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

Commodity Futures Trading Commission 

CEA CASES 

NAME: JULIAN M. MARKS, STUART A. NEWMAN, MARSHALL K. SMITH, IRWIN M. EISEN, AND 

JAMES S. SCHONBERG 

DOCKET NUMBER: 98 

DOCUMENT TYPE: ISSUANCE OF COMPLAINT 

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Commodity Exchange Authority 

Washington 25, D. C. 

ISSUANCE OF COMPLAINT - CEA DOCKET NO. 98 

(Administrative Hearing under the Commodity Exchange Act) 

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

of Agriculture, charging the following respondents with violation of the 

Commodity Exchange Act: 

Julian M. Marks 

Stuart A. Newman 

Marshall K. Smith 

Irwin M. Eisen 

James S. Schonberg 

(Chicago, Illinois) 

The complaint charges that on May 19, 1960, all of the respondents traded 

non-competitively in the May 1960 wheat future on the Chicago Board of Trade. 

The complaint further charges that Julian M. Marks offset customers' orders and 

took the opposite side of customers' orders by means of accommodation trades; 

Julian M. Marks and Stuart A. Newman bucketed customers' orders, deceived the 

person from whom orders were received and caused false records to be kept, false 

reports to be made and failed to keep proper records; Stuart A. Newman and Irwin 

M. Eisen made accommodation trades and Marshall K. Smith offset customers' 

orders and cheated customers. 

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, March 7, 1961, in Chicago, Ill. 

LOAD-DATE: June 12, 2008 
Page 2
Page 1 

Commodity Futures Trading Commission 

CEA CASES 

NAME: GENERAL FOODS CORPORATION, CHARLES W. METCALF, DANIEL F. RICE AND COMPANY, 

DANIEL F. RICE, LAWRENCE J. RYAN, AND PHILIP R. O'BRIEN 

CITATION: 6 Agric. Dec. 910 

DOCKET NUMBER: 34 

DATE: SEPTEMBER 26, 1947 

DOCUMENT TYPE: INTERPRETATION 

(A. D. 1603) 

 

In re GENERAL FOODS CORPORATION et al. CEA Doc. No. 34. Decided September 26, 

1947. 

Interpretation of Term "Trading Privileges" Used in Prior Orders

Since the term "trading privileges" generally includes all trading privileges 

on a contract market save those specifically excepted, it was not the intent in 

the orders of April 28, 1947 and July 11, 1947, to order the refusal of trading 

privileges with respect to cash grain trading and, therefore, the term "trading 

privileges" therein used should be interpreted to apply only with respect to 

futures trading. 

 

Decision by Thomas J. Flavin, Judicial Officer.

INTERPRETATION

There has been raised informally a question in connection with the 

suspensions of trading privileges ordered in the decisions and orders entered in 

this proceeding under the Commodity Exchange Act (7 U. S. C. Chapter 1) on April 

28, 1947, 6 Agric. Dec. 288 (6 A. D. 288) and July 11, 1947, 6 Agric. Dec. 652 

(6 A. D. 652). The question arises by reason of the term "trading privileges" 

generally including all trading privileges on a contract market save those 

specifically excepted. It was not the intent in the aforementioned orders to 

order the refusal of trading privileges with respect to cash grain trading. 

Therefore, in the application of those orders, they should be interpreted to 

direct contract markets to deny trading privileges to the respondents only with 

respect to futures trading. 

Of course, at the present time the orders are stayed pending judicial review 

by the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. 

 

Copies hereof shall be served upon the parties, or their counsel of record, 

and each contract market. 

 

LOAD-DATE: March 12, 2008 
Page 2
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 20

- 6839

JAMES F. KANE , Petitioner

- Appellant ,

v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Respondent

- Appellee

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina , at Asheville

. Martin K. Reidinger, Chief District Judge. ( 1:19

- cv - 00238

- MR )

Submitted : September 28, 2023 Decided: October 2, 2023

Before NIEMEYER, THACKER , and RUSHING, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

.

ON BRIEF : Anthony Martinez , Federal Public Defender , Joshua B. Carpenter , Appellate Chief , FEDERAL DEFENDERS OF WESTERN NORTH CAROLINA, INC. , Asheville, North Carolina , for Appellant. William T. Stetzer , Acting United States Attorney , Elizabeth M. Greenough, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 20-6839 Doc: 52 Filed: 10/02/2023 Pg: 1 of 22 PER CURIAM:
James F. Kane appeals the district court’s order dismissing Kane’s 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition for lack of jurisdiction. In light of the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Jones v.
Hendrix , 143 S. Ct. 1857, 1867

- 69 (2023) (holding that petitioner cannot use § 2241 petition to mount successive collateral attack on validity of federal sentence), we conclude that Kane cannot pursue his challenge in a § 2241 petition. Accordingly, we affirm the district court ’s order dismissing Kane’s § 2241 petition

. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional

process.
AFFIRMED USCA4 Appeal: 20-6839 Doc: 52 Filed: 10/02/2023 Pg: 2 of 2
Page 1 

Commodity Futures Trading Commission 

CEA CASES 

NAME: BENEDICT K. GOODMAN 

CITATION: 20 Agric. Dec. 173 

DOCKET NUMBER: 81 

DATE: MARCH 17, 1961 

DOCUMENT TYPE: REMOVAL OF STAY ORDER 

AGRICULTURE DECISIONS

BEFORE THE SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

(No. 7038) 

In re BENEDICT K. GOODMAN. CEA Docket No. 81. Decided March 17, 1961. 

Stay Order Vacated

The order of October 12, 1959, shall become effective April 1, 1961. 

Decision by Thomas J. Flavin, Judicial Officer

REMOVAL OF STAY ORDER

On February 12, 1960, an order was entered in this proceeding (19 Agric. Dec. 

65 (19 A.D. 65)) staying the order entered October 12, 1959 (18 Agric. Dec. 1121 

(18 A.D. 1121)), pending the outcome of an appeal to the United States Court of 

Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. The decision and order have been upheld by the 

court (Benedict K. Goodman v. Benson, No. 12920, February 16, 1961) and we have 

been informed by counsel for respondent here that no further appeal is planned. 

Accordingly the stay order of February 12, 1960, is vacated and the order of 

October 12, 1959, directing all contract markets to refuse all trading 

privileges to respondent for a period of 20 days shall become effective April 1, 

1961. 

LOAD-DATE: June 8, 2008 
Page 2
Order entered May 17, 2013

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-11-01013-CR

BILLY RAY WILLIAMS, SR., Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 363rd Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. F10-71348-W

ORDER

Pending before the Court are two motions filed by appellant on February 25, 2013, and 

on March 22, 2013, “For Complete Recordation for a Transcript of All Pre-Trial Proceedings and 

for a Daily Transcript of Specified Portions of the Evidence.” The motions are denied.

/s/ LANA MYERS 

JUSTICE
IV 

111TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. RES. 1135 

Amending the Rules of the House of Representatives to require that Members 

take the same annual ethics training as senior staff. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 3, 2010 

Mr. BROUN of Georgia submitted the following resolution; which was referred 

to the Committee on Rules 

RESOLUTION 

Amending the Rules of the House of Representatives to 

require that Members take the same annual ethics training as senior staff. 

1 Resolved, That clause 3(a)(6)(B) of rule XI of the 

2 Rules of the House of Representatives is amended— 

3 (1) in item (i), strike ‘‘new officer or employee’’ 

4 and insert ‘‘Member, Delegate, Resident Commis5 sioner, officer, or employee’’; 

6 (2) in item (ii), strike ‘‘officer and employee’’ 

7 and insert ‘‘Member, Delegate, Resident Commis8 sioner, officer, and employee’’ and strike ‘‘officer or 

9 employee’’ and insert ‘‘Member, Delegate, Resident 

10 Commissioner, officer, or employee’’; and 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with BILLS
2 

•HRES 1135 IH 

1 (3) by adding at the end the following new sen2 tence: ‘‘The training that is required of Members, 

3 Delegates, and the Resident Commissioner under 

4 this paragraph is the same that is required of senior 

5 staff by the committee.’’. 

Æ 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with BILLS
# Fourth Court of Appeals San Antonio, Texas

August 10, 2022

No. 04

- 22

- 00345

- CR

Steven Xzavier MEDINA

, Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas, Appellee

From the 144th Judicial District Court

, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2020CR417 4 Honorable Michael E. Mery , Judge Presiding



### O R D E R

Appellant’s brief originally was due to be filed on August 8, 2022. On August 10, 2022, appellant filed a motion requesting a forty

- five

- day extension of time to file the brief. Appellant’s motion is GRANTED, and appellant is ORDERED to file his brief no l ater than September 22, 2022

. Appellant is advised that further requests for an extension of time to file the brief will be disfavored.

_________________________________ Rebeca C. Martinez, Chief Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said court on this 10th day of August, 2022

.

___________________________________ MICHAEL A. CRUZ

, Clerk of Court
Page 1 

Commodity Futures Trading Commission 

CEA CASES 

NAME: PACIFIC WEST COMMODITIES, INC., KENNETH M. MUELLER, BETHEL G. BUCKALEW, 

NORMAN C. LONG, AND LESTER J. SUTER 

DOCKET NUMBER: 128 

DOCUMENT TYPE: ISSUANCE OF COMPLAINT 

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Commodity Exchange Authority 

Washington, D. C. 20250 

ISSUANCE OF COMPLAINT - CEA DOCKET NO. 128 

(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: 

Pacific West Commodities, Inc., 

Kenneth M. Mueller, 

Bethel G. Buckalew, 

Norman C. Long, and 

Lester J. Suter 

(La Jolla, California) 

The complaint charges Pacific West Commodities, Inc., Kenneth M. Mueller, 

Bethel G. Buckalew, Norman C. Long, and Lester J. Suter, president, executive 

vice president, vice president-treasurer and secretary, respectively, of the 

corporation, with failing to treat and deal with customers' funds as belonging 

to such customers; failing to segregate and account separately for such funds; 

using funds to margin and guarantee the trades and secure and extend the credit 

of customers other than those for whom such funds were held; and commingling 

customers' funds with funds belonging to the respondent corporation. The 

complaint also charges that the respondents failed to prepare and maintain 

records required under the Commodity Exchange Act. 

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, September 1, 1965, in La Jolla, California. 

LOAD-DATE: June 12, 2008 
Page 2
# United States Court **of Appeals**  **f or the Fifth Circuit** 

**____________** No. 22

- 11033 Summary Calendar

**____________ United States of America,**  Plaintiff

— Appellee **,**

versus **Aaron Oehlschlager,** Defendant

— Appellant

**.**

**______________________________** Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 3:20

- CR

- 378

- 1

**__________________ ____________**  Before **Wiener, Elrod,** and **Engelhardt,** Circuit Judges

**. Per Curiam**  **:** *****
The attorney appointed to represent Aaron Oehlschlager has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores , 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Oehlschlager has not filed a response to the brief but has moved for the appo intment of new counsel. That motion is **DENIED**

. See **Fifth**

**_____________________**

* This opinion is not designated for publication. See **5th Cir**

**. R** 

**.** 47.5. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED June 9, 2023 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 22-11033 Document: 00516781316 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/09/2023No. 22

- 11033

2 **Circuit Plan Under the Criminal**  **Justice Act** § 5(B) ; see also United States v. Isgar , 739 F.3d 829, 841 (5th Cir. 2014)

. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is **GR ANTED**  , counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the appeal is **DISMISSED**

. See **5th Cir. R.** 42.2

. Case: 22-11033 Document: 00516781316 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/09/2023
* Local Rule 47.5 provides: "The publication of opinions

that have no precedential value and merely decide particular

cases on the basis of well-settled principles of law imposes

needless expense on the public and burdens on the legal

profession." Pursuant to that Rule, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

__________________

No. 95-60241

 Summary Calendar

__________________

ROBERT E. TUBWELL,

 Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

BARBARD DUNN, Circuit Clerk of Hinds County

Mississippi, ET AL.,

 Defendants,

BARBARA DUNN, Circuit Clerk of Hinds County, 

Mississippi; J.D. MCADORY, Sheriff, Hinds 

County, Mississippi; L.L. STEVENS, Deputy 

Circuit Clerk, Hinds County, Mississippi; and 

BOBBY GALLIGER, Chief Jailer, Hinds County, 

Mississippi, 

 Defendants-Appellees.

---------------------

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Mississippi

USDC No. 3:91-cv-191BN

---------------------

November 27, 1995

Before JOLLY, JONES and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Robert E. Tubwell has applied for leave to proceed in forma

pauperis on appeal. Tubwell argues that there were genuine

issues of material fact precluding entry of summary judgment and
No. 95-60241

-2-

that a sworn declaration filed in support of the defendants'

motion for summary judgment did not comply with Fed. R. Civ. P.

56(e). We have carefully reviewed the magistrate judge's

memorandum opinion and the record and hold that Tubwell has

failed to raise a non-frivolous issue for appeal. Therefore, the

application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis is DENIED. 

Because the appeal is frivolous, it is DISMISSED.

Tubwell has been previously warned by this court that he may

be sanctioned for filing further frivolous pleadings. 

Accordingly, Tubwell is BARRED from filing any pro se, in forma

pauperis, civil appeal in this court, or any pro se, in forma

pauperis, initial civil pleading in any court which is subject to

this court's jurisdiction, without the advance written permission

of a judge of the forum court or of this court; the clerk of this

court and the clerks of all federal district courts in this

Circuit are directed to return to Tubwell, unfiled, any attempted

submission inconsistent with this bar. 

MOTION DENIED; APPEAL DISMISSED; SANCTIONS IMPOSED.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0000869801
<NAME> GEODYNE INSTITUTIONAL/PENSION ENERGY INCOME LTD PSHP P-6
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                         588,691
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  305,548
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               894,239
<PP&E>                                      12,764,969
<DEPRECIATION>                               8,702,398
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               4,956,810
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                   4,956,810
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 4,956,810
<SALES>                                      1,511,302
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,543,369
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  814,268
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                729,101
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            729,101
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   729,101
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     4.65
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
H. Res. 1364 

In the House of Representatives, U. S., 

May 19, 2010. 

Whereas on March 5, 1881, the General Assembly of North 

Carolina approved legislation allowing the Board of Justices of Chatham County to replace the existing 

architecturally unsound Chatham County courthouse with 

a new facility and provided the county with construction 

bonds of up to $12,000; 

Whereas Thomas B. Womack designed the plans for the 

Chatham County Courthouse, and J. Bynum and William 

Lord London of Pittsboro, North Carolina, were awarded 

the construction contract; 

Whereas on September 1, 1881, members of Columbus Lodge 

102 laid the cornerstone of the new courthouse in Pittsboro, and on July 4, 1882, the new courthouse was completed; 

Whereas the Chatham County Courthouse is a three-story 

brick structure with a two-story classical portico topped 

by a distinguishing three-stage cupola; 

Whereas county courthouses are focal points of justice and 

the rule of law in communities across the country, and 

the Chatham County Courthouse serves as the central 

landmark of Pittsboro and Chatham County; 
2 

•HRES 1364 EH 

Whereas the historic Chatham County Courthouse was partially destroyed by a tragic fire that broke out on March 

25, 2010, at approximately 4:15 p.m.; 

Whereas firefighters, led by Chatham Country Fire Marshal 

Thomas Bender, courageously fought the blaze and protected surrounding buildings from damage; 

Whereas government officials of the North Carolina Administrative Office of the Courts, Chatham County, and the 

town of Pittsboro have worked tirelessly to ensure the 

continuity of judicial operations in Chatham County and 

to develop a plan to restore the courthouse; and 

Whereas the North Carolina court system, Chatham County, 

and the town of Pittsboro experienced a significant and 

tragic loss as a result of the March 25, 2010 fire: Now, 

therefore, be it 

Resolved, That the House of Representatives— 

(1) expresses condolences to the North Carolina 

court system, Chatham County, and the town of Pittsboro for the tragic loss of the Chatham County Courthouse; 

(2) commends the heroic actions of the Chatham 

County firefighters and first responders who worked tirelessly to combat the Courthouse fire, minimize the damage to the Courthouse and the historic materials contained therein, and protect the public; 

(3) recognizes the community significance of the 

Courthouse as a cornerstone of justice and the rule of 

law in Chatham County; and 
3 

•HRES 1364 EH 

(4) recognizes the impact that more than a century 

of landmark court decisions has made on the judicial 

system of the Town of Pittsboro, Chatham County, and 

North Carolina. 

Attest: 

Clerk.
Exhibit 8
 Subsidiary
    
    Country of Incorporation
    
    Interest Held
    
    
    Percentage InterestBritish Sky Broadcasting Limited
    
    England and Wales
    
    British Sky Broadcasting Group plc (BSkyB)
and BSkyB Investments Limited hold 5,001,002
and 5,001,000 Ordinary Shares of £1 each,
respectively
    
    
    100
    %British Interactive Broadcasting 
Holdings Limited (BiB)
    
    England and Wales
    
    BSkyB holds 651,960 Ordinary Shares of £1 each
    
    
    100
    %BSkyB Investments Limited
    
    England and Wales
    
    BSkyB holds 100 Ordinary Shares of £1 each
    
    
    100
    %BSkyB Finance UK plc
    
    England and Wales
    
    BSkyB and Sky Television Limited (a wholly owned subsidiary of BSkyB) hold 49,999
and 1 Ordinary Share of £1 each, respectively
    
    
    100
    %Sky Subscribers Services Limited
    
    England and Wales
    
    BiB holds 3 Ordinary Shares of £1 each
    
    
    100
    %Sky Holdings Limited
    
    England and Wales
    
    BSkyB Finance UK plc holds 600 Ordinary
Shares of £1 each
    
    
    100
    %Sky In-Home Service Limited
    
    England and Wales
    
    BSkyB Limited holds 1,576,000 Ordinary Shares of £1 each
    
    
    100
    %BSkyB Publications Limited
    
    England and Wales
    
    BSkyB Limited holds 2 Ordinary Shares of £1
each
    
    
    100
    %British Sky Broadcasting SA
    
    Luxembourg
    
    BSkyB Limited holds 12,500 Ordinary Shares of
£12 each
    
    
    100
    %Sky Broadband SA
    
    Luxembourg
    
    BSkyB Limited holds 309 Ordinary Shares of
£100 each and Sky Television Limited holds 1 Ordinary
Share of £100
    
    
    100
    %Sky Interactive Limited
    
    England and Wales
    
    BiB and BSkyB Limited hold 2 and 1 Ordinary
Shares of £1 each, respectively
    
    
    100
    %Easynet Group Limited
    
    England and Wales
    
    Sky Holdings Limited holds
121,308,489
Ordinary Shares of 4p each and Sky Television holds 1 Ordinary Share of
4p each
    
    
    100
    %Sky Ventures Limited
    
    England and Wales
    
    BSkyB Limited holds 912 Ordinary Shares of £1
each
    
    
    100
    %365
Media Group Limited
    
    England and Wales
    
    Sky Holdings Limited holds
151,970,071
Ordinary Shares of 1p each and Sky Television holds 1 Ordinary Share of
1p each
    
    
    100
    %Amstrad Satellite Products Limited
    
    England and Wales
    
    Amstrad Limited holds 7 Ordinary Shares of £1
each. Amstrad Limited is a wholly owned
subsidiary of Sky Digital Supplies Limited
and Sky Television Limited
    
    
    100
    %