mercantile Exchange of a size that required the 

submission of reports to the Commodity Exchange Authority, but failed or refused 

to file such reports in violation of section 4i of the Commodity Exchange Act 

and sections 6.10, 6.11, 6.12, and 6.21 of the rules and regulations thereunder. 

The trading for the account of H. Sacks & Sons was controlled and directed by 

respondent Julius Sacks, a partner in the firm. 

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, May 1, 1958, in Room 202, 44 Beaver Street, New York, 

New York. 

LOAD-DATE: June 16, 2008 
Page 2
EXHIBIT 12.1
 Oncothyreon Inc. and Consolidated Subsidiaries
 Computation of Deficiency in the Coverage of Fixed Charges by Earnings Before Fixed Charges
 For the nineMonthsEndedSeptember 30, 2009Earnings before fixed charges:Loss from continuing operations before income taxes, minority interest and income/(loss) from equity investees
    
    $
    (14,748
    )Add fixed charges
    
    
    24Add amortization of capitalized interest
    
    
    Add distributed income of equity investees
    
    
    Subtract capitalized interest
    
    
    Loss before fixed charges
    
    $
    (14,724
    )Fixed charges:Interest expense
    
    $
    Amortization of debt expense
    
    
    Estimate of interest expense within rental expense
    
    
    24Preference security dividend requirements of consolidated subsidiaries
    
    
    Total fixed charges
    
    $
    24Deficiency of earnings available to cover fixed charges
    
    $
    (14,748
    )
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . 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 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 04-50076 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus NELSON RAMON GARCIA, also known as Domingo Hernandez-Castro, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. EP-03-CR-1588-ALL

-------------------- Before BARKSDALE, DeMOSS, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Nelson Ramon Garcia appeals the sentence imposed following his guilty plea conviction of being found in the United States after deportation/removal in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. Garcia contends that 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) define separate offenses. He argues that the prior conviction that resulted in his increased sentence is an element of a separate offense under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) that should have been United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

## F I L E D June 23, 2004 Charles R. Fulbruge III ClerkNo. 04-50076 -2- alleged in his indictment. Garcia maintains that he pleaded guilty to an indictment which charged only simple reentry under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a). He argues that his sentence exceeds the two-year maximum term of imprisonment which may be imposed for that offense.
In Almendarez-Torres v. United States , 523 U.S. 224, 235 (1998), the Supreme Court held that the enhanced penalties in 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) are sentencing provisions, not elements of separate offenses. The Court further held that the sentencing provisions do not violate the Due Process Clause. Id. at 239-47. Garcia acknowledges that his argument is foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres , but asserts that the decision has been cast into doubt by Apprendi v. New Jersey , 530 U.S. 466, 490 (2000). He seeks to preserve his argument for further review. Apprendi did not overrule Almendarez-Torres
. See Apprendi , 530 U.S. at 489-90; United States v. Dabeit , 231 F.3d 979, 984 (5th Cir. 2000). This court must follow Almendarez-Torres “unless and until the Supreme Court itself determines to overrule it.” Dabeit , 231 F.3d at 984 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). The judgment of the district court is
AFFIRMED. The Government has moved for a summary affirmance in lieu of filing an appellee’s brief. In its motion, the Government asks that an appellee’s brief not be required. The motion is GRANTED.
AFFIRMED; MOTION GRANTED.
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 Edgemont Mining Inc. (the “Company”) on
Form 10-Q for the period ended January 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), the undersigned, in the
capacities and on the dates indicated below, 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:





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:  March
10, 2009








/s/
Guy Federspiel


Guy
Federspiel, President and C.E.O.


(Principal
Executive Officer)
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 1434 Introduced in House (IH)]

111th CONGRESS
  2d Session
H. RES. 1434

    Recognizing National Homeownership Month and the importance of 
                  homeownership in the United States.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             June 10, 2010

Mr. Gary G. Miller of California (for himself, Mr. Childers, Mr. Baca, 
 Mr. Castle, Mr. Hinojosa, Mr. Davis of Kentucky, Mr. Calvert, and Mr. 
Gerlach) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the 
                    Committee on Financial Services

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
    Recognizing National Homeownership Month and the importance of 
                  homeownership in the United States.

Whereas the month of June is recognized as National Homeownership Month;
Whereas the people of the United States are one of the best-housed populations 
        in the world;
Whereas owning a home is a fundamental part of the American dream and is the 
        largest personal investment many families will ever make;
Whereas homeownership provides economic security for homeowners by aiding them 
        in building wealth over time and strengthens communities through a 
        greater stake among homeowners in local schools, civic organizations, 
        and churches;
Whereas creating affordable homeownership opportunities requires the commitment 
        and cooperation of the private, public, and nonprofit sectors, including 
        the Federal Government and State and local governments;
Whereas homeownership can be sustained through appropriate homeownership 
        education and informed borrowers; and
Whereas affordable homeownership will play a vital role in resolving the crisis 
        in the United States housing market: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved, That the House of Representatives--
            (1) fully supports the goals and ideals of National 
        Homeownership Month;
            (2) recognizes the importance of homeownership in building 
        strong communities and families; and
            (3) reaffirms the importance of homeownership in the 
        Nation's economy and its central role in our national economic 
        recovery.
                                 <all>
```
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. James Alan ROSE, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 11-30133.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Dec. 19, 2011.*

Filed Jan. 6, 2012.

Stephen H. Gunnels, Special Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Eugene, OR, Judith Harper, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Office of the U.S. Attorney, Medford, OR, Kelly A. Zusman, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Office of the U.S. Attorney, Portland, OR, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Tonia Louise Moro, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Medford, OR, for Defendant-Appellant.

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 **

James Alan Rose appeals from the 12-month and one-day sentence imposed following revocation of supervised release. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Rose contends that the district court committed procedural error by (1) *639relying on clearly erroneous factual findings, (2) impermissibly imposing a sentence based on its intent to punish him, and (3) failing to address adequately his medical necessity mitigation argument. The record belies Rose’s contention that the district court found that he did not have a medical condition. Further, the record reflects that the district court did not base the sentence primarily on impermissible factors, *see United States v. Simtob,*485 F.3d 1058, 1063-64 (9th Cir.2007), and the district court listened to and considered Rose’s mitigation arguments, but found the circumstances insufficient to warrant a sentence lower than the one imposed. *See United States v. Carty,*520 F.3d 984, 995 (9th Cir.2008) (en banc).

Rose also contends that his sentence is substantively unreasonable. The 12-month and one-day sentence is substantively reasonable in light of the totality of the circumstances and the 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e) sentencing factors, particularly the need for the sentence imposed to afford adequate deterrence and to sanction Rose for his breach of trust. *See Simtob,*485 F.3d at 1063.

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
EXHIBIT 31.2

                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

I, Andrea Fehsenfeld, certify that:

1.   I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Boreal Productions
     Inc.;

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

3.   Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
     information included in this quarterly report, fairly present in all
     material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash
     flows of the registrant as of, and for, the period presented in this
     quarterly report;

4.   I am responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and
     procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the
     registrant and have:

     a.   designed such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure that
          material information relating to the registrant, including its
          consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those
          entities, particularly during the period in which this quarterly
          report is being prepared;
     b.   evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls
          and procedures as of a date within 90 days prior to the filing date of
          this quarterly report (the "Evaluation Date"); and
     c.   presented in this quarterly report our conclusions about the
          effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures based on our
          evaluation as of the Evaluation Date;

5.   I have disclosed, based on my most recent evaluation, to the registrant's
     auditors and the audit committee of registrant's board of directors (or
     persons performing the equivalent functions):

     a.   all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal
          controls which could adversely affect the registrant's ability to
          record, process, summarize and report financial data and have
          identified for the registrant's auditors any material weaknesses in
          internal controls; and
     b.   any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
          employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal
          controls; and

6.   I have indicated in this quarterly report whether or not there were
     significant changes in internal controls or in other factors that could
     significantly affect internal controls subsequent to the date of our most
     recent evaluation, including any corrective actions with regard to
     significant deficiencies and material weaknesses.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this certification as of the
5th day of February, 2008.


/s/ Andrea Fehsenfeld
---------------------------
Chief Financial Officer
Page 1 

Commodity Futures Trading Commission 

CEA CASES 

NAME: MYERS AND COMPANY, A. H. MYERS, HARRY N. HARRISON, AND GLENN G. YANCEY 

DOCKET NUMBER: 63 

DATE: SEPTEMBER 13, 1954 

DOCUMENT TYPE: ISSUANCE OF COMPLAINT 

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Commodity Exchange Authority 

Washington 25, D. C. 

September 13, 1954 

ISSUANCE OF COMPLAINT - CE-A DOCKET NO. 63 

(Administrative Hearing under the Commodity Exchange Act) 

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

Agriculture, charging the following respondents with violation of the Commodity 

Exchange Act: 

Myers and Company, 

A. H. Myers, 

Harry N. Harrison, and 

Glenn G. Yancey 

The complaint charges that, under the supervision and direction of the three 

individual respondents, in their capacities as officers of the respondent 

corporation, the respondent corporation misued customers' funds, failed to keep 

proper records with respect to such funds, and handled customers' transactions 

contrary to the requirements of applicable regulations, all in violation of the 

Commodity Exchange Act and the rules end regulations thereunder. 

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 Solicitor 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., Central Standard Time, November 4, 1954, in Room 854, Board of Trade 

Building, Kansas City, Missouri. 

LOAD-DATE: June 12, 2008 
Page 2
#### Frank A. WALLMULLER, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. Casey SALISBURY, Sheriff, Mason County, Washington and Does I-V, individually and in their official capacities, Defendants—Appellees.

No. 10-35645.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Dec. 19, 2011.*

Filed Jan. 4, 2012.

*596Frank A. Wallmuller, Clallam Bay, WA, pro se.

John E. Justice, I, Esquire, Law Lyman Daniel Kamerrer, et al., Olympia, WA, for Defendants-Appellees.

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 **

Frank A. Wallmuller, a Washington state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that defendants violated his right of access to the courts. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, *Jones v. Blanas,*393 F.3d 918, 926 (9th Cir.2004), and we affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment because Wallmuller failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether he suffered an actual injury as a result of the alleged lack of access to adequate legal resources while he was detained at the Mason County Jail. *See Lewis v. Casey,*518 U.S. 343, 348-53, 116 S.Ct. 2174, 135 L.Ed.2d 606 (1996) (access-to-courts claim requires plaintiff to show that defendants’ conduct caused actual injury to a non-frivolous legal claim).

The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying, without prejudice to renewal, Wallmuller’s motion to name Tom Haugen as one of the Doe defendants because, at the time the motion was filed, there was a motion for summary judgment pending; substitution of Haugen would have unnecessarily delayed the court’s con*597sideration of the summary judgment motion; and substitution of Haugen would not have had any impact on the outcome of summary judgment. *See Matsumoto v. Republic Ins. Co.,*792 F.2d 869, 872 (9th Cir.1986) (per curiam) (no abuse of discretion in denying motion to add party made after discovery had commenced and motion for summary judgment had been filed).

Contrary to Wallmuller’s contention, the district court judge did not plainly err by not recusing himself. *See*28 U.S.C. § 455(a)-(b) (listing grounds for recusal); *United States v. Bosch,*951 F.2d 1546, 1548 (9th Cir.1991) (discussing plain error review standard).

Wallmuller’s remaining contentions, including that removal of the action to federal court was untimely, are unpersuasive.

AFFIRMED.

**

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

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

SCOTT ANTHONY HETRICK

,

Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS

,

Appellee. §

§

§

§

§ No. 08

- 23

- 00093

- CR

Appeal from the

91st Judicial District Court

of Eastland County, Texas

(TC# 25315 )

J U D G M E N T

The Court has considered this cause on the record and concludes there was no error in the

judgment. We therefore affirm the judgment of the court below. This decision shall be certified

below for observance.

IT IS SO O RDERED THIS 30 TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 20 23

.

L ISA J. SOTO

, Justice

Before Palafox, and Soto, JJ. , and Marion, C.J. (Ret.)

Marion, C.J. (Ret.)

, sitting by assignment
<PAGE>
 
                    [LETTERHEAD OF McGLADREY & PULLEN, LLP]


                      CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS


The Board of Directors
First Federal Bancorporation
Bemidji, Minnesota


We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in this Form 10-KSB in the 
previously filed Registration Statement of First Federal Bancorporation on Form 
S-8 (No. 33-98242) of our report, dated October 30, 1998, relating to the 
consolidated financial statements of First Federal Bancorporation and 
subsidiaries.


McGLADREY & PULLEN, LLP

/s/ McGladrey & Pullen, LLP

Duluth, Minnesota
December 23, 1998