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. 352 

DOCKET NUMBER: 96 

DATE: APRIL 2, 1963 

DOCUMENT TYPE: DECISION AND ORDER UPON RECONSIDERATION 

NOTE: SOMETIMES SPELLED AS LAMANTIA AND SOMETIMES AS LA MANTIA 

(No. 8296) 

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

96. Decided April 2, 1963. 

Reconsideration -- Order of Modification -- Full and Complete Records

Prior order amended upon reconsideration as requirement of full and complete 

records not breached by placing of incorrect name on trading card where floor 

broker need not make a record of name of opposite floor broker. 

Decision by Thomas J. Flavin, Judicial Officer

DECISION AND ORDER UPON RECONSIDERATION

In this proceeding under the Commodity Exchange Act (7 U.S.C. ch. 1), the 

complainant filed a petition for reconsideration of the final decision and order 

entered January 30, 1963 (22 Agric. Dec. 8 (22 A.D. 8)). Respondent Rowley also 

filed such a petition. Respondents Shelley and LaMantia did not petition for 

reconsideration or rehearing and the sanctions ordered against them went into 

effect as ordered. The order of January 30, 1963, was stayed as to respondent 

Rowley. 

Complainant's petition for reconsideration submits that the Judicial Officer 

misinterpreted the basis of the referee's (hearing examiner's) recommended 

dismissal of the complaint's charges against respondents of engaging in 

offsetting trades, of cheating or defrauding customers and of executing trades 

in a noncompetitive manner. 

On this part of the case the referee concluded: 

"The evidence is amply sufficient to support a suspicion that the trades were 

prearranged. If they were, they constituted noncompetitive trades, offsetting, 

accommodation trades, etc., as charged in the complaint. However, 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 here are not sufficient to 

warrant sanctions on respondents on this issue." 

The decision of the Judicial Officer stated that the outcome of this part of 

the case hinged largely if not entirely upon the evaluation of the testimony of 

the respondents and that the Judicial 

Officer was not in a position to disagree with the referee who saw and heard the 

respondents testify. Complainant's petition for reconsideration claims that the 

referee's recommended dismissal in this connection was simply because he 

believed that "prearrangement" had to occur among the respondents for violation 

of the act as charged, that such is not necessarily the case and that the 

Judicial Officer should find for the complainant or rule that "prearrangement" 
Page 2 

is not necessary and remand the case to the referee to reconsider his 

recommended decision in the light of such ruling. 

We do not read the referee's report as narrowly as does complainant. We 

think that all the referee meant was that upon the evidence he could not find 

that there was "arrangement" or an "understanding" among the respondents. We 

don't think he was saying that there had to be some measurable passage of time, 

such as a day or an hour, between the arrangement and the execution thereof, and 

certainly the final decision is not authority for any such proposition. It is 

apparently possible for such an arrangement to be agreed upon or understood at 

practically the same time the executions of the trades are taking place but even 

in such a case it seems to us that there would be a silent meeting of the minds 

of the traders prior to the completion of the execution although prior by only 

an instant. It may well be that this is all the referee had in mind when he 

used the prefix "pre" to the word "arrangement." At any rate, we do not believe 

any useful purpose would be served at this stage by sending the case back to the 

referee and we cannot, for the reasons given in the decision of January 30, 

1963, find that respondents violated the act on the charges involved. 

Rowley's petition for reconsideration involves section 1.35 of the 

regulations (17 CFR 1.35) under the act. The final decision found that by 

writing "Sam," meaning respondent LaMantia, on his trading card when the 

purchases were made from respondent Shelley, Rowley breached section 1.35 of the 

regulations under the act requiring each member of a contract market to ". . . 

keep full, complete and systematic records of commodity futures transactions . . 

. made by or through him . . . ." 

It is undisputed that the regulation in question has not been 

administratively construed or applied to require that a floor broker or floor 

trader make a record of the name of the floor broker or trader on the opposite 

side of a transaction. Rowley therefore asks the pertinent question as to 

whether Rowley can 

be found to have failed to keep "full, complete and systematic records" simply 

by making a record, even if false, of the name of the opposite floor broker when 

he was not required to record the name of such broker. 

Upon reconsideration, we conclude that Rowley did not breach section 1.35 of 

the regulations. The mandate therein is the keeping of full and complete

records rather than correctness of whatever records are kept even though not 

required. Since Rowley did not have to make a record of the name of the 

opposite floor broker under the regulations, the writing of "Sam" on the trading 

cards instead of Shelley's name did not add up to a failure to keep full and 

complete records. 

Accordingly, the order of January 30, 1963, is modified by deleting therefrom 

any mention of respondent Rowley. 

Copies hereof shall be served upon the parties and the contract markets. 

LOAD-DATE: June 8, 2008 
Page 3