alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
II-Ol210

From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

Judith Schrepfer <judyschrepfer@gmail.com>

Wednesday, December 1, 2010 2:59 PM

dfadefinitions <dfadefinitions@CFTC.gov>

Re: No loopholes in Dodd-Frank

1) Securities and Exchange Commission/Commodities Futures Trading Commission, Re: Commercial Risk (CFTC RIN

3235-AK65, SEC File Number $7-12-10)

Dear Commissioners Shapiro and Gensler: Don’t let the American Bankers Association (ABA) redefine important terms like

"commercial risk" to keep banks that engage in risky derivatives trading from complying with transparency and business

conduct requirements. Commercial risk should not be expanded to include financial risk. Accepting the ABA argument

would open the door for exemptions for risky hedge funds and insurance companies.

2) Commodities Futures Trading Commission, Re: Position Limits (RIN 3038-AD 17 )

Dear Commissioner Gensler: The CFTC needs to set strong position limits to crack down on the energy and food commodity

speculation that serves no productive purpose. I urge the Commission to define limits that will address not only manipulation,

but also excessive speculation, which will require a stricter approach.

3) U.S. Department of the Treasury, Re: FX Swaps (75 FR 66426 Document Number 2010-27274)

Dear Secretary Geithner: Just say "no" to foreign exchange traders who want to exempt foreign currency derivatives from the

clearing and transparency requirements of the

Dodd-Frank Act. $4 trillion dollars a day is traded in these highly-leveraged swaps and this number may increase to over $10

trillion in a decade. As the head of the Financial

Stability Oversight Board your job is to decrease risk in the system, not encourage off-book trading and opaque markets.

Judith Schrepfer

147 Russell Street

Manchester, NH 03104
II-Ol090

From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

laurence skirvin <laurenceskirvin@yahoo.com>

Thursday, December 2, 2010 8:20 AM

dfadefinitions <dfadefinitions@CFTC.gov>

Re: No loopholes in Dodd-Frank

1) Securities and Exchange Commission/Commodities Futures Trading Commission, Re: Commercial Risk (CFTC RIN

3235-AK65, SEC File Number $7-12-10)

Dear Commissioners Shapiro and Gensler: Don’t let the American Bankers Association (ABA) redefine important terms like

"commercial risk" to keep banks that engage in risky derivatives trading from complying with transparency and business

conduct requirements. Commercial risk should not be expanded to include financial risk. Accepting the ABA argument

would open the door for exemptions for risky hedge funds and insurance companies.

2) Commodities Futures Trading Commission, Re: Position Limits (RIN 3038-AD 17 )

Dear Commissioner Gensler: The CFTC needs to set strong position limits to crack down on the energy and food commodity

speculation that serves no productive purpose. I urge the Commission to define limits that will address not only manipulation,

but also excessive speculation, which will require a stricter approach.

3) U.S. Department of the Treasury, Re: FX Swaps (75 FR 66426 Document Number 2010-27274)

Dear Secretary Geithner: Just say "no" to foreign exchange traders who want to exempt foreign currency derivatives from the

clearing and transparency requirements of the

Dodd-Frank Act. $4 trillion dollars a day is traded in these highly-leveraged swaps and this number may increase to over $10

trillion in a decade. As the head of the Financial

Stability Oversight Board your job is to decrease risk in the system, not encourage off-book trading and opaque markets.

laurence skirvin

1507 syble drive

villa rica, GA 30180
Clyde C. GRADY, II, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 16-387.

Supreme Court of the United States

Nov. 7, 2016.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit denied.
No. 10, original

(October Term, 1934).

#### New Jersey *v.*New York City.

October 14, 1935.

*Messrs. Paul Windels, Paxton Blair,*and *F. Pearson Shortridge*for the City of New York, in support of the motion.

The City of New York having filed a motion for leave to file a petition praying this Court to direct the State of New Jersey to show cause why (1) a ruling should not be made to the effect that the dumping of sludge, free from any matter capable of floating, at places not less than 10 miles from any shore is not a violation of the injunction order of this Court dated December 4,1933, or (2) in the alternative why this Court should not modify its order of December 4, 1933, so as to permit the City of New York to dump nonfloating sewage sludge as aforesaid.

It is ordered that a rule issue, returnable on or before November 18, next, requiring the State of New Jersey to show cause why leave to file the petition should not be granted.
Page 1 

Commodity Futures Trading Commission 

CEA CASES 

NAME: DEAN WITTER & CO., INCORPORATED 

DOCKET NUMBER: 197 

DOCUMENT TYPE: ISSUANCE OF COMPLAINT 

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Commodity Exchange Authority 

Washington, D. C. 20250 

ISSUANCE OF COMPLAINT - CEA DOCKET NO. 197 

(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: 

Dean Witter & Co., Incorporated 

(San Francisco, California) 

The complaint charges Dean Witter & Co., Incorporated with failing to handle 

and account for customers' funds as required under the Commodity Exchange Act. 

The complaint alleges that on a number of days between July 21 and October 7, 

1971, the firm was under-segregated in amounts ranging up to $ 414,000. The 

complaint also alleges that on numerous days during the period the firm failed 

to prepare accurate records of funds in segregation. 

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 will be held before a referee in San 

Francisco, California, at a date and time to be specified at a later date. 

LOAD-DATE: June 16, 2008 
Page 2
806.

#### BRANCH *v.*JAMES *&*PEDDY.

Where a promissory note given for the purchase-money of a mule contained an express stipulation that the seller of the mule “does in no wise guarantee, except in title,” and the only defense set up to a suit on the note was failure of consideration, growing out of the unsoundness of the mule at the time of sale, there was no error in excluding parol testimony, offered in support of the plea, which contradicted the terms of the written contract,- and in directing a verdict for the plaintiff.

Complaint, from city court of Dublin — Judge Burch. September 10, 1907.

Submitted January 20,

Decided March 30, 1908.

*J. S. Adams,*for plaintiff in error. *W. C. Davis,*contra.

Hill, C. J.

This was a suit on a purchase-money note given for a mule. It is expressly stipulated in the note that “the seller of said stock or other property does in no wise guarantee, except in title.” The defendant filed a plea of failure of consideration, and attempted to set up, in support of the plea, a parol agreement between him and the seller of the mule, which was in contradiction of the express and unambiguous provision in his written contract. The court excluded this testimony, and, there being no other defense made, directed a verdict for the plaintiff for the full amount of the note.

We think this direction by the court was proper. The contract contains no express covenant of warranty, and the defect in the mule, which was attempted to be shown, was a patent defect, which was not covered by the implied warranty. Besides, any implied warranty as to the soundness of the mule is expressly provided against by the contract. While the word “guarantee,” in *91the note, when considered with reference to its technical legal meaning, is not an apt word in the connection in which'it is used, the context shows that it is nsed as synonymous with the word “warrant.” Indeed, in popular parlance, the words “guaranty” and “warranty” are used interchangeably, without reference to any difference in meaning. While the term “warranty” is applied to a contract as to title, quality, or quantity of something sold, and the word “guaranty” is held to be a contract by which one person is bound to another for the fulfillment of a promise or engagement of a third party, the two words are derivatives from the same root, and are identical in significance and effect. It is clear that in the present case the word “guarantee” is used in the sense of a warranty, and that the seller of the mule limited his warranty to the title, expressly excluding any warranty of soundness; and such stipulation is plainly expressed and agreed to by the written contract of the defendant. There was no error, therefore, in the judgment of the court in excluding testimony which contradicted by parol the terms and conditions of the written contract, .and in directing a verdict for the plaintiff. *McNeel*v. *Smith,*106 *Ga.*215; *Jackson*v. *Langston,*61 *Ga.*392. *Judgment affirmed.*
LEI KE, petitioner, v. DREXEL UNIVERSITY, et al.

No. 16-5793.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 31, 2016.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit denied.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<MULTIPLIER>                  1000
<CURRENCY>                    dollar
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                  9-mos
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              MAR-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                                 APR-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                   DEC-31-1997
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                          1
<CASH>                                                 746
<SECURITIES>                                             0
<RECEIVABLES>                                          797
<ALLOWANCES>                                           287
<INVENTORY>                                              0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                         0
<PP&E>                                                 120
<DEPRECIATION>                                          71
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                      10,611
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                    0
<BONDS>                                              9,525
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                    0
<PREFERRED>                                              0
<COMMON>                                                12
<OTHER-SE>                                          (2,437)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                        10,611
<SALES>                                                546
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                       546
<CGS>                                                    0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        1,944
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                    (6,261)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                         0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                     815
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                     (8,220)
<INCOME-TAX>                                            40
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                      0
<DISCONTINUED>                                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      3,172
<CHANGES>                                                0
<NET-INCOME>                                        (5,088)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                       (0.840)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                       (0.840)
        



</TABLE>
Colin J. BOONE, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 16-6799.

Supreme Court of the United States

Jan. 9, 2017.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit denied.
Ruben VALDEZ-CORRAL, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 16-6615.

Supreme Court of the United States

Nov. 28, 2016.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied.
# C_2011370EN.01001001.xml

| 17.12.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 370/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.12.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 370/10

---

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 27 October 2011 — Dongguan Nanzha Leco Stationery Mfg. Co., Ltd v Council of the European Union, European Commission, IML Industria Meccanica Lombarda Srl

(Case C-511/09 P) (1)

1

(Appeal - Dumping - Imports of lever arch mechanisms originating in China - Regulation (EC) No 1136/2006 - Determination of the dumping margin - Comparison between the normal value and the export price - Regulation (EC) No 384/96 - Article 2(7)(a) and 2(10))

2011/C 370/14

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Appellant: Dongguan Nanzha Leco Stationery Mfg. Co., Ltd (represented by: P. Bentley QC)

Appellant:

Other parties to the proceedings: Council of the European Union (represented by: J.-P. Hix and B. Driessen, acting as Agents, assisted by G. Berrisch, Rechtsanwalt), European Commission (represented by H. van Vliet and C. Clyne, acting as Agents), IML Industria Meccanica Lombarda Srl (R. Bierwagen, Rechtsanwalt)

Other parties to the proceedings:

Re:

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Seventh Chamber) of 23 September 2009 in Case T-296/06 Dongguan Nanzha Leco Stationery Mfg. Co., Ltd v Council, by which it dismissed an application for partial annulment of Council Regulation (EC) No 1136/2006 of 24 July 2006 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of lever arch mechanisms originating in the People’s Republic of China (OJ 2006 L 205, p. 1) — Determination of the dumping margin

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the appeal; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the appeal;

| 2. | Orders Dongguan Nanzha Leco Stationery Mfg. Co., Ltd to pay, in addition to its own costs, those incurred by the Council of the European Union and by IML Industria Meccanica Lombarda Srl; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Dongguan Nanzha Leco Stationery Mfg. Co., Ltd to pay, in addition to its own costs, those incurred by the Council of the European Union and by IML Industria Meccanica Lombarda Srl;

| 3. | Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 37, 13.2.2010.

1

---
Andrew M. ASPELMEIER, petitioner, v. ILLINOIS.

No. 16-6741.

Supreme Court of the United States

Jan. 9, 2017.

Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed *in forma pauperis* denied, and petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Illinois dismissed. See Rule 39.8. As petitioner has repeatedly abused this Court's process, the Clerk is directed not to accept any further petitions in noncriminal matters from petitioner unless the docketing fee required by Rule 38(a) is paid and petition submitted in compliance with Rule 33.1. See *Martin v. District of Columbia Court of Appeals,*506 U.S. 1, 113 S.Ct. 397, 121 L.Ed.2d 305 (1992) (*per curiam* ).
Steven A. SPEAR, petitioner, v. Julie L. JONES, Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections, et al.

No. 15-9655.

Supreme Court of the United States

Dec. 12, 2016.

Petition for rehearing denied.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                         DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                            JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                              MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                         11,202
<SECURITIES>                                   19,941
<RECEIVABLES>                                   7,902
<ALLOWANCES>                                        0 
<INVENTORY>                                         0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               40,233
<PP&E>                                         81,517
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (3,063)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                169,452
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          30,928
<BONDS>                                       132,538
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                               0
<PREFERRED>                                         0
<COMMON>                                           19
<OTHER-SE>                                       (805)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                  169,452
<SALES>                                         9,445
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                9,445
<CGS>                                           7,191
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  12,511
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                    0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              4,504
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (7,149)
<INCOME-TAX>                                        0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (7,149)
<DISCONTINUED>                                      0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                     0
<CHANGES>                                           0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (7,149)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.37)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                       0


        

</TABLE>
Page 1 

Commodity Futures Trading Commission 

CEA CASES 

NAME: HENRY S. SICINSKI 

DOCKET NUMBER: 131 

DOCUMENT TYPE: ISSUANCE OF COMPLAINT 

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Commodity Exchange Authority 

Washington, D. C. 20250 

ISSUANCE OF COMPLAINT -- CEA DOCKET NO. 131 

(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 respondent with violation of the 

Commodity Exchange Act: 

Henry S. Sicinski 

(Ann Arbor, Michigan) 

The complaint charges that the respondent, during the period from July 1963 

through January 1965 willfully deceived a person for whom he held trading 

authority by reporting fictitious transactions in regulated commodity futures 

contracts. 

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, December 1, 1965, in Ann Arbor, Michigan. 

LOAD-DATE: June 12, 2008 
Page 2
David WHITEHEAD, petitioner, v. CALIFORNIA.

No. 16-6522.

Supreme Court of the United States

Jan. 9, 2017.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeal of California, Third Appellate District denied.
Electronically Filed

Intermediate Court of Appeals

CAAP-14-0000750

18-JAN-2017

08:07 AM
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 6
 

<CIK>     0000744822


<NAME>      Fidelity Investment Trust


<SERIES>

        <NUMBER>        171


        <NAME>      Fidelity International Value Fund


<MULTIPLIER>    1,000


       

<S>

<C>

<PERIOD-TYPE>

6-MOS


<FISCAL-YEAR-END>

OCT-31-1998


<PERIOD-END>

APR-30-1998


<INVESTMENTS-AT-COST>

461,431


<INVESTMENTS-AT-VALUE>

529,850


<RECEIVABLES>

23,231


<ASSETS-OTHER>

0


<OTHER-ITEMS-ASSETS>

0


<TOTAL-ASSETS>

553,081


<PAYABLE-FOR-SECURITIES>

18,961


<SENIOR-LONG-TERM-DEBT>

0


<OTHER-ITEMS-LIABILITIES>

3,280


<TOTAL-LIABILITIES>

22,241


<SENIOR-EQUITY>

0


<PAID-IN-CAPITAL-COMMON>

454,269


<SHARES-COMMON-STOCK>

37,386


<SHARES-COMMON-PRIOR>

32,292


<ACCUMULATED-NII-CURRENT>

629


<OVERDISTRIBUTION-NII>

0


<ACCUMULATED-NET-GAINS>

8,108


<OVERDISTRIBUTION-GAINS>

0


<ACCUM-APPREC-OR-DEPREC>

67,834


<NET-ASSETS>

530,840


<DIVIDEND-INCOME>

3,652


<INTEREST-INCOME>

749


<OTHER-INCOME>

(399)


<EXPENSES-NET>

2,628


<NET-INVESTMENT-INCOME>

1,374


<REALIZED-GAINS-CURRENT>

8,234


<APPREC-INCREASE-CURRENT>

56,903


<NET-CHANGE-FROM-OPS>

66,511


<EQUALIZATION>

0


<DISTRIBUTIONS-OF-INCOME>

1,834


<DISTRIBUTIONS-OF-GAINS>

8,558


<DISTRIBUTIONS-OTHER>

0


<NUMBER-OF-SHARES-SOLD>

32,910


<NUMBER-OF-SHARES-REDEEMED>

28,638


<SHARES-REINVESTED>

821


<NET-CHANGE-IN-ASSETS>

128,094


<ACCUMULATED-NII-PRIOR>

3,063


<ACCUMULATED-GAINS-PRIOR>

18,745


<OVERDISTRIB-NII-PRIOR>

0


<OVERDIST-NET-GAINS-PRIOR>

0


<GROSS-ADVISORY-FEES>

1,766


<INTEREST-EXPENSE>

0


<GROSS-EXPENSE>

2,661


<AVERAGE-NET-ASSETS>

416,184


<PER-SHARE-NAV-BEGIN>

12.470


<PER-SHARE-NII>

 .040


<PER-SHARE-GAIN-APPREC>

2.030


<PER-SHARE-DIVIDEND>

 .060


<PER-SHARE-DISTRIBUTIONS>

 .280


<RETURNS-OF-CAPITAL>

0


<PER-SHARE-NAV-END>

14.200


<EXPENSE-RATIO>

130


<AVG-DEBT-OUTSTANDING>

0


<AVG-DEBT-PER-SHARE>

0



        



</TABLE>
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Omar HERNANDEZ, also known as Pistolero, formerly known as FNU LNU-20, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 09-11066

Conference Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Oct. 26, 2010.

Susan Cowger, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Dallas, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Omar Hernandez, Seagoville, TX, pro se.

Before SMITH, DENNIS, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

The attorney appointed to represent Omar Hernandez has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). Hernandez has responded by filing a motion for appointment of new counsel. Our independent review of the record, counsel’s brief, and Hernandez’s motion discloses no nonfrivolous issue for appeal. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from *910further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. *See*5th Cir. R. 42.2. Hernandez’s motion for appointment of new counsel is DENIED.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.