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

Commodity Futures Trading Commission 

CEA CASES 

NAME: HENRY C. JONES 

DOCKET NUMBER: 138 

DOCUMENT TYPE: ISSUANCE OF COMPLAINT 

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Commodity Exchange Authority 

Washington, D. C. 20250 

ISSUANCE OF COMPLAINT -- CEA DOCKET NO. 138 

(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: 

Henry C. Jones 

(Eden, Idaho) 

The complaint charges that during the period February 17, 1966, through March 

4, 1966, the respondent failed and refused to submit reports to the Commodity 

Exchange Authority concerning trades and positions in potato futures owned or 

controlled by him. 

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, July 20, 1966, in Twin Falls, Idaho. 

LOAD-DATE: June 12, 2008 
Page 2
```

[Federal Register: August 26, 2003 (Volume 68, Number 165)]
[Notices]
[Page 51251]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr26au03-58]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION


Sunshine Act; Meetings

Time and Date: 10:30 a.m., Friday, September 19, 2003.

Place: 1155 21st St., NW., Washington, DC, Room 1012.

Status: Closed.

Matters to be Considered:
    Surveillance Matters.

Contact Person for More Information: Jean A. Webb, (202) 418-5100.

Jean A. Webb,
Secretary of the Commission.
[FR Doc. 03-21914 Filed 8-22-03; 1:07 pm]
BILLING CODE 6351-01-M
```
Exhibit 32.1




CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER


PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350


AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002




In connection with the accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q/A of iTrackr Systems, Inc. for the fiscal quarter ending March 31, 2011, I, John Rizzo, Chief Executive Officer of iTrackr Systems, Inc., hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of my knowledge and belief, that:




1.  Such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q/A for the fiscal quarter ending March 31, 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 such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q/A for the fiscal quarter ending March 31, 2011, fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of iTrackr Systems, Inc.




Date: July__, 2011.
By:
/s/ John RizzoJohn Rizzo,Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer


1
UNITED STATES

                SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

                         Washington, D.C. 20549

                                FORM 10-Q

[XXX ]  QUARTERLY REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE
SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

        For the quarterly period ended September 30, 1996

                                OR

[   ]  TRANSITION REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES
       EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

     For the transition period from _________ to ________.

                  Commission File Number 2-43162

                 URBAN IMPROVEMENT FUND LIMITED  1972      
      (Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)

          California                             95-6448384     
State or other jurisdiction of                (I.R.S. Employer   
incorporation or organization                 Identification No.)

1201 Third Avenue, Suite 5400, Seattle, Washington             98101
     (Address of principal executive offices)               (ZIP code)    

Registrant's telephone number, including area code:  (206) 622-9900  


     Indicate by check mark whether the registrant (1) has filed all reports
 required to be filed by Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act
 of 1934 during the preceding 12 months and (2) has been subject to such
 filing requirements for the past 90 days.

                             XXX Yes         No     



<PAGE>
                                          SIGNATURES


Pursuant to the requirements of Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange
 Act of 1934, the registrant has duly caused this report to be signed on its
 behalf by the undersigned, thereunto duly authorized.


                         URBAN IMPROVEMENT FUND LIMITED   1972   
                                   (Registrant)               
                   By:  Interfinancial Real Estate Management  
                          Company, General Partner               



Date 04/30/97                   Michael Fulbright                    
                                 (Signature)
                          By:  Michael Fulbright, Secretary         


Date 04/30/97                   John M. Orehek                       
                                (Signature)
                          By:  John M. Orehek, Senior Vice President
#### Alfredrick LOVE, Plaintiff — Appellant, v. K.R. HENSLEY; et al., Defendants— Appellees.

No. 06-56110.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Aug. 26, 2008.*

Filed Sept. 9, 2008.

Alfredrick Love, Imperial, CA, pro se.

Attorney General CAS, Office of the California Attorney General, San Diego, CA, for Defendants-Appellees.

Before: SCHROEDER, KLEINFELD, and IKUTA, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Alfredrick Love, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court’s order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action pursuant to the screening provisions of 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e) and 1915A. We dismiss.

We lack jurisdiction to consider this appeal because the district court’s order dismissing Love’s complaint and granting leave to amend did not constitute the final *629judgment in this case. *See WMX Technologies, Inc. v. Miller,*104 F.3d 1133, 1136 (9th Cir.1997) (en banc).

DISMISSED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                           1,145
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   47,555
<ALLOWANCES>                                       647
<INVENTORY>                                     32,095
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                80,825
<PP&E>                                          48,232
<DEPRECIATION>                                  12,688
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 116,437
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           30,961
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            71
<OTHER-SE>                                      56,418
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   116,437
<SALES>                                         66,889
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                           53,620
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    4,064
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   117
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 444
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  8,644
<INCOME-TAX>                                     3,385
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              5,259
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     5,259
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .71
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .71
        

</TABLE>
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Skyler James FOWLER, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 09-10457.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Sept. 13, 2010.*

Filed Oct. 13, 2010.

Elizabeth A. Olson, Esquire, Assistant U.S., U.S. Attorney, Reno, NV, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Michael K. Powell, Esquire, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Reno, NV, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before: SILVERMAN, CALLAHAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Skyler James Fowler appeals from the 46-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for possession of child pornography, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2252A(a)(5)(B). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we dismiss.

Fowler contends that the district court committed several procedural errors, in-*304eluding failing to adequately explain why his sentence was not greater than necessary, consider that he was a juvenile when some of his conduct occurred, take into account the differences in adult versus juvenile punishments, and consider that the child pornography Sentencing Guidelines are not entitled to deference. Fowler also appears to contend that his sentence is substantively unreasonable. The claimed errors are barred by Fowler’s appeal waiver set forth in his plea agreement. *See United States v. Baramdyka,*95 F.3d 840, 843 (9th Cir.1996). Contrary to Fowler’s contention, the district court’s comments explaining the appeals process did not invalidate his waiver. *See United States v. Watson,*582 F.3d 974, 987-88 (9th Cir.2009). We therefore enforce the waiver and dismiss the appeal.

DISMISSED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.
**1** IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA SUPREME COURT CAUSE NO. DA 21
- 0051 STATE OF MONTANA, ) ) Pl aint iff/Appellees, ) ) **ORDER FOR** vs. ) **ADDITIONAL TIME FOR** ) **FILING OPENING BRIEF** MICHAEL BONACORSI , ) ) Defendant/Appellant. ) Upon review of the Defendant /Appellant Unopposed Sixth Moti on f or Addi ti onal Time for Filing Opening Brief, and good cause therefro m;

It i s hereby

ORDERED that the Defendant /Appellant shall h ave an addi

ti onal thi rty (30) day s f

rom September 16, 2021, due date to file th eir Opening Brief. Defendant /Appellant Opening Brief will be due October 16, 2021

.

cc: Jami Rebso m Attorney General

Electronically signed by: Mike McGrath Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

September 17 2021

09/17/2021

Case Number: DA 21-0051
```
                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.1

                           SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATION

     In connection with the Quarterly Report of Palmdale  Executive Homes, Corp.
(the "Company") on Form 10-Q/A for the quarter ending March 31, 2009 as filed with
the Securities  and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the  "Report"),  I,
Suzette M.  Major,  President  of the  Company,  certify,  pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as adopted  pursuant to Section 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of
2002, that, to my knowledge:

     (1)  The Report fully  complies with the  requirements  of section 13(a) or
          15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

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

Date: March 23, 2010

                                        By: /s/ SUZETTE M. MAJOR
                                            ________________________________
                                                Suzette M. Major
                                                President
```
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jasmin JOHNSTON, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 11-10450.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Feb. 21, 2012.*

Filed March 5, 2012.

Camil Skipper, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Office of the U.S. Attorney, Sacramento, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

John Paul Balazs, Law Offices of John P. Balazs, Sacramento, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before: FERNANDEZ, McKEOWN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Jasmin Johnston appeals from the 24-month sentence imposed following the revocation of supervised release. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Johnston contends that the district court’s revocation sentence exceeded the term that she reasonably believed was permissible under the plea agreement. This contention lacks merit as the plea agreement accurately summarized the district court’s sentencing authority for violations of supervised release. *See*18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3); *United States v. Knight,*580 F.3d 933, 937-38 (9th Cir.2009); *see also United States v. Waknine,*543 F.3d 546, 551 (9th Cir.2008) (“To decide whether a plea agreement has been breached, this court considers what the defendant reasonably understood when he pled guilty.”)

AFFIRMED.

**

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

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________

No. 1D18-3038

_____________________________

CANTRELL L. DENKINS,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Duval County.

Angela M. Cox, Judge.

February 15, 2019

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

B.L. THOMAS, C.J., and BILBREY and JAY, JJ., concur.

_____________________________

Not final until disposition of any timely and 

authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 

9.331.

_____________________________
2

Cantrell L. Denkins, pro se, Appellant.

Ashley B. Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.
Exhibit 10.2


 


Amendment to Sigma Labs, Inc. 2013 Equity
Incentive Plan






 


The reference in Section 3 to the 2013
Equity Incentive Plan of Sigma Labs, Inc. (the “Plan”) to the total number of shares of Common Stock which may be offered,
or issued as restricted stock or unrestricted stock on the exercise of Options or SARs, under the Plan shall be 750,000 shares.
Monty E. WRIGHT, petitioner, v. Wendy K. BROWN.

No. 16-5676.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 31, 2016.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Virginia denied.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-1780

BRIGGETTE TAYLOR MCBRIDE, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus BAPTIST HEALTH CARE; WILLIS GREGORY; ALICE ROLLISON; CAROL ELAINE BROWN, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., District Judge. (CA-98-716-3-17BD) Submitted: October 21, 1999 Decided: October 26, 1999 Before WIDENER and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.Briggette Taylor McBride, Appellant Pro Se. Vance J. Bettis, GIGNILLIAT, SAVITZ & BETTIS, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).* Although the district court’s order is marked as “filed” on May 12, 1999, the district court’s records show that it was entered on the docket sheet on May 13, 1999. Pursuant to Rules 58 and 79(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, it is the date that the order was physically entered on the docket sheet that we take as the effective date of the district court’s decision. See Wilson v. Murray, 806 F.2d 1232, 1234-35 (4th Cir. 1986). 2 PER CURIAM: Briggette Taylor McBride appeals the district court’s orders dismissing this action alleging wrongful discharge and denying hermotion for reconsideration. We have reviewed the record, the district court’s opinion accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge, and the order denying the motion for reconsideration,and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See McBride v. Baptist Health Care , No. CA-98-716-3-17BD (D.S.C. May 13 and May 20, 1999). * 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.

AFFIRMED
secretary 

From: 

Sent: 

To: 

Subject: 

Mr Oavid"Stawick: 

hbormann@maxyieldcooperative.com 

Monday, January 21, 2008 4:49 PM 

secretary 

comments on revision of Federal Spec Position Limits ......... . 

COMMENT 

MaxYield Cooperative purchases, yearly, over 80 million bu of corn & 10 million bu 

of soybeans from clients in a 10 county area of north central Iowa and southern Minnesota. 

We are wholly owned by the 2,010 farmer/members we serve. We are responding to the CFTC 

question of doubling the speculative position limits for corn & soybeans. The CBOT and now 

the CME Group, have been on a 5 year mission to get more trading volume in their 

exchanges. Current world & US market conditions should have certainly satisfied their 

volume goals. It would appear that futures to cash convergence has suffered from the 

current volume increase, doubling these limits, could force the elevator system OUT of the 

CBOT. Please refer to the National Grain & Feed Association recent comments on the 

convergence subject. As a governmental agency, the CFTC is charged with protecting the 

public interest, not just the interests of the CME Group, the Speculative Trader, or the 

Fund Traders. We respectively ask the CFTC to NOT increase the proposed spec limits. 

Thank you for your consideration. 

Harry Bormann 

Grain Team Leader 

MaxYield Cooperative 

West Bend, Iowa 50597 

515-887-7211 

800-383-0083 

-.:: 

1 

:· ... i"'l 

CJ
<PAGE>   1

                                                                    EXHIBIT 10.2


                               FIRST AMENDMENT TO
                            THE CHIEF AUTO PARTS INC.
                            1997 EMPLOYEE OPTION PLAN


         THIS FIRST AMENDMENT is hereby made and entered into by Chief Auto
Parts Inc. (the "Company") in accordance with the terms and provisions of the
1997 Employee Option Plan. Capitalized terms used herein and not otherwise
defined shall have the same meaning as used in the Plan.

         1.    Section 2.12 of the Plan is hereby amended to read in its
entirety as follows:

         "Current Option Price" shall mean the Fair Market Value of a share of
         Common Stock on the date of grant, or such other value as reasonably
         determined by the Compensation Committee in good faith, as adjusted
         hereunder.

         2.    Section 4.1 of the Plan is hereby amended to increase the total
number of shares of Common Stock for which Options may be granted to 1,400.

         3.    Section 9.2 of the Plan is hereby amended to add the following
sentence:

         Notwithstanding the foregoing, in the event of a merger in which the
         Company is not the surviving corporation and the Outstanding shares of
         the Common Stock of the Company shall be exchanged for cash, the Holder
         shall be entitled to receive, in cash, the difference between the
         Current Option Price and the cash amount paid for the Outstanding
         Shares of the Common Stock of the Company.


         4.    All other provisions of the Plan shall remain in full force and
effect.

         IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Company has caused this First Amendment to be
duly executed by an authorized officer this _____ day of ____________, 1998.


                              CHIEF AUTO PARTS INC.




                              By:
                                  --------------------------------------------
                                  President and Chief Executive Officer
[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 115 (Thursday, June 14, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Page 32344]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-14954]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. EC01-70-000]


Wisvest-Connecticut, LLC and Bridgepower Harbor Power, LLC, New 
Haven Harbor Power, LLC, and NRG Connecticut Power Assets, LLC; Notice 
of Filing

June 8, 2001.
    Take notice that on June 4, 2001, Wisvest-Connecticut, LLC 
(Wisvest) and NRG Connecticut Power Assets LLC (NRG Connecticut) 
[together Applicants] filed with the Federal Energy Regulatory 
Commission a request for a protective order in the above-captioned 
proceeding.
    Any person desiring to be heard or to protest such filing should 
file a motion to intervene or protest with the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, in 
accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice 
and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). All such motions and 
protests should be filed on or before June 14, 2001. Protests will be 
considered by the Commission to determine the appropriate action to be 
taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the 
proceedings. Any person wishing to become a party must file a motion to 
intervene. Copies of this filing are on file with the Commission and 
are available for public inspection. This filing may also be viewed on 
the Internet at http://www.ferc.fed.us/online/rims.htm (call 202-208-
2222 for assistance). Comments, protests and interventions may be filed 
electronically via the internet in lieu of paper. See, 18 CFR 
385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's web site 
at http://www.ferc.fed.us/efi/doorbell.htm.

Linwood A. Watson, Jr.,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. 01-14954 Filed 6-13-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
```

[Federal Register: June 24, 1998 (Volume 63, Number 121)]
[Notices]
[Page 34368]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr24jn98-55]


[[Page 34368]]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION


Sunshine Act Meeting

TIME AND DATE: 11:00 a.m., Friday, July 17, 1998.

PLACE: 1155 21st St., N.W., Washington, D.C., 9th Floor Conference
Room.

STATUS: Closed.

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: Surveillance Matters.

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: Jean A. Webb, 202-418-5100.
Jean A. Webb,
Secretary of the Commission.
[FR Doc. 98-16856 Filed 6-19-98; 4:31 pm]
BILLING CODE 6351-01-M
```

----

**======== RETURN TO INDEX    ========**

----