Page 1 

Commodity Futures Trading Commission 

CEA CASES 

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

CITATION: 22 Agric. Dec. 8 

DOCKET NUMBER: 96 

DATE: JANUARY 30, 1963 

DOCUMENT TYPE: DECISION AND ORDER 

NOTE: SOMETIMES SPELLED AS LAMANTIA AND SOMETIMES AS LA MANTIA 

(No. 8117) 

In re DANIEL J. SHELLEY, JOHN M. ROWLEY, AND SAM H. LAMANTIA. CEA Docket No. 

96. Decided January 30, 1963. 

Noncompetitive Trades -- Accommodation Trades -- Offsets -- Superior Position 

of Hearing Examiner on Credibility of Witnesses

Where a floor broker bought from and sold to the same floor trader the same 

quantity of wheat futures "at the close" of trading in the future with the sales 

recorded in the name of another floor broker and both floor brokers and the 

floor trader testified at the hearing, the recommended conclusions of the 

hearing examiner to the effect that the evidence was inadequate to find 

violations of the Commodity Exchange Act in the way of noncompetitive trades, 

accommodation trades, etc., were followed because the outcome of the case rests 

largely if not entirely upon evaluation of the testimony of respondents and the 

hearing examiner, who saw and heard the respondents' testimony, was in the best 

position to evaluate the testimony. 

False Records -- False Reports -- Full and Complete Records

The recording of trades on a floor broker's trading card which trades the 

floor broker did not make but recorded at the request of another floor broker 

constitutes a false report and a false record in violation of section 4b(B) of 

the act and deceived in violation of section 4b(C) the future commission 

merchants who gave the trading orders. The false recording also constituted a 

violation of section 1.35 of the regulations requiring full and complete records 

on the part of the floor broker who executed the sales but did not record them 

and on the part of the floor trader who incorrectly recorded the name of the 

floor broker with whom he did not make the trades. 

Mr. Benj. M. Holstein, Mr. Donald A. Campbell and Mrs. Dona S. Kahn, for 

Commodity Exchange Authority. Mr. J. R. Blomquist, of Chicago, Illinois, for 

respondent Daniel J. Shelley. Mr. Robert P. Howington, Jr., of Chicago, 

Illinois, for respondent John M. Rowley. Mr. Neil McKay, of Chicago, Illinois, 

for respondent Sam H. LaMantia. Mr. Jack W. Bain, Hearing Examiner. 

Decision by Thomas J. Flavin, Judicial Officer

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

This is a disciplinary proceeding under the Commodity Exchange Act (7 U.S.C. 

ch. 1) instituted by a complaint filed by the Acting Secretary of Agriculture on 

December 16, 1960. 

Respondents Shelley and LaMantia are members of the Chicago 
Page 2 

Board of Trade and are floor brokers on the Board of Trade. Respondent Rowley 

is also a member of the Board of Trade, he is a floor trader and he is also 

registered under the act as a floor broker. The proceeding involves purchases 

of 140,000 bushels of May wheat futures from Rowley by Shelley on the floor of 

the Board of Trade at $ 1.94 a bushel and sales of the same quantity of futures 

by Shelley to Rowley at $ 1.93 a bushel. These transactions took place on May 

19, 1960, "at the close" of trading in the May 1960 future. 

The complaint charges that by reason of the trades, (1) Shelley filled orders 

of his customers for purchases by offset against orders of other customers for 

sales in violation of section 4b(D) of the act (7 U.S.C. § 6b(D)), cheated or 

defrauded his customers in violation of section 4b(A) of the act (7 U.S.C. § 

6b(A)) and (2) Rowley entered into accommodation trades in violation of section 

4c(A) of the act (7 U.S.C. § 6c(A)) and Rowley and Shelley executed purchases 

and sales of commodity futures in a manner which was not open and competitive as 

required by section 1.38 of the rules and regulations (17 CFR 1.38) issued under 

the act. 

The complaint also carries charges dealing with the recording of the trades 

involved. The complaint alleges that Shelley did not record on his trading card 

the sales to Rowley but that at Shelley's request LaMantia recorded the sales to 

Rowley on LaMantia's trading card and Rowley recorded on his trading card the 

sales by Shelley as having been made by LaMantia. The complaint charges that 

thereby Shelley and LaMantia deceived the persons from whom the orders had been 

received in violation of section 4b(C) of the act (7 U.S.C. § 6b(C)) and that 

all respondents caused false reports to be made and false records to be entered 

in connection with the execution of the orders in violation of section 4b(B) of 

the act (7 U.S.C. § 6b(B)) and failed to keep full and complete records of 

futures transactions as required by section 1.35 of the regulations (17 CFR 

1.35) and section 4g of the act (7 U.S.C. 6g). 

After a continuance and denials of motions for discovery and particulars, an 

oral hearing was held in Chicago, Illinois, March 8-10, 1961, before Hearing 

Examiner Jack W. Bain, Referee. Benj. M. Holstein, Office of the General 

Counsel, United States Department of Agriculture, appeared for the complainant, 

the Commodity Exchange Authority of the Department. J. R. Blomquist 

of Campbell, Miller, Carroll & Paxton, of Chicago, appeared as counsel for 

respondent Shelley. Robert P. Howington, Jr., of Pope, Ballard, Uriell, Kennedy, 

Shepard & Fowle, of Chicago, appeared for respondent Rowley, and Neil McKay, of 

Winston, Strawn, Smith & Patterson, of Chicago, appeared for respondent 

LaMantia. Motions by respondents Rowley and LaMantia for dismissal and 

severance were denied. Complainant called five witnesses and presented 19 

exhibits, and respondents called five witnesses, including each respondent, and 

presented seven exhibits. After the hearing, the parties filed suggested 

findings and briefs. On July 17, 1962, the referee filed a report. With 

respect to the charges of offsetting customers' trades in violation of section 

4b (D) of the act, cheating or defrauding customers in violation of section 4b 

(A) of the act, entering into accommodation trades in violation of section 4c(A) 

of the act, and entering into noncompetitive trades in violation of section 1.38 

of the regulations, the hearing examiner concluded that the evidence was 

sufficient to ". . . support a suspicion that the trades were prearranged . . ." 

and that ". . . while an overwhelming set of circumstances is a sound basis for 

a finding of guilt it is concluded that the circumstances shown by the record 

are not sufficient to warrant sanctions on respondents on this issue." The 

hearing examiner did not find or conclude that any of the respondents had 

violated the act on the charges of offsetting trades, accommodation trades and 

noncompetitive trades, etc. As to the charges involving the recording of 

trades, the hearing examiner concluded that Shelley and LaMantia had violated 

4b(B) and 4b(C) of the act, that Rowley had not violated 4b(B) of the act, and 

that all three respondents had violated section 1.35 of the regulations. 
Page 3 

All parties including the complainant filed exceptions to the hearing 

examiner's report and oral argument upon the exceptions was held before the 

Judicial Officer in Washington, D. C., December 4, 1962. 

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. Respondent Daniel J. Shelley, whose business address is Care of Trading 

Floor, Board of Trade of the City of Chicago, 141 West Jackson Boulevard, 

Chicago 4, Illinois, is now and was at all times material herein a registered 

floor broker under the Commodity Exchange Act and a member of the Board of Trade 

of the City of Chicago (hereinafter called the Chicago Board of Trade, the Board 

of Trade, or the exchange). 

2. Respondent John M. Rowley, whose business address is Room 1690, 141 West 

Jackson Boulevard, Chicago 4, Illinois, is now and was at all times material 

herein a registered floor broker under the act and a member of the Chicago Board 

of Trade. 

3. Respondent Sam H. LaMantia, whose business address is Room 1036, 141 West 

Jackson Boulevard, Chicago 4, Illinois, is now and was at all times material 

herein a registered floor broker under the act and a member of the Chicago Board 

of Trade. 

4. The Chicago Board of Trade is and was at all times material herein a duly 

designated contract market under the Commodity Exchange Act. 

5. Trading in wheat futures on the Chicago Board of Trade takes place in what 

is known as the wheat pit. Trading sessions open at 9:30 a.m. and close at 1:15 

p.m. The beginning and end of the trading session are announced by the ringing 

of a bell. As changes in prices occur in the course of trading, the prices are 

recorded on pit slips by employees of the Chicago Board of Trade and the time, 

in minimum intervals of ten seconds, is registered on each slip by placing it in 

a time stamp. Such pit slips are thereafter maintained by the exchange as 

permanent records. The prices shown on the pit slips are transcribed into a 

book in the proper sequence and this book is also maintained by the exchange as 

a permanent record. 

6. On May 19, 1960, successive price quotations of $ 2.02 1/2, $ 2.02 1/4, $ 

2.02, $ 2.01 3/4, $ 2.01 1/2, $ 2.01, $ 2.00 1/2, $ 2.00, $ 1.99, $ 1.98, $ 

1.97, $ 1.96, $ 1.95, $ 1.94, and $ 1.93 for the May 1960 wheat future were 

recorded between 1:14.10 and 1.15 p.m. On the final bell, the market closed with 

the future offered at $ 1.93. Under a rule of the Chicago Board of Trade, this 

was the lowest price at which the May 1960 wheat future could be purchased or 

sold on May 19, 1960, the last day for trading in the future. Despite the fact 

that the future was being offered at the lowest price at which trading was 

permitted, a number of orders to sell could not be executed because buyers could 

not be found who were willing to pay this price. The total of the orders to 

sell which remained unexecuted after the termination of trading was 

approximately 170,000 bushels. The volume of trading for the day was 14,554,000 

bushels. The volume traded at $ 1.94 was 335,000 bushels, and at $ 1.93 was 

525,000 bushels. The volume 

left open, that is, to be settled by delivery of cash wheat, was 1,195,000 

bushels. 

7. A transaction in futures is initially recorded on the respective trading 

cards of the floor brokers or traders who actually make the trade with each 

other. Each trading card bears the name of the executing floor broker or 

trader, or some indication thereof. Purchases are entered on one side of the 

card and sales on the reverse side. These entries show the date, the quantity 

bought or sold, the future, the price, and the name of the opposite clearing 

member. The trading card may or may not show the name of the opposite floor 

broker or trader. Trading cards are turned in to the clearing member by whom 

the purchase or sale is to be cleared and are kept as a part of the clearing 
Page 4 

member's records. The information on the trading cards (except the name of the 

opposite broker, where shown) is transcribed into the street book or journal, 

which is a permanent record of the clearing member. 

8. Pursuant to arrangements previously made between respondents Shelley and 

LaMantia, it was understood that on May 19, 1960, Shelley would handle the 

purchase orders and LaMantia would handle the sell orders for May 1960 wheat 

futures received from Sincere & Company, Thomson & McKinnon, and Bache & 

Company, registered futures commission merchants and clearing members of the 

Chicago Board of Trade. Pursuant to such arrangement, orders to buy on the 

close for such firms were delivered to Shelley from time to time on that day, 

and were being held by him for execution on the close. Shortly before 1:15 

p.m., Shelley held such orders in the total amount of 140,000 bushels, as 

follows: 10,000 bushels for Sincere & Company; 30,000 bushels for Thomson & 

McKinnon; and 100,000 bushels for Bache & Company. Orders to sell on the dose 

for those firms were delivered to LaMantia from time to time and were being held 

by him for execution on the close. 

9. An order to buy or sell on the close requires the purchase or sale to be 

made during a specified period of time just prior to the end of the trading 

session. On the last day of trading in a future, this period is determined by 

the Chicago Board of Trade and announced to all traders in advance. On May 19, 

1960, the close was the two-minute period from 1:13 to 1:15 p.m. 

10. While holding the 140,000 bushels of purchase orders described in Finding 

8, Shelley requested and received directly from 

LaMantia, or from the messengers who were delivering selling orders to LaMantia, 

or from both, a number of orders to sell May 1960 wheat futures on the close for 

the accounts of Thomson & McKinnon and Bache & Company, in the total amount of 

140,000 bushels. Shelley then executed such orders by buying 140,000 bushels of 

May 1960 wheat futures from Rowley at $ 1.94 per bushel, and then selling the 

same quantity of the same future to Rowley at $ 1.93 per bushel, and Rowley made 

the corresponding sale and purchase for his own account carried with John S. 

Morris & Company, a clearing member of the Chicago Board of Trade. 

11. The contracts resulting from the purchases and sales described in Finding 

10 were capable of being used for hedging a transaction in interstate commerce 

in wheat or the products or by-products thereof, or for determining the price 

basis of a transaction in interstate commerce in wheat, or for delivering wheat 

sold, shipped, or received in interstate commerce. 

12. Respondent Shelley recorded the above-described purchase by entering on 

his trading cards 10,000 bushels bought from Rowley for Sincere & Company, 

30,000 bushels bought from Rowley for Thomson & McKinnon, and 100,000 bushels 

bought from Rowley for Bache & Company, all at $ 1.94 per bushel, and respondent 

Rowley entered the corresponding sales on his trading card. However, Shelley 

did not make any entry on his trading cards to show the sale which he made to 

Rowley at $ 1.93 per bushel. Instead, Shelley requested La Mantia and Rowley to 

record such sale on their respective trading cards as a sale by LaMantia to 

Rowley, and in compliance with such request LaMantia entered on his trading 

cards a sale of 20,000 bushels to Rowley for the account of Thomson & McKinnon 

and a sale of 120,000 bushels to Rowley for the account of Bache & Company, all 

at $ 1.93 per bushel, and Rowley showed the corresponding purchases on his 

trading card as having been made from LaMantia. Respondents Shelley, Rowley, 

and LaMantia then delivered these trading cards to the respective clearing 

members who were to clear the transactions shown thereon, and such transactions 

were subsequently entered by such clearing members into their permanent records. 

13. The above-described purchase by respondent Shelley from respondent Rowley 

at $ 1.94 filled all the purchase orders which Shelley was holding for execution 

on the close. Shelley made no trades in the May 1960 wheat future on May 19, 

1960, at prices of $ 1.94 or $ 1.93 with any broker other than Rowley, and 

Rowley 
Page 5 

made no trades in such future at such prices with any broker other than Shelley. 

14. On March 26, 1956, the Business Conduct Committee of the Chicago Board of 

Trade transmitted a letter to all members of the Chicago Board of Trade calling 

attention to the fact that the carding or recording of a trade by a member who 

did not execute the trade was a violation of a rule of the Board of Trade, and 

that such practice also constituted the making of a false record in violation of 

the Commodity Exchange Act and caused the clearing firm through which the trade 

was cleared to maintain false records. The letter requested all members to 

cease and desist from such conduct. Respondents Shelley, Rowley, and LaMantia 

were members of the Chicago Board of Trade at the time of the transmission of 

such letter. 

CONCLUSIONS

The respondents testified at the hearing that the trades involved were 

executed in the wheat pit of the Chicago Board of Trade in a competitive manner 

by open outcry. The hearing examiner did not regard the evidence of record as 

adequate to find and conclude that the trades involved were made by 

prearrangement and he did not find or conclude that respondent's breached the 

act on the charges of offsetting trades, cheating or defrauding customers, and 

executing trades in a noncompetitive manner. 

The outcome of the case on these charges hinges largely if not entirely upon 

the evaluation of the testimony of the respondents. We do not believe we are in 

a position to disagree with the hearing examiner who saw and heard the 

respondents testify. See e.g., Universal Camera Corporation v. National Labor 

Relations Board, 340 U.S. 474, 496, 497 (1951); National Labor Relations Board

v. Local 160, 268 F. 2d 185 (7th Cir. 1959); National Labor Relations Board v. 

Thompson & Co., 208 F. 2d 743, 745 (2d Cir. 1953); U. S. Steel Co. v. National 

Labor Relations Board, 196 F. 2d 459, 463 (7th Cir. 1952); Heikes v. Fleming,

168 F. Supp. 675 (S.D. Ill. 1958). 

The remaining charges of the complaint deal with the recording and reporting 

of the trades involved. It is undisputed that Shelley did not record the sales 

of 140,000 bushels by him to Rowley and that LaMantia, at Shelley's request, 

recorded on his trading card the sales as having been made by him. It is 

undisputed, too, that Rowley wrote "Sam" on his trading card in connection 

with his purchase of the 140,000 bushels from Shelley. In his answer (par. VII) 

to the complaint Rowley admits that he recorded LaMantia as the floor broker 

through whom he made the 140,000 bushel purchases. During the course of the 

proceeding Rowley contended that "Sam" merely meant the floor broker who was to 

get the brokerage commission but this contention is obviously an afterthought. 

Section 4b of the act (7 U.S.C. § 6b) is as follows: 

It shall be unlawful for any member of a contract market, or for any 

correspondent, agent, or employee of any member, in or in connection with any 

order to make, or the making of (1) any contract of sale of any commodity in 

interstate commerce, or (2) any contract of sale of any commodity for future 

delivery made, or to be made, on or subject to the rules of any contract market 

for or on behalf of any person * * * -- 

(A) to cheat or defraud or attempt to cheat or defraud such person; 

(B) willfully to make or cause to be made to such person any false report or 

statement thereof, or willfully to enter or cause to be entered for such person 

any false record thereof; 

(C) willfully to deceive or attempt to deceive such person by any means 

whatsoever in regard to any such order or contract or the disposition or 
Page 6 

execution of any such order or contract, or in regard to any act of agency 

performed with respect to such order or contract for such person; or 

(D) to bucket such order, or to fill such order by offset against the order 

or orders of any other person, or willfully and knowingly and without the prior 

consent of such person to become the buyer in respect to any selling order of 

such person, or become the seller in respect to any buying order of such person. 

* * * [Emphasis supplied.] 

As is seen from decisions in administrative proceedings under the act it has 

been the administrative interpretation of section 4b over a period of years that 

a futures commission merchant comes within the meaning of the words, "for or on 

behalf of any person" 

in the part of section 4b preceding (A) (B) (C) and (D) in the case of the 

execution of trades by floor brokers for the futures commission merchant. See 

e.g., Secretary of Agriculture v. Nelson, 1 Agric. Dec. 362 (1 A.D. 362) (1942), 

aff'd, Nelson v. Secretary of Agriculture, 133 F. 2d 453 (7th Cir. 1943); 

Secretary of Agriculture v. Gatlin, 1 Agric. Dec. 423 (1 A.D. 423) (1942); In re 

Maurice J. LeGardeur, 3 Agric. Dec. 467 (3 A.D. 467) (1944). 

Since LaMantia recorded on his trading card which went to his principals, the 

futures commission merchants, the sales of 140,000 bushels to Rowley when 

Shelley made the sales, LaMantia made a false report and a false record in 

violation of section 4b(B) and deceived the futures commission merchants in 

violation of section 4b(C). Shelley also caused the false report to be made and 

the false record to be entered in violation of 4b(B) and by failing to record 

the sales made by him and by having LaMantia record the sales as executed by 

LaMantia, Shelley also breached 4b(C). These subparagraphs require that the 

prohibited acts be "willfully" done. Certainly, the untrue records and reports 

were intentionally made and whether or not these respondents knew that false 

carding of trades is unlawful, their activities were nevertheless willful. See 

Goodman v. Benson, 286 F. 2d 896 (7th Cir. 1961). 

Complainant dropped the charge in the complaint to the effect that Rowley 

violated section 4b(B) of the act by indicating on his trading card that he 

bought the 140,000 bushels from LaMantia because Rowley was trading for himself 

and not for others. The complaint, however, charges all three respondents with 

violating section 1.35 of the regulations under the act (17 CFR 1.35) and 

section 4g of the act (7 U.S.C. § 6g). 

Section 1.35 of the regulations provides: 

Records of cash commodity and futures transactions.

(a) Futures commission merchants and members of contract markets. Each 

futures commission merchant and each member of a contract market shall keep 

full, complete, and systematic records of all commodity futures transactions and 

cash commodity transactions, made by or through him, on or subject to the rules 

of a board of trade. He shall keep such records, including all orders, trading 

cards, signature cards, street books, journals, ledgers, cancelled checks, 

copies of confirmations 

and copies of statements of purchase and sale, together with all other data and 

memoranda, and records of every sort pertaining to transactions in cash 

commodities and in commodities for future delivery, for the period of time and 

in the manner prescribed in section 1.31. He shall produce the same for 

inspection and shall furnish true and correct information and reports as to the 

contents or the meaning thereof, when and as requested by any authorized 

representative of the Commodity Exchange Authority. [Emphasis supplied.] 

(b) Futures commission merchants and clearing members of contract markets.

Each futures commission merchant and each clearing member of a contract market 
Page 7 

shall, as a minimum requirement, prepare regularly and promptly, and keep 

systematically and in permanent form, the following: 

(1) A financial ledger record which will show separately for each customer 

all charges against and credits to such customer's account, including but not 

limited to funds or securities deposited, withdrawn, or transferred, and charges 

or credits resulting from losses or gains on closed transactions; 

(2) A record of transactions which will show separately for each account 

(including house accounts) all commodity futures transactions executed for such 

account, including the date, price, quantity, market, commodity, and future; and 

(3) A record or journal which will show separately for each business day 

complete details of all commodity futures transactions executed on that day, 

including the date, price, quantity, market, commodity, future, and the person 

for whom such transaction was made. 

(c) Clearing members of contract markets. In the daily record or journal 

required to be kept under paragraph (b) (3) of this section, each clearing 

member of a contract market shall also show the floor broker or other person 

executing each transaction and the opposite clearing member with whom it was 

made. 

Section 4g of the act is as follows: 

If any person registered hereunder as futures commission merchant or floor 

broker shall violate any of the provisions of this Act, or any of the rules or 

regulations of the Secretary of Agriculture thereunder, or shall fail or refuse 

to make any report required by the Secretary of Agriculture regarding the 

transactions of such person, or the transactions of the customers thereof, in 

commodities for future delivery on any board of trade, in the United States or 

elsewhere, or shall fail or refuse to keep the books and records pertaining to 

such transactions in the form and manner required by the Secretary of 

Agriculture, or shall fail or refuse to keep such books and records open to 

inspection by any representative of the United States Department of Agriculture 

or the United States Department of Justice, the registration of such person may 

be suspended or revoked after notice and hearing in accordance with the 

procedure and subject to the judicial review provided in paragraph (b) of 

section 6 of this Act. [Emphasis supplied.] 

In his report the hearing examiner concluded, without mentioning section 4g 

of the act, that all respondents had failed to comply with section 1.35 of the 

regulations and he referred to section 1.35 as promulgated by the Secretary of 

Agriculture pursuant to section 8a(5) of the act (7 U.S.C. § 12a(5)) authorizing 

the Secretary to issue rules and regulations to effectuate the purposes of the 

act. 

We see no fatal variance between the complaint's charges and the hearing 

examiner's conclusions as to section 1.35 of the regulations. If respondents 

did not make and keep full and complete records of their transactions as 

required by section 1.35 of the regulations, we do not believe it makes any 

material difference as to whether section 1.35 of the regulations implements 4g 

of the act or is a legislative regulation issued pursuant to 8a(5) of the act. 

Like the hearing examiner we prefer the latter view since the language of 4g in 

this connection seems to refer to specific methods of record keeping rather than 

the failure to keep records. 

When Shelley failed to record the sales he made to Rowley he of course failed 

to keep full and complete rcords of his transactions in violations of section 

1.35 of the regulations. Concerning LaMantia and section 1.35, however, La 

Mantia did not execute 

 
Page 8 

the transactions he recorded. A person who fails to record correctly a 

transaction he made fails to keep full and complete records as well as making a 

false record because he fails to keep a true record of a transaction he 

executed. But, we hesitate to hold that LaMantia, who did not execute the 

trades involved, failed to keep full and complete records solely because he made 

a false record of a transaction which he did not execute and was not required to 

record. This may be hairsplitting but we think that it is legal hairsplitting 

which respondent LaMantia is entitled to as a matter of law. Of course, he 

entered or caused to be entered a false record, as we have concluded above, in 

willful violation of section 4b(B) of the act. 

As to Rowley's recording of the purchases as from LaMantia instead of 

Shelley, Rowley of course made the purchases and was required by section 1.35 of 

the regulations to make and keep a record of them. Although section 1.35 seems 

to say that all members of contract markets shall keep full and complete records 

of their transactions, it has not been the administrative practice in the 

enforcement of the act and regulations to require that floor brokers, including 

floor traders, make and keep a record of the opposite floor broker with whom 

they have executed a transaction. Rowley, however, did record LaMantia as the 

opposite floor broker for the 140,000 bushel purchases instead of Shelley. He, 

therefore, failed to keep full and complete records in violation of section 1.35 

of the regulations. Cf. Irving Weis and Company V. Brannan, 171 F. 2d 232 (2d 

Cir. 1948). 

Respondents argue that in any event no sanctions should be ordered for any 

violations found in connection with the recording and reporting of the trade in 

issue. Complete and correct records on the part of persons subject to the act 

are a vital necessity to effective administration of the act. We do not agree 

that sanctions should not be ordered and we adopt the hearing examiner's 

recommended order as proposing reasonable sanctions in the light of the 

violations found. 

ORDER

Effective on the 30th day after the date of this order, the registrations of 

Daniel J. Shelley and Sam H. LaMantia as floor brokers under the Commodity 

Exchange Act are suspended for 10 days. 

Effective on the 30th day after the date of this order, the registration 

 

of John M. Rowley as a floor broker under the Commodity Exchange Act is 

suspended for 5 days. 

Effective on the 30th day after the date of this order, all contract markets 

shall deny all trading privileges to Daniel J. Shelley and Sam H. LaMantia for a 

period of 10 days and to John M. Rowley for a period of 5 days, such refusal to 

apply to all trading done and positions held by such individuals, directly or 

indirectly. 

A copy of this decision and order shall be served upon each of the 

respondents and upon each contract market. 

LOAD-DATE: June 8, 2008 
Page 9