alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Terms of Reference for Cooperation nod Collaboration between the 


US Commodity Futures Trading Commission and the 


China Securities Regulatory Commission 


The US Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFfC) and the China Securities 

Regulatory Commission (CSRC) aim to enhance cooperation and collaboration with a view to 

promoting investor protection, fostering market integrity, and facilitating the supervision of 

exchange-traded derivatives business that operates on a cross-border basis between China and the 

United States. To this end, this document sets forth terms ofreference for cooperation and 

collaboration between the CFTC and the CSRC. 

The collaboration between the CFTC and the CSRC takes into account a number of global 

trends, including the following: 

}> 	 The derivatives markets in China and the United States have grown exponentially in size; 

}> 	 Market users will be able to make more informed choices and to more.effectively manage 

their risks ifthey have readily available access to regulatory and market information, 

including information concerning the type ofconduct that may require authorization, the 

ability ofparticular types ofmarket participants and intermediaries to trade particular 

products, and on which markets such products can be traded; and 

}> 	 The electronic integration ofglobal markets and the demand by market users for open and 

efficient access to such markets challenge market authorities to explore cooperatively 

practical measures lo facilitate such access while maintaining appropriate customer and 

market protections. 

The enhanced relationship between the CFTC and the CSRC has the following objectives: 

}> 	 Identify and discuss regulatory developments in derivatives markets ofcommon interest, 

particularly as such issues might relate to cross-border market access and enhanced 

transparency and clarity ofregulatory requirements; 

)> 	 Building on existing arrangements, improve cooperation und the exchange of infonnation in 

cross-border derivatives enforcement matters; and 

}> 	 Continue and expand upon the existing program of training and technical assistance 


provided by the CFTC and the CSRC. 

The CFfC and the CSRC intend to identify specific areas ofwork under these objectives 

and to accomplish this work through regular contacts among senior staff and between the Chaim1cn 

ofthe CFTC and the CSRC, as well as an annual meeting ofthe respective agencies where the full 

range ofregulatory issues could be addressed. In addition, the CFTC and the CSRC will take steps 

to facilitate input ofthe derivatives industry and end-users, both for the purposes ofIdentifying 

issues to be addressed and the crafting ofpossible solutions. 

Signed, this Ith day ofFebruary, 2008 

Commodity Futures Trading Commission 

_by 

Walter 

ldlf/hL

L. Lukken 

Acting Cha_iman 

Chinn Securities Regulatory Commission 

by 

Shang Fulin 

Chainnan
#### Ranjit SINGH, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 06-70873.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Sept. 18, 2006.*

Filed Dec. 8, 2006.

George T. Heridis, Esq., Law Offices of Ashwani K. Bhakhri, Burlingame, CA, for Petitioner.

Ronald E. LeFevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Stephen Flynn, Esq., U.S. Department of Justice, San Francisco, CA, Joanne E. Johnson, Esq., U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.

Before: O’SCANNLAIN, GRABER and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.

*

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

AMENDED MEMORANDUM **

Respondent’s motion for summary dis*606position is granted because the questions raised by this petition for review are so insubstantial as not to require further argument. *See United States v. Hooton,*693 F.2d 857, 858 (9th Cir.1982) (per curiam) (stating standard).

In petitioner’s opposition to respondent’s motion for summary disposition and petitioner’s opening brief, petitioner argues that the motion filed before the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) was in fact a motion to reconsider that was not numerically barred. However, even if petitioner’s motion before the BIA was a motion to reconsider, it was not filed within 30 days after the “final administrative order of removal” with respect to petitioner. *See*8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(6)(B). *Bona v. Gonzales,*425 F.3d 663 (9th Cir.2005), was not the final administrative order of removal with respect to petitioner, and the filing date of *Bona*has no relevance to the deadline to file a motion to reconsider in petitioner’s proceedings. Petitioner offers no authority to the contrary.

The court must uphold Board denials of motions to reopen and reconsider under an abuse of discretion standard unless the BIA “acted arbitrarily, irrationally, or contrary to law.” *Larar-Torres v. Ashcroft,*383 F.3d 968, 972 (9th Cir.2004), *amended by*404 F.3d 1105 (9th Cir.2005). The BIA’s denial of petitioner’s motion was not an abuse of discretion. Accordingly, this petition for review is denied.

All other pending motions are denied as moot. The temporary stay of removal confirmed by Ninth Circuit General Order 6.4(c) shall continue in effect until issuance of the mandate.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-6084

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus JESSE J. FLOYD, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. Dennis W. Shedd, District Judge. (CR-98-1015, CA-01-3572-19-3) Submitted: March 21, 2002 Decided: March 29, 2002 Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Jesse J. Floyd, Appellant Pro Se. Nancy Chastain Wicker, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Jesse J. Floyd seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2001). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. United States v. Floyd , Nos. CR-98-1015; CA-01- 3572-19-3 (D.S.C. Nov. 6, 2001). 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
Exhibit 32.2

                                  CERTIFICATION

            PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2003

        (subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18,
                              United States Code)


Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes - Oxley Act of 2002(subsections (a) and
(b) of Section 1350,Chapter 63 of Title 18,United States Code), the undersigned
officer of Spantel Communications Inc., a Florida corporation ("The Company"),
does hereby certify with respect to the Annual report of the Company on Form
10-KSB/A for the period ended December 31,2004 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission ("the Form 10-KSB/A")that :

         1) The Form 10-KSB/A 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-KSB/A fairly presents, in
         all material respects, the financial condition and results of
         operations of the Company.




Dated: August 5, 2005                               /s/ Cesar Martinez
                                                    Cesar Martinez, Treasurer
                                                    (chief financial officer)
# Final
EXHIBIT 13.1 

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER PURSUANT 

TO SECTION 906 OF THESARBANES-OXLEY ACT 

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

(i) theaccompanying Annual Report on Form 20-F of the Company for the year ended December 31, 2011 (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Actof 1934, as amended; and 

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

 

Date: April 19, 2012 

The foregoing certification is being furnished solely to accompany the Report pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, and is not being filed for the purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,as amended, and is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company, whether made before or after the date hereof, regardless of any general incorporation language in such filing. 

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT 

TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT 

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as created by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned officer of China Yuchai International Limited (the “Company”) hereby certifies, tosuch officer’s knowledge that: 

(i) the accompanying Annual Report on Form 20-F of the Company for the year endedDecember 31, 2011 (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 operationsof the Company. 

 
By: 
/s/ Leong Kok Ho
 Name: Leong Kok Ho Title: Chief Financial Officer
Date: April 19, 2012 

The foregoing certification is being furnished solely to accompany the Report pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, and is not being filed for the purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,as amended, and is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company, whether made before or after the date hereof, regardless of any general incorporation language in such filing.
| 1. | The      Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of      the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended,  and |
|----|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| 2.                  | The      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material      respects, the financial conditions and results of operations of the      Company. |
|---------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                |                                                                                                                                                                 |
| April      23, 2009 |                                                                                                                                                                 | /s/Wallace      Boyack,Wallace      Boyack, Chief Executive Officer, Chief Financial Officer, principal      executive officer, principal financial and accounting officer  |
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Small Business Administration

The U.S. Small Business Administration, Office of the National Ombudsman, National Regulatory Fairness Board will hold a public meeting on Monday, June 18, 2001, from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. EST and Tuesday June 19, 2001, from 9 a.m. to 11 a.m. at the Crystal City Marriott (1999 Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington, VA 22202) to discuss such matters as may be presented by Acting National Ombudsman, Dr. James Van Wert, Members of the Regulatory Fairness Board, staff of the Small Business Administration or others present. Anyone wishing to make an oral presentation to the Board must contact Dr. Van Wert, in writing by letter or fax no later than June 15, 2001, in order to be put on the agenda. For further information, please write or call James Van Wert, Designated Federal Official, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street, SW, Seventh Floor, Washington, DC 20416. Telephone number (202) 205-7024, Fax (202) 205-6066. 

Nancyellen Gentile, 

Committee Management Officer. 

[FR Doc. 01-14883 Filed 6-12-01; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 8025-01-U
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### National Aeronautics and Space Administration

          - [Notice 01-073] 

# AGENCY:

National Aeronautics and Space Administration .

# ACTION:

Notice of availability of inventions for licensing. 

# SUMMARY:

The inventions listed below are assigned to the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, have been filed in the United States Patent and Trademark Office, and are available for licensing. 

# DATES:

 June 14, 2001. 

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Diana Cox, Patent Counsel, Goddard Space Flight Center, Mail Code 710.1, Greenbelt, MD 20771; telephone (301) 286-7351, fax (301) 286-9502. 

*NASA Case No. GSC-14064-1:*                         Universal Fiber Optic Connector Polishing Fixture With Precision Alignment Capability;                     

*NASA Case No. GSC-14207-1:*                         Gear Bearings;                     

*NASA Case No. GSC-14339-1:*                         3-D Interactive Display.                     

Dated: June 4, 2001.

Edward A. Frankle, 

General Counsel. 

[FR Doc. 01-15016 Filed 6-13-01; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7510-01-P
* 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. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 01-60686

Summary Calendar

WILLIE WASHINGTON,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

COMMUNICATION WORKERS OF AMERICA,

Defendant-Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Mississippi

(3:00-CV-15-LN)

___________________________________________________________________ January 21, 2002

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, WIENER, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Willie Washington contests, pro se

, the adverse summary judgment

on his federal and state law claims. Washington, an employee of

BellSouth Teleco mmunications, Inc., brought this action against

Commu nication Workers of America (CWA), claiming: (1) racial

discrimination in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of

1964 and 42 U.S.C. § 1981 ; (2) breach of a collective bargaining

ag reement between CWA and BellSouth; and (3) negligent and/or

intentional infliction of emotional distress.

Summary judgment was granted because: (1) service of process on

an affiliated, but autonomous, local union did not effect serv ice

### 2

upon CWA; (2) even if CWA was properly served, service was made more

than 120 days after the compla int was filed; and (3) in the

alternative, no genuine issue of material fact remained as to any

claim and CWA was entitled to a judgmen t as a matter of law.

Washington v. Communication Workers of America

, No. 3:00-CV-15-LN, at

3-5 (S.D. Miss. 26 July 2001) ( Washington-USDC ).

We review a summary judgment d e novo

, applying the identical

stan dard used by the district court. S tewart v. Murphy

, 174 F.3d

530, 533 (5th Cir.), c ert. denied

, 528 U.S. 906 (1999). Summary

judgment should be granted if “the pleadings, depositions, answers to

i nterrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the

affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any

material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as

a matter of law”. F ED

. R. C IV

. P. 56(c). “We view the pleadings and

summary judgment evidence in the light most f avorable to the

nonmovant.” Stewart , 174 F.3d at 533.

In his brief, Washington does not mention, much less challenge

the insufficient service of process ruling. Therefore, we need not

address this issue, as we do not “consider issues or ar guments not

raised in the appellant’s brief”. B lanch ard v. Forrest , 71 F.3d

1163, 1169 (5th Cir.), cert. denied

, 518 U. S. 1013 (1996).

Accordingly, the summary judgment is

AFFIRMED.
IN THE j? - ^ - A^~

COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS p»C

AUSTIN, TEXAS

LUKE ADAM STANTON, SR., § CCA No. PD-1482/1483/1484-14

Appellant/ §

§ From the Eighth District

V. §

•.;| . Court of Appeals

THE STATE OF TEXAS/ § El Paso/. Texas

Appellee. § COA No. 08-12-00293/294/295-CR

APPELLANT'S SECONDvXMOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE

PETITION. FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW -->V

TO THE HONORABLE JUSTICES OF SAID COURT:

Luke Adam Stanton/ Sr./ Petitioner/ Pro Se, upon good cause/ moves this

Court to extend additional time to present his Second Motion for. Extension of

Time for the filing of Petitioner's Petition for Discretionary Review (PDR).

His first Motion for Extension of Time was GRANTED on November 07/2014/ and .:.

extended to Friday/ January 09/2015. However/ Appellant request for an extension

of time/ not for purposed of delay/ but that he may fairly have enough time to

properly prepare his PDR. And shows the Court the following:

1) Petitioner is not an attorney/ is unskilled in the law and filing Pro Se.

2) Petitioner requires additional time to research controlled legal issues

and then to prepare the PDR which is currently due. Petitioner is incar

cerated in the Texas Dept. of Criminal Justice Prison System/ and/ as a

result/ logistics can be difficult.

3) Due to the Holidays/ the prison law library had United schedules; There

fore/ the Petitioner has been unable to complete his legal research.

4) Petitioner needs additional time to acquire additional information with

in the records of the instant, cases to perfect his PDR.

5) The deadline to file the Petitioner's,PDR is January 09/2015. However/

Petitioner requests an extension of an additional thirty,(30) days/

moving the deadline due date to/ Monday/ February 09/2015.

WHEREFORE/ PREMISES CONSIDERED/ the Petitioner respectfully requests that

this Honorable Court GRANT him an extension of an additional thirty (30) days

to appropriately prepare and file his PDR.

Respectfully Submitted/

January:02,2015 (jtufa&O^^ZJ FILED IN

REStolN . ^f^J^r'cOURTOFCRIMINALAPPEAL! ••---llllll(1 .nncAic TDCJ _ Michael Unit COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALb 2664 FM 2054

TN. Colony/ Texas 75886

JAN 09 2015

- i of 2 - Abel Acosta, Clerk

Abel Acosta, Clerk

JAN 09 2015
CLERK January 02,2015

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas

P.O. Box 12308

Capitol Station

Austin, Texas 78711

RE: Stanton v. State of Texas

CCA No. PD-1482/1483/1484-14

COA No. 08-12-00392/294/295-GR

Appellant's Second Motion for Extension of Time to file

PETITION FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW.

Dear Sir or Madam:

Attached is the original: Appellant's Second Motion for Extension of time

to file PETITION FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW, to be submitted and filed.

Your kindness in the above matter is greatly appreciated!

Sincerely, RECEIVED IN

QUIOl 5k»Z^y~ COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

Luke Stanton #1830011 IAM nQ onie

TDCJ - Michael Unit im U9 AllJ

2664 FM 2054

TN. Colony, Texas 75886 aD6» AGOSta, Clerk

cc:

Charles Orbison

Assistant Criminal District Attorney

1450 East McKinney St., 3rd Fl.

Denton, TX 76209