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

Commodity Futures Trading Commission 

CEA CASES 

NAME: WEBSTER E. COLLINS 

DOCKET NUMBER: 121 

DOCUMENT TYPE: ISSUANCE OF COMPLAINT 

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Commodity Exchange Authority 

Washington 25, D. C. 

ISSUANCE OF COMPLAINT - CEA DOCKET NO. 121 

(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: 

Webster E. Collins 

(Springfield, Massachusetts) 

The complaint charges attempted manipulation and manipulation of the price of 

the May 1963 wool future on the Wool Associates of the New York Cotton Exchange, 

Inc., on May 22 and 23, 1963. It alleges that Webster E. Collins made an 

arrangement whereby most of the certificated wool deliverable on the May 1963 

wool futures contract was rendered unavailable to holders of short futures 

contracts and that he held a long futures position on the exchange which was in 

excess of the supply of certificated wool which was available to the holders of 

short futures contracts. The complaint further alleges that with knowledge of 

these facts, he demanded and received artificial prices for the May 1963 wool 

future. 

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, November 10, 1964, in Springfield, Massachusetts. 

LOAD-DATE: June 12, 2008 
Page 2
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jimmy HALL, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 10-6074.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Oct. 6, 2010.

Decided: Oct. 28, 2010.

*821Jimmy Hall, Appellant Pro Se. William Walter Wilkins, III, United States Attorney, Regan Alexandra Pendleton, Assistant United States Attorney, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Before GREGORY and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Jimmy Hall seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp.2010) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of ap-pealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006). 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 petition 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 Hall has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appeala-bility and dismiss the appeal. 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.*
|   | (1)  | the quarterly report on Form 10-Q of GBS Enterprises Incorporated for the fiscal quarter ended June 30, 2011 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 19, 2011 | /s/ Joerg Ott                         |
|-----------------------|---------------------------------------|
|                  | Joerg Ott                             |
|                  | President and Chief Executive Officer |
|                  | (Principal Executive 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.                  

###### Federal Emergency Management Agency

          - [FEMA-1368-DR] 

# AGENCY:

Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). 

# ACTION:

Notice. 

# SUMMARY:

This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration for the State of Illinois, (FEMA-1368-DR), dated May 9, 2001, and related determinations. 

# EFFECTIVE DATE:

June 6, 2001. 

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Madge Dale, Response and Recovery Directorate, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-3772. 

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The notice of a major disaster declaration for the State of Illinois is hereby amended to include Categories C through G under the Public Assistance program to the following areas among those areas determined to have been adversely affected by the catastrophe declared a major disaster by the President in his declaration of May 9, 2001: 

Adams, Calhoun, Carroll, Hancock, Henderson, Jo Daviess, Mercer, Pike, Rock Island, and Whiteside Counties for Categories C through G under the Public Assistance program (already designated for Categories A and B). 

(The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA) are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 83.537, Community Disaster Loans; 83.538, Cora Brown Fund Program; 83.539, Crisis Counseling; 83.540, Disaster Legal Services Program; 83.541, Disaster Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 83.542, Fire Suppression Assistance; 83.543, Individual and Family Grant (IFG) Program; 83.544, Public Assistance Grants; 83.545, Disaster Housing Program; 83.548, Hazard Mitigation Grant Program.) 

Lacy E. Suiter,

Executive Associate Director, Response and Recovery Directorate. 

[FR Doc. 01-15265 Filed 6-15-01; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6718-02-P
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.                  

###### Department of Agriculture

###### Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration 

      ( print page 31886)    
                    The Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration, United States Department of Agriculture, has information that the livestock markets named below are stockyards as defined in section 302 of the Packers and Stockyards Act (7 U.S.C. 202) and should be made subject to the provisions of the Packers and Stockyards Act (Act), 1921, as amended (7 U.S.C. 181*et seq.*).                 

AL-192 Southern Star Stockyard, Elgin, Alabama 

AR-176 Bar D Arena, Ash Flat, Arkansas 

Pursuant to the authority under section 302 of the Act, notice is hereby given that it is proposed to designate the stockyards named above as posted stockyards subject to the provisions of said Act. 

Any person who wishes to submit written data, views or arguments concerning the proposed designation may do so by filing them with the Director, Office of Policy/Litigation Support, Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration, Room 1521, South Building, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC 20250-3646, by June 28, 2001. 

All written submissions made pursuant to this notice will be made available for public inspection in the Office of the Director of the Office of Policy/Litigation Support during normal business hours. 

Done at Washington, DC this 7th day of June 2001.

David R. Shipman, 

Acting Administrator, Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration. 

[FR Doc. 01-14868 Filed 6-12-01; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3410-EN-P
Page 1 

Commodity Futures Trading Commission 

CEA CASES 

NAME: DEAN WITTER & CO., INCORPORATED 

DOCKET NUMBER: 178 

DOCUMENT TYPE: ISSUANCE OF COMPLAINT 

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Commodity Exchange Authority 

Washington, D. C. 20250 

ISSUANCE OF COMPLAINT - CEA DOCKET NO. 178 

(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: 

Dean Witter & Co., Incorporated 

(San Francisco, California) 

The complaint charges Dean Witter & Co., Incorporated with failing to handle 

and account for customers' funds as required under the Commodity Exchange Act. 

The complaint alleges that during the period from June 5 through June 11, 1970, 

the firm was under-segregated in amounts ranging up to $ 260,000. The complaint 

also alleges that on numerous days during the period from August 13 to December 

31, 1970, the firm violated the sections of the Act and regulations which 

require the proper accounting of customers' funds. 

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, on October 13, 1971, in San Francisco, California. 

LOAD-DATE: June 16, 2008 
Page 2
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 00-6833

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

LARRY AMBROSE,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. James R. Spencer, District Judge.

(CR-98-64, CA-99-747)

Submitted: October 12, 2000 Decided: October 20, 2000

Before WILLIAMS and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Larry Ambrose, Appellant Pro Se. David John Novak, OFFICE OF THE

UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Larry Ambrose seeks to appeal the district court’s order

denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West

1994 & Supp. 2000). 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. See United States v. Ambrose, Nos.

CR-98-64; CA-99-747 (E.D. Va. May 2, 2000). 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: WALKER & CO. 

DOCKET NUMBER: 201 

DOCUMENT TYPE: ISSUANCE OF COMPLAINT 

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Commodity Exchange Authority 

Washington, D. C. 20250 

ISSUANCE OF COMPLAINT - CEA DOCKET NO. 201 

(Administrative Hearing under the Commodity Exchange Act) 

A complaint and notice of hearing has been signed by the Deputy Assistant 

Secretary of Agriculture, charging violation of the Commodity Exchange Act by: 

Walker & Co. 

(Boston, Massachusetts) 

The complaint charges Walker & Co., with failing to handle and account for 

customers' funds as required under the Commodity Exchange Act. The complaint 

alleges that on a number of days between March 21 and May 26, 1971, the firm was 

undersegregated in amounts ranging up to $ 158,000. The complaint also alleges 

that on a number of days during the period the firm failed to prepare accurate 

records of funds in segregation. 

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 in 

Boston, Massachusetts, at a place therein and date to be specified later. 

LOAD-DATE: June 16, 2008 
Page 2
Exhibit EX-99.906CERT

Certification 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)

In connection with the attached Report of Fidelity Investment Trust  (the "Trust") on Form N-CSR to be filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), each of the undersigned officers of the Trust does hereby certify that, to the best of such officer's knowledge:

1.	The Report fully complies with the requirements of 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 Trust as of, and for, the periods presented in the Report.

Dated:	June 26, 2015

|/s/Kenneth B. Robins   
|-----------------------
|Kenneth B. Robins      
|President and Treasurer





Dated:	June 26, 2015



|/s/Howard J. Galligan III
|-------------------------
|Howard J. Galligan III   
|Chief Financial Officer  

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to the Trust and will be retained by the Trust and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
Page 1 

Commodity Futures Trading Commission 

CEA CASES 

NAME: DANIEL J. SHELLEY, JOHN M. ROWLEY, AND SAM H. LA MANTIA (LAMANTIA) 

DOCKET NUMBER: 96 

DOCUMENT TYPE: ISSUANCE OF COMPLAINT 

NOTE: SOMETIMES SPELLED AS LAMANTIA AND SOMETIMES AS LA MANTIA 

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Commodity Exchange Authority 

Washington 25, D. C. 

ISSUANCE OF COMPLAINT - CEA DOCKET NO. 96 

(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: 

Daniel J. Shelley 

John M. Rowley 

Sam H. La Mantia 

(Chicago, Illinois) 

The complaint charges that Daniel J. Shelley and John M. Rowley traded noncompetitively in the May 1960 wheat future on the Chicago Board of Trade on May 

19, 1960, to enable respondent Shelley to offset buying and selling orders. The 

complaint further charges that in offsetting the orders respondent Shelley 

cheated his buying customers and respondent Rowley made an accommodation trade. 

Respondents Shelley and La Mantia are charged with willfully deceiving the 

persons from whom the orders were received and all three respondents are charged 

with willfully causing false reports to be made and false records to be entered 

and failing to keep full and complete records of futures transactions. 

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, January 24, 1961, in Chicago, Ill. 

LOAD-DATE: June 12, 2008 
Page 2
The Attorney General of Texas 

April 19, 1978 

JOHN L. HILL 

Attorney General 

Honorable Joe S. Gonzales, Chairman 

State Board of Polygraph Examiners 

Suite 502, Lamar Crest Office Tower 

7701 North Lamar 

Austin, Texas 78752 

Opinion No. H- 1156 

Re: Whether violation of the 

Board of Polygraph Examiners’ 

regulations is a penal offense 

under article 4413(29cc), section 

26, V.T.C.S. 

Dear Mr. Gonzales: 

You have requested our opinion as to whether the violation of 

regulations promulgated by the Board of Polygraph Examiners is a penal 

offense under section 26 of article 4413(29cc), V.T.C.S. That provision states: 

[al ny person who violates any provision of this Act . . . 

shall be guilty of a misdemeanor. . . . 

Section 6(a) of article 4413(29cc) authorizes the Board to 

issue regulations consistent with the provisions of this 

Act for the administration and enforcement of this 

Act. . . . 

You ask whether a person who violates a Board regulation forbidding conduct 

which is not prohibited by the statute itself may be prosecuted for violating a 

provision of the Act. 

In the present instance, there is little evidence that the Legislature 

intended to confer upon the Board the power to define substantive crimes. If 

it had attempted to do so, the attempt would have been invalid. It is well 

established that article 1, section 28 of the Texas Constitution prohibits the 

Legislature from delegating its authority to create a penal offense. Dockery 

v. State, 247 S.W. 508, 509 (Tex. Crim. App. 1923); Ex parte Leslie, 223 S.W. 

227, 229 (Tex. Crim. App. 1920). 

p. 4686 
Honorable Joe S. Gonzales - Page2 (H-1156) 

In Attorney General Opinion O-972 (1939), this Office held that the mere 

violation of a rule of the State Parks Board could not serve as the predicate for an 

arrest, unless the act in question was also made a penal offense by statute. See 

also Attorney General Opinions H-119 (1973); 05047 (1943). In our opinion, this view 

isequally applicable to regulations of the Board of Polygraph Examiners. 

Accordingly, we believe that the violation of Board regulations which forbid 

conduct not prohibited by any statute is not a penal offense under section 26 of 

article 4413(29cc). 

SUMMARY 

The violation of regulations promulgated by the Board of 

Polygraph Examiners, which regulations prohibit conduct not 

proscribed by any statute, is not a penal offense under 

section 26 of article 4413(29cc), V.T.C.S. 

/ 

P 

v truza 

JOHN L. HILL 

Attorney General of Texas 

APPROVED: 

Y32LJLLa 

DAVID M. KENDALL, First Assistant 

Opinion Committee 

jst 

p. 4687
**EXHIBIT 23.1**

**CONSENT OF ERNST & YOUNG LLP, INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

We consent tothe incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements (Form S-8 No. 333-54938, No. 333-43090, No. 333-90725, No. 333-54936, No. 333-117507) pertaining to the 1998 Stock Option Plan, 1999 Stock Option Plan, 1999Non-Qualified Stock Option Plan, PaylinX Corporation 2000 Stock Option Plan, and 1999 Employee Stock Purchase Plan of CyberSource Corporation, of our reports dated March 9, 2006, with respect to the consolidated financial statements andschedule of CyberSource Corporation, Cybersource Corporation management’s assessment of the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting, and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting of CybersourceCorporation, included in this Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31, 2005. 

 

San Jose, California 

March 9, 2006