alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
\ , 

DIVISION OF 

TRADING AND MARKETS 

COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COIIAMISSION 

2033 K STREET. N.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. :10!>81 

SeptemUer 10, 1985 

(\)f!> ... f\C.,tarv RE'. ~fe.fA~tMet\t o-f: Sub~rc)iN.,t~ 0<!..\ot 

TO ALL REGISTERED FO'IURES CCMvl.ISSICN MERCHANTS, INI'RODUCING BROKERS, AND 

SELF-REGUI.A'IDRY ORGANimriCNS: 

Section 1.17 {h) (2) {vii) of the regulations pranulgated under the 

Connodity Exchange Act {17 C.P.R. §1.17(h) {2) {vii) {1985)) requires a 

registered futures carrmission rrerchant {11F'CM11 ) or introducing broker ("IB") 

to obtain the written approval of its designated self-regulatory organization 

{ 11DSRO") and the Carmission prior to nuking any prepaynent of subordinated 

debt. 'llie requirerrent for dual approval has been in effect for approximately 

seven years. During that tilre, the DSROs have gained greater familiarity 

regarding subordinatc.->d debt and the DSRQ; have also derronstrated, through 

various joint auditing arrangerrents, an ability to work together in the ar8a 

of financial surveillance. The Division of Trading and Markets therefore 

believes that it is appropriate for the DSROs to be pr.i.ma.rily responsible for 

the approval of prepayment of subordinated debt, subject to Commission 

oversight, principally through the Division's periodic reviews of DSRO 

financial audit programs. 'Ihat wuld make the trea'l::rrimt of prepayrrent of 

subordinated debt consistent with the treatrrent of approval of n£'W 

subordinated debt or a.rrendrrents to subordination agreecrents. 

The Division intends to recarrrend to the Cannission that Rule 

1. 17 (h) (2) {vii) be changed to require only DSRO approval of prepayrrent of 

subordinated debt, 1/ and perhaps certain other procedural changes in Rule 

1.17 in areas such as extensions of time. The Division also recocjilizes, 

ha,...:ever, that there a.rto two current rulemaking proceedings involving prop::>sed 

substa.nti ve changes to an FCM' s and an IB' s minimum financial rE.quirerrents 

{50 Fed. Reg. 31612, August 5, 1985 and 50 Fed. Reg. 35247, August 30, 1985). 

The Division believes that those prOCL~1gs should be resolved before 

another rulemaking proceeding in the financial area is l:x...-"gllll. 'I'he Division 

further believes that the changes in the procedures for approval of 

prepayrrent of subordinatt.~ debt should be instituted as soon as r:ossilile, 

Accordingly, the Division will not recanrend that any enforcerrent action be 

taken against any F01 or IB if it prepays subordinated debt without the prior 

written approval of the Commission provided the firm has a DSRO and the prior 

written approval of the firm's DSRO is obtained and Rule 1.17 (h) (2) (vii) is 

otherwise carplied with. 

1./ Those few remaining registered firms without a DSRO would still need 

Cannission approval. 

I 

/~ 
-2-

This is the p.Jsition of the Division of Trading and Markets and is not 

necessarily the p.Jsition of the Ccm:n:i.ssion itself or any other unit within 

the Comnission. 

cc: Regional Aucli t Staffs 

AF25/2 

? truly yours, 

cdewt) 

Andrea M. Corcoran 

;; ~~~ Director 

-I 

) 

\ 

I 

'
EX-10.5



 Exhibit 10.5 (1 of 2) 

DEGOLYER AND MACNAUGHTON 

5001 SPRING VALLEY ROAD 

SUITE 800 EAST 

DALLAS, TEXAS 75244 

April 29, 2016 
  

Dr. José Antonio González Anaya 
 Director General

 Petróleos Mexicanos 
 Avenida Marina Nacional No. 329

 Torre Ejecutiva, Piso 44 
 Colonia Verónica Anzures

 11300 Ciudad de México, México 
 Dear Dr.
González Anaya: 
 We hereby consent to the references to DeGolyer and MacNaughton as set forth under the headings
“Presentation of Information Concerning Reserves,” “Item 4. Information on the Company – Business Overview – Exploration and Production – Reserves,” and “Item 19. Exhibits. Documents filed as exhibits to this
Form 20-F” in the Annual Report on Form 20-F of Petróleos Mexicanos (PEMEX) for the year ended December 31, 2015 (the Form 20-F), and to the filing as Exhibit 10.6 to the Form 20-F of our third-party report dated April 29, 2016,
describing our review of the estimates of proved oil, marketable gas, sales gas, condensate, natural gas liquids (NGL), and oil equivalent reserves that PEMEX has represented are owned by the United Mexican States (México) as of January 1,
2016, for certain fields located in the Burgos area of México, which includes reserves that PEMEX has represented that it has the right to extract and sell. These estimates were prepared in accordance with the reserves definitions of Rules
4-10(a) (l)-(32) of Regulation S-X of the United States Securities and Exchange Commission. 
  

	
	Very truly yours,
	
	




	DeGOLYER and MacNAUGHTON
	Texas Registered Engineering Firm F-716









 Exhibit 10.5 (2 of 2) 

DEGOLYER AND MACNAUGHTON 

5001 SPRING VALLEY ROAD 

SUITE 800 EAST 

DALLAS, TEXAS 75244 

April 29, 2016 
  

Dr. José Antonio González Anaya 
 Director General

 Petróleos Mexicanos 
 Avenida Marina Nacional No. 329

 Torre Ejecutiva, Piso 44 
 Colonia Verónica Anzures

 11300 Ciudad de México, México 
 Dear Dr.
González Anaya: 
 We hereby consent to the references to DeGolyer and MacNaughton as set forth under the headings
“Presentation of Information Concerning Reserves,” “Item 4. Information on the Company – Business Overview – Exploration and Production – Reserves,” and “Item 19. Exhibits. Documents filed as exhibits to this
Form 20-F” in the Annual Report on Form 20-F of Petróleos Mexicanos (PEMEX) for the year ended December 31, 2015 (the Form 20-F), and to the filing as Exhibit 10.6 to the Form 20-F of our third-party report dated April 29, 2016,
describing our review of the estimates of proved oil, marketable gas, sales gas, condensate, natural gas liquids (NGL), and oil equivalent reserves that PEMEX has represented are owned by the United Mexican States (México) as of January 1,
2016, for certain fields located in the Veracruz area of México, which includes reserves that PEMEX has represented that it has the right to extract and sell. These estimates were prepared in accordance with the reserves definitions of Rules
4-10(a) (1)-(32) of Regulation S-X of the United States Securities and Exchange Commission. 
  

	
	Very truly yours,
	
	




	DeGOLYER and MacNAUGHTON
	Texas Registered Engineering Firm F-716
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                       1,146,494
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   15,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,277,691
<PP&E>                                       1,036,253
<DEPRECIATION>                                 632,598
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,821,279
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,781,031
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     5,189,603
<OTHER-SE>                                 (6,250,451)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,821,279
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               459,029
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,595,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             111,375
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (1,247,301)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (1,247,301)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                  5,250
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (1,242,051)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.04)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.04)
        

</TABLE>
**Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 4 March 2010 – Commission v Belgium**

**(Case C‐258/09)**

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Directive 2008/1/EC – Integrated pollution prevention and control – Failure to transpose within the prescribed period

Actions for failure to fulfil obligations – Examination of the merits by the Court – Situation to be taken into consideration – Situation on expiry of the period laid down in the reasoned opinion (Art. 226 EC) (see para. 23)

**Re:**

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | Failure to adopt or communicate, within the prescribed period, the measures necessary to comply, in the Walloon Region, with Article 5(1) of Directive 2008/1/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 January 2008 concerning integrated pollution prevention and control (OJ 2008 L 24, p. 8) – Existing installations liable to have an effect on emissions into the air, water and soil and on pollution. |

**Operative Part:**

The Court:

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 1. | | Declares that, by authorising, in the Walloon Region, the operation of existing installations that do not comply with the requirements laid down in Articles 3, 7, 9, 10, 13, 14(a) and (b) and 15(2) of Directive 2008/1/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 January 2008 concerning integrated pollution prevention and control, despite the time‐limit of 30 October 2007 as laid down in Article 5(1) of that directive, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under the directive; |

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 2. | | Orders the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs. |
SHARON KELLER PRESIDING JUDGE

BARBARA P. HERVEY BERT RICHARDSON KEVIN P. YEARY DAVID NEWELL MARY LOU KEEL SCOTT WALKER MICHELLE M. SLAUGHTER JESSE F. MCCLURE, III JUDGES 

# C OURT OF 

# C RIMINAL 

# A PPEALS P.O. BOX 12308, CAPITOL STATION AUSTIN, TEXAS 78711 DEANA WILLIAMSON CLERK (512) 463-1551

SIAN SCHILHAB GENERAL COUNSEL (512) 463-1597

S UPREME C OURT B UILDING , 201 W EST 14 TH S TREET , R OOM 106, A USTIN , T EXAS 78701 W EBSITE WWW

. TXCOURTS

. GOV / CCA 

## March 31, 2021
District Clerk Anderson County 500 North Church Street Room 18 Palestine, TX 75801 * Delivered Via E-Mail * 12th Court Of Appeals Clerk Katrina Mcclenny 1517 W. Front, Room 354 Tyler, TX 75701 * Delivered Via E-Mail *

Re: Holoman, Harold Wayne CCA No. PD-1339-18 COA No. 12-17-00364-CR Trial Court Case No. 349CR-15-32178
The court has issued an opinion on the above referenced cause number.
Sincerely,

Deana Williamson, Clerk

cc: Wm. M. House, Jr. (Delivered Via E-Mail) Allison Clayton (Delivered Via E-Mail) Emily Johnson-Liu (Delivered Via E-Mail) Harold Wayne Holoman Kerri K Anderson-Donica (Delivered Via E-Mail) District Attorney Anderson County (Delivered Via E-Mail) Presiding Judge 349th District Court (Delivered Via E-Mail) Jason Niehaus (Delivered Via E-Mail)
Eric LaQuinne BROWN, petitioner, v. MISSISSIPPI.

No. 16-6567.

Supreme Court of the United States

Jan. 9, 2017.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals of Mississippi denied.
David H. CAIN, petitioner, v. FIDELITY NATIONAL TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY, et al.

No. 16-230.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 31, 2016.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals of Arizona, Division One denied.
II-01026

From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

Dale Patterson <mrgrease@live.com>

Thursday, December 2, 2010 9:00 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.

Dale Patterson

8159 Northland Dr.

Rockford, MI 49341
OF EXAS 

Honorable Jack Ross, Chairman 

Board of Pardons and Paroles 

John H. Reagan State Office 

Duildfng 

Austin, Texas 

Dear Sir: 

Opinion No. C-252 

Re: Whether the Board of 

Pardons and Paroles', 

under stated circum-- 

stances, has the authority to terminate 

the period of parole. 

supervision of designated parolee. 

By letter dated March 31, 1964, you have requested an 

opinion of this office as to whether the Board of Pardons and 

Paroles has the authority, under the circumstances stated below, 

to terminate the period of parole supervision of the designated 

parolee. In connection therewith you present the following 

circumstances: 

Parolee was convicted on six pleas of guilty and 

was sentenaed on June 28 1960 to serve not less than two (2) 

nor more than twelve (12) year;. He was received at the Texas 

Department of Corrections on July 25, 1960. 

2. On March 19, 1963, parolee was released on parole 

to the supervision of the State of Louisiana, under the Interstate Parole Compact, (Article 781c, Code of Criminal Procedure). 

He is currently on parole In that state. 

3. On March 11, 1964, the District Court In which he 

was convicted, on motion of the State of Texas, granted the 

State's motion for a new trial for the purpose of reducing the 

sentence originally Imposed by the judgment of the court dated 

June 28, 1960. Upon a hearing In this motion the Court entered 

an order purporting to reduce the sentence from not less than 

two (2) nor more than twelve (12) years to a sentence of not 

more than two (2) years. 

To commute punishment means to change It from that 

assesaed against a convicted defendant into a less severe one. 

Gilderbloom v. State, 272 S.W.2d 106, (Tex.Crim. 1954). An 

order of' a court ret rucinn the nunishment assessed in a final 

conviction is in violatf& of %he Constitution, which veets 

the power to grant reprieves and commutations of punishment 

-1217- 
Honorable Jack Ross, Page 2 (C-252 ) 

and pardons in the Governor, on recommendation of the Board of 

Pardons and Paroles. Constitution of Texas, Article IV, Sectlon 

11; Ex parte Miers, 64 S.W. 2d 778 (Tex.Crim. 1933); Snbdnrass 

V. State, 150 S W 162 (Tex.Crim. 1912); Gilderbloom n 

supra. By virt;e'of the above authorit% 

t8te, 

es the attempt by the 

Court to commute the sentence is void. 

SUMMAHY 

The action of the District Court in attempting to commute the sentence of the parolee is 

in violation of Article IV, Section 11 of the 

Texas Constitution. Therefore the Board of 

Pardons and Paroles under the stated clrcumstances, does not have the authority to terminate the period 

nated parolee. 

of parole supervision of desigYours very truly, 

WAGGONER CARR 

Attorney General of Texas 

&YkiL 

Assi%ant'Att%ey General 

GJP:cg:br 

APPROVED: 

OPINION COMMITTEE 

W. V. Geppert, Chairman 

Norman Suarez 

Bill Allen 

Jerry Brock 

Lloyd Martin 

APPROVED FOR THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 

BY: Stanton Stone 

-1218-
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                         181,427
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               243,062
<PP&E>                                       5,779,153
<DEPRECIATION>                                 229,188
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               5,549,965
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          224,042
<BONDS>                                      3,000,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                   2,325,923
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 5,549,965
<SALES>                                        315,884
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               338,679
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  237,340
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              58,125
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 43,214
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             43,214
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    43,214
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     3.37
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     3.37
        

</TABLE>
Jeffrey William McCALL, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 16-6893.

Supreme Court of the United States

Jan. 9, 2017.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied.
Anthony ROACH, petitioner, v. MARYLAND.

No. 16-6954.

Supreme Court of the United States

Jan. 9, 2017.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Special Appeals of Maryland denied.
Daniel JUAREZ, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 16-6591.

Supreme Court of the United States

Dec. 12, 2016.

Petition for writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit denied.
EXHIBIT 32.2





CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350


ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF


THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In connection with the Quarterly Report of Fortune Industries, Inc., an Indiana corporation, (the "Company") on Form 10-Q/A for the period ending September 30, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Randy Butler, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify the following pursuant to Section 18, U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002:





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:  May 13, 2011
By: /s/ Randy ButlerRandy ButlerChief Financial Officer
IV 

111TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. RES. 1614 

Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that law enforcement 

service dogs and their handlers perform a vital role in providing for 

our Nation’s security and should be recognized for their service. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

SEPTEMBER 14, 2010 

Mr. COBLE submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the 

Committee on the Judiciary 

RESOLUTION 

Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that 

law enforcement service dogs and their handlers perform 

a vital role in providing for our Nation’s security and 

should be recognized for their service. 

Whereas everyday across the ranks of Federal, State, local, 

and military law enforcement agencies, service dogs perform a variety of functions to prevent and solve crimes 

and to ensure the public safety; 

Whereas service dogs trained to detect bombs, accelerants, 

and other weapons can often discover these dangerous devices at airports, train stations, sporting events and many 

other locations before they are used, preventing mass casualties, and sometimes their mere presence at these locations can prevent dangerous situations; 


sroberts on DSK3CLS3C1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HRES 1614 IH 

Whereas service dogs trained to detect narcotics and other 

contraband are used at our Nation’s borders and ports 

of entry to identify illegal drugs and smuggled goods; 

Whereas service dogs and their handlers perform crucial 

functions in special operations, including crowd control, 

search and rescue missions, locating missing persons, and 

tactical building entries, and these service dogs often 

work in undesirable conditions for little more than food 

and the affection of their handler; 

Whereas service dogs can detect the presence of human remains in operations to locate victims in disaster recovery 

operations; 

Whereas service dogs are used to protect the House of Representatives and Senate chambers, the White House, the 

Supreme Court, and many other public buildings in 

Washington, DC, and throughout the country; 

Whereas many dogs have given their lives in the performance 

of these duties; and 

Whereas these dogs have become an integral component of 

modern law enforcement: Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That it is the sense of the House of Rep2 resentatives that— 

3 (1) these dogs perform extraordinary services 

4 using their special sensory and physical abilities. 

5 Their service is rendered with incredible efficiency 

6 and dedication and is an important contribution to 

7 the security and public safety of our Nation; and 


sroberts on DSK3CLS3C1PROD with BILLS
3 

•HRES 1614 IH 

1 (2) we all owe a debt of gratitude and our sin2 cere appreciation to the loyal service performed by 

3 the law enforcement service dogs and their handlers. 

Æ 


sroberts on DSK3CLS3C1PROD with BILLS
Randale CHAPMAN, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 16-5969.

Supreme Court of the United States

Jan. 9, 2017.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit denied.