alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS
We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference, into the
Prospectuses and Statements of Additional Information constituting
part of Post-Effective Amendment No. 74 to the Registration Statement
on Form N-1A of Fidelity Investment Trust: Fidelity Canada Fund,
Fidelity Diversified International Fund, Fidelity Emerging Markets
Funds, Fidelity Europe Fund, Fidelity International Growth & Income
Fund, Fidelity International Value Fund, Fidelity Japan Fund, Fidelity
Overseas Fund, Fidelity Pacific Basin Fund, and Fidelity Worldwide
Fund, of our reports dated December 16, 1997 on the financial
statements and financial highlights included in the October 31, 1997
Annual Reports to Shareholders of the aforementioned funds.
We further consent to the references to our Firm under the headings
"Financial Highlights" in the Prospectuses and "Auditor" in the
Statements of Additional Information.  
/s/COOPERS & LYBRAND L.L.P.
COOPERS & LYBRAND L.L.P.
Boston, Massachusetts
December 24, 1997
4257274784 

Microsoft Corpor~lio;; Tel ~25 882 8080 

Fa~ 425 936 7329 

MICROSOFT LCA 

One MicrosoH W~y 

lledmon(i. W.A. 9805 2-6399 ilttp:/ jwww.microsoft.corn/ 

April 9, 2009 

DHvid A. Stawick 

Secretary 

Commodity Futures Trading Commission 

I I 55 21 st Street N. W. 

\Vashington, D.C. 20581 

COMMENT 

Re: Concept Release on the Appropriate Regulatory Treatment of Event Contracts, 

73 Fed Reg. 25669 (May 7, 2008) 

Dear Mr. Stawick: 

PAGE 02 

The Commodity Futures Trading Commission ("Commission") has solicited comments on '"on the 

appropriate r·egulatory treatment of financial agreements offered by markets commonly referred to as 

cvenL prediction, or information markets." ,.)ee Concept Release on the Appropriate Regulatory 

Treatment of Event Contracts, 73 Fed. Reg. 25669 (May 7, 2008). Microsoft Corporation ("Microsoft"} 

would like to submit the following comments with respect to the September 7, 2008 letter submitted by 

the Coalition for Internal Markets ("CTM") in response to the Commission's request for comments (the 

"CIM Letter''}. 

Like CIM members Googlc, Inc. and Yahoollnc., Mia·osotl has investigated use of internal event 

markets as a way to aggregate information. Microsoft. therefore, would like to join C:IM members in 

urging the Commission to exercise its exemptive authority under Section 4(c) of the Commodity 

Exchange Act to propose a framnvork to sanction the operation of non-intermediated, small stakes event 

markets, both internal and public.' The CIM Letter sets forih solid and reasonable principles that we 

believe would be helpful to the Commission as it considers developing a regulatOJy framevv·ork for this 

category of event markets. Microsoft strongly believes that appropriate rules will provide the certainty 

needed to foster innovation and to provide public benefit in exploring the potential use of event markets 

8S a predictive tooL for businesses and for the public at large. 

We look Con~.:ard to supporting the Commission in its consideration of an appropriate regulatory 

framew-ork for this category of event markets, and to providing additional comments lo any proposed 

rules during this process. 

Respectfully suhm ittcd, 

~ p 't, t v-~cP, 

Alex Ooun<~res 

Corporate Vice President 

Ads R&D Group 

Microsoft Corporation 

cc: Paul Architzcl. Esq. for CTM 

:·~, 

:-~. 

..... 

."'"tJ 

-

::::3 

ro 

·= 

1 For the purposes of J·his l.ettcr, Microsoft uses the same definitions of cvenl market descriptors as in the CTM 

Letter. 

0 

..., 

..., 

p 

rrl 

0 

..., 

-{0 

:::z:. 

m.:'l 

.(J)· ;-1 

fTIO 

o· 

::0 

·.~ 

l> 

::0 

~
Stephen Scott SMILLIE, petitioner, v. MARICOPA COUNTY, ARIZONA, et al.

No. 16-5771.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 31, 2016.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.
#### In the Matter of Kendall Danner-Nepage, Appellant, v Chad Nepage, Respondent.

[875 NYS2d 853] —

Appeal from an order of the Family Court, Oswego County (David J. Roman, J.), entered January 31, 2008 in a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6. The order denied petitioner’s motion to vacate the default order entered September 24, 2007.

It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from is unanimously reversed on the law without costs, the motion is granted, the order entered September 24, 2007 is vacated, and the matter is remitted to Family Court, Oswego County, for a hearing on the petitions.

Memorandum: “In view of the unintentional nature of the default, the reasonable nature of the excuse, . . . and the judicial preference for resolving cases on their merits,” we conclude that Family Court abused its discretion in denying petitioner’s motion to vacate the September 2007 default order *(Cavagnaro v Frontier Cent. School Dist.,*17 AD3d 1099 [2005]; *see Petrosino v Petrosino,*24 AD3d 1210, 1212 [2005]). Petitioner established a reasonable excuse for her failure to appear as well as a meritorious defense to respondent’s petition for custody of the parties’ minor daughter *(see Matter of Bey v Perez,*39 AD3d *1496631 [2007]; *see generally*CPLR 5015 [a] [1]). Present — Hurlbutt, J.P., Martoche, Garni, Green and Pine, JJ.
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.                  

###### Office of the United States Trade Representative

# AGENCY:

Office of the United States Trade Representative.

# ACTION:

Notice of meeting 

# SUMMARY:

The Industry Sector Advisory Committee on Services will hold a meeting on January 23, 2001, from 9 a.m. to 12 noon. The meeting will be opened to the public from 9 a.m. to 9:45 a.m., and closed to the public from 9:45 a.m. to 12 noon.

# DATES:

The meeting is scheduled for January 23, 2001, unless otherwise notified.

# ADDRESSES:

The meeting will be held at the Department of Commerce, Conference Room 6057, located at 14th Street between Pennsylvania and Constitution Avenues, NW., Washington, DC.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

                        Karen Holderman, (202) 482-0345, Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230 (principal contact), or Dominic Bianchi, Office of the United States Trade Representative, 1724 F Street, NW., Washington, DC 20508, (202) 395-6120.                              ( print page 4887)    

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

During the opened portion of the meeting the Work Program of the General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS), and the Proposed Free Trade Agreements between the united States and Singapore and the United States and Chile, will be discussed.

Dominic Bianchi,

Acting Assistant United States Trade Representative for Intergovernmental Affairs and Public Liaison.

[FR Doc. 01-1533  Filed 1-17-01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3190-01-M
Glen RUIZ, petitioner, v. ILLINOIS.

No. 16-5812.

Supreme Court of the United States

Nov. 7, 2016.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Appellate Court of Illinois, First District denied.
Exhibit 31.1

**Rule 13a-14(a) CERTIFICATIONS**

I, P. Douglas Richard, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Community Financial Corporation (the "Registrant");

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of
the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the consolidated financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the consolidated
financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the Registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4. The Registrant's other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e)
and 15d-15(e)) for the Registrant and have:

a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information
relating to the Registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being
prepared;

b) evaluated the effectiveness of the Registrant's disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure
controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report; and

c) disclosed in this report any changes in the Registrant's internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the Registrant's most recent fiscal quarter that has
materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the Registrant's internal control over financial reporting; and

5. The Registrant's other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent of evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the Registrant's auditors
and the audit committee of Registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the
Registrant's ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and

b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the Registrant's internal control over financial
reporting.

Date: August 13, 2007

/s/ P. Douglas Richard
P. Douglas Richard
President and Chief Executive Officer
secretary 

Received CFTC 

Records Section 

s/;7/6<6 

From: Thomas Powers [tpowers1 @gmail.com] 

Sent: Saturday, May 17, 2008 4:34AM 

To: secretary 

Subject: Public Input: "Event Contracts" COMMENT 

To Whom It May Concern: 

Page 1 of 1 

_,,. :::a 

~< CJ lr-'1 

c 

"" . ;::"') 

I write expressing support for limited regulation of "Event Contracts" and against an .outright ba;.:;;1I ~-~1 9 

believe that such contracts should be regulated with similar scrutiny to current oversight ofabriv'!tives ~-) ~ ; :;;:;-: -"" ~-.:J markets. r1 .- -·1 - )::·· .. ::0 What public purpose is served in the oversight of these markets? \ .,,., ...o 

Oversight of "Events Contracts" markets combines two things: oversight of any derivhtives market and 

oversight of a gambling institution. The question is whether oversight of a gambling institution forces 

·us to have additional regulations beyond the usual (maybe up to and including a ban). 

But online gambling is no different in spirit from (non-banned) physical casino gambling, and is 

literally no different from non-banned online horse race gambling, which has an exception under the 

Safe Ports Act. Some have said that online gambling makes gambling easier, and therefore more 

addictive. But this is like saying that we should ban McDonalds, since it makes it easier for some 

people to gain weight. The mere existence of a downside doesn't prove that the downside of a policy is 

greater than the upside. Moreover, with online gambling, we'll never know whether the benefit of 

allowing people to do what they want outweighs the cost, unless the current ban is 

repealed. Remember, the ban can always be re-instated if things go wrong. 

What differentiates these markets from pure gambling outside the CFTC's jurisdiction? 

What differentiates pure gambling from "legitimate" trading is not necessarily clear. The argument for 

having different jurisdictions is pragmatic, not logical, in that dividing the regulatory burden among 

various organizations allows each organization to specialize. The CTFC knows better than other 

regulatory organizations how to regulate contingent claims markets, though it will have to work with 

other agencies to understand the risks of gambling. Since the CTFC has the specialized knowledge, 

Event Contracts fall under its jurisdiction. 

In conclusion, I don't feel that online gambling is significantly worse than land-based gambling, which 

is legal but regulated. There is certainly no empirical evidence to prove as much, just 

speculation. Given that, it sounds very un-American to me to reduce the people's freedom simply 

because of the government's speculative fear of what "might happen." Finally, the CTFC should 

regulate online gambling when "Events Contracts" are involved (not online poker games, etc.) since 

CTFC has specialized knowledge about derivative contracts. 

Best, 

Thomas Powers 

Yale University 

5/19/2008
Page 1 

Commodity Futures Trading Commission 

CEA CASES 

NAME: GARNAC GRAIN COMPANY, INC. 

CITATION: 8 Agric. Dec. 362 

DOCKET NUMBER: 45 

DATE: APRIL 14, 1949 

DOCUMENT TYPE: STAY ORDER 

(A. D. 2057) 

 

In re GARNAC GRAIN COMPANY, INC., et al. CEA Doc. No. 45. Decided April 14, 

1949. 

Stay Order -- Suspension of Effective Date of Prior Order -- Petition for 

Reconsideration

Effective date of the order of March 24, 1949, is suspended pending action on 

respondents' petition for reconsideration. 

 

Mr. Robert Perret, of New York City, for respondents. 

Decision by Thomas J. Flavin, Judicial Officer

STAY ORDER

In this disciplinary proceeding under the Commodity Exchange Act (7 U. S. C., 

Chapter 1), an order was entered on March 24, 1949, 8 Agric. Dec. 244 (8 A. D. 

244), suspending for five days the registration of respondent Garnac Grain 

Company, Inc., as a futures commission merchant and ordering all contract 

markets to refuse trading privileges thereon for a period of five days to Garnac 

Grain Company, Inc., Fred Hediger, H. R. Schmid, and George Lulie. The 

suspension and the refusal of trading privileges were to become effective on the 

30th day after March 24, 1949. On April 7, 1949, respondents filed a petition 

for reconsideration. Accordingly, the effectiveness of the order of March 24, 

1949, is suspended pending action on the petition for reconsideration. 

 

LOAD-DATE: March 12, 2008 
Page 2
Exhibit
32.2
 
 Certification
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 Quarterly Report of Mantra Venture Group Ltd. (the
“Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended February 28, 2009, as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I,
Dennis Petke, Chief Financial Officer 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:
 
 1
              The Report
      fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
      Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and2
              The
      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
      respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
      Company.
 
 By: /s/
Dennis Petke
 Dennis
Petke
 Chief
Financial Officer, Principal Accounting Officer
 April
14, 2009
No. 665, Misc.

#### Whalen et al. *v.*Michigan.

Supreme Court of Michigan.

Certiorari denied.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>6
<LEGEND>THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM 
THE FORM 10-Q AS OF SEPTEMBER 30, 1998 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY 
REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
<MULTIPLIER>1
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>              DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                 JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                   SEP-30-1998
<PERIOD-TYPE>                        9-MOS
<INVESTMENTS-AT-COST>           23,978,288
<INVESTMENTS-AT-VALUE>          34,881,128
<RECEIVABLES>                            0
<ASSETS-OTHER>                       9,643
<OTHER-ITEMS-ASSETS>               472,917
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                  35,363,688
<PAYABLE-FOR-SECURITIES>                 0
<SENIOR-LONG-TERM-DEBT>                  0
<OTHER-ITEMS-LIABILITIES>          476,813
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES>                476,813
<SENIOR-EQUITY>                          0
<PAID-IN-CAPITAL-COMMON>        23,984,035
<SHARES-COMMON-STOCK>              400,000
<SHARES-COMMON-PRIOR>              400,000
<ACCUMULATED-NII-CURRENT>                0
<OVERDISTRIBUTION-NII>                   0
<ACCUMULATED-NET-GAINS>                  0
<OVERDISTRIBUTION-GAINS>                 0
<ACCUM-APPREC-OR-DEPREC>        10,902,840
<NET-ASSETS>                    34,886,875
<DIVIDEND-INCOME>                        0
<INTEREST-INCOME>                   15,526
<OTHER-INCOME>                           0
<EXPENSES-NET>                     971,184
<NET-INVESTMENT-INCOME>           (955,658)
<REALIZED-GAINS-CURRENT>          (421,640)
<APPREC-INCREASE-CURRENT>       (3,105,804)
<NET-CHANGE-FROM-OPS>           (4,483,102)
<EQUALIZATION>                           0
<DISTRIBUTIONS-OF-INCOME>                0
<DISTRIBUTIONS-OF-GAINS>                 0
<DISTRIBUTIONS-OTHER>                    0
<NUMBER-OF-SHARES-SOLD>                  0
<NUMBER-OF-SHARES-REDEEMED>              0
<SHARES-REINVESTED>                      0
<NET-CHANGE-IN-ASSETS>          (4,483,102)
<ACCUMULATED-NII-PRIOR>                  0
<ACCUMULATED-GAINS-PRIOR>                0
<OVERDISTRIB-NII-PRIOR>                  0
<OVERDIST-NET-GAINS-PRIOR>               0
<GROSS-ADVISORY-FEES>              292,496
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                       0
<GROSS-EXPENSE>                    973,484
<AVERAGE-NET-ASSETS>            37,128,426
<PER-SHARE-NAV-BEGIN>                   63
<PER-SHARE-NII>                         (3)
<PER-SHARE-GAIN-APPREC>                  0 <F1>
<PER-SHARE-DIVIDEND>                     0
<PER-SHARE-DISTRIBUTIONS>                0
<RETURNS-OF-CAPITAL>                     0
<PER-SHARE-NAV-END>                     60
<EXPENSE-RATIO>                        2.6
<AVG-DEBT-OUTSTANDING>                   0
<AVG-DEBT-PER-SHARE>                     0
<FN>
A zero value is used since the change in net unrealized fair value is not 
allocated to General Partners and Limited Partners as it is not taxable.  
Only taxable gains or losses are allocated in accordance with the 
Partnership Agreement.
</FN>

</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                         340,689
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   36,626
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,216,345
<PP&E>                                       2,505,919
<DEPRECIATION>                                 232,432
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               6,820,244
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        2,061,413
<BONDS>                                      3,151,975
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         6,883
<OTHER-SE>                                   8,900,515
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 6,820,244
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             2,612,876
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             4,628,838
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             377,248
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             (2,227,234)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                         (2,227,234)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                (2,227,234)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     (.36)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     (.35)
        

</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED
FROM SMITH CORONA CORPORATION CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
AND NOTES THERETO OF THIS FORM 10-Q AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY
BY REFERENCE TO SUCH CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                            3195
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                     5460
<ALLOWANCES>                                       201
<INVENTORY>                                       8091
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 17017
<PP&E>                                           31917
<DEPRECIATION>                                   29846
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   19248
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                             8680
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             3
<OTHER-SE>                                        4137
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     19248
<SALES>                                           8281
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                  8281
<CGS>                                             5905
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                     5905
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  (6)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   (270)
<INCOME-TAX>                                        45
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                               (315)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                      (315)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (.10)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     (.10)


</TABLE>
No. 26.

#### Leonard Schafer *v.*Helvering, Commissioner of Internal Revenue.

November 17, 1936.

Death of Leonard Schafer suggested and Louis B. Tim and Adelina T. Schafer, Executors of the Estate of Leonard Schafer, substituted as party petitioners on motion of *Mr. Eugene Untermyer*for the petitioner.