alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Dodd-Frank Act Overview

CFTC Rulemakings

July 25, 2013

Prepared by CFTC Staff for the Agricultural Advisory Committee
CFTC Rulemakings

As a result of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform 

and Consumer Protection Act, the CFTC has 

been writing rules to regulate the swaps 

marketplace. 

2
Swaps Regulation

The Dodd-Frank Act established a comprehensive new 

regulatory framework for swaps. The legislation was 

enacted to reduce risk, increase transparency, and 

promote market integrity within the financial system. 

Under the Dodd-Frank Act, the CFTC now:

• Regulates Swap Dealers

• Requires standardized derivatives to be centrally 

cleared

• Requires standardized derivatives to be traded on 

regulated exchanges or swap execution facilities

• Oversees a new swaps reporting and recordkeeping 

regime

3
Swap Dealers

Approximately 80 firms have registered as swap 

dealers.

4
Clearing Requirement 

Interest rate swaps and some credit derivatives 

are currently required to be cleared.

5
Clearing Exceptions

• End-User Exception

• Inter-Affiliate Exemption

• Cooperative Exemption

• Treasury Affiliates

6
End-User Exception 

§ 50.50(a) provides that a counterparty to a swap 

may elect the end-user exception to the clearing 

requirement under Section 2(h)(7)(A) of the CEA if 

it: (1) is not a ‘‘financial entity’’ as defined in 

Section 2(h)(7)(C)(i) of the CEA; (2) is using the 

swap to hedge or mitigate commercial risk as 

defined in § 50.50(c); and (3) provides or causes to 

be provided to a SDR or, if no SDR is available, the 

Commission, the information specified in proposed 

§ 50.50(b).

7
Inter-Affiliate Exemption

The Commission adopted regulations to exempt 

swaps between certain affiliated entities within 

a corporate group from the clearing 

requirement. 

8
Cooperative Exemption

• The Commission has proposed a rule pursuant to its 

authority under Section 4(c) of the CEA allowing 

cooperatives meeting certain conditions to elect not to 

submit for clearing certain swaps that such cooperatives 

would otherwise be required to clear in accordance with 

Section 2(h)(1) of the CEA.

• The Commission has not yet finalized the proposed 

cooperative exemption.

• The Division of Clearing and Risk has issued time limited 

no-action relief in order to alleviate the uncertainty for 

market participants during the period between when the 

clearing requirement becomes effective and when the 

Commission finalizes the proposed cooperative exemption. 

9
Treasury Affiliates

The Division of Clearing and Risk provided 

eligible treasury affiliates that enter into swaps 

that are subject to the clearing requirement in 

section 2(h)(1) of the Commodity Exchange Act 

(CEA) and part 50 of the CFTC’s regulations, with 

relief from the clearing requirement, subject to 

certain conditions and requirements.

10
Arthur MITCHELL, petitioner, v. Donald ENLOE, Warden.

No. 16-5571.

Supreme Court of the United States

Jan. 9, 2017.

Petition for rehearing denied.
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.2


                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
            PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


         Solely for purposes of Title 18, Chapter 63, Section 1350 of the United
States Code, the undersigned certifies that the foregoing Form 10-Q fully
complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 and the information contained in the report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Registrant at the dates and for the periods indicated. No purchaser or seller of
securities shall be entitled to rely on the foregoing statement for any purpose,
and the undersigned expressly disclaim any obligation to update the foregoing
statement except as required by law.



                                                      FIRST FEDERAL CAPITAL CORP


/s/ Michael W. Dosland                                           August 13, 2003
Michael W. Dosland
Senior Vice President and
Chief Financial Officer




                                       39
Exhibit 31.2**CERTIFICATION**I, Derek Bertocci, certify that: 1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Laserscope;  2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a materialfact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light ofthe circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to theperiod covered by this report;  3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial informationincluded in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition,results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periodspresented in this report;  4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e)and 15d-15(e)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange ActRules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for the registrant and have: a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused suchdisclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, toensure that material information relating to the registrant, including itsconsolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities,particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;  b) Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or causedsuch internal control over financial reporting to be designed under oursupervision, to provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability offinancial reporting and the preparation of financial statements for externalpurposes in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles;  c) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controlsand procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about theeffectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures as of the end of theperiod covered by this report based on such evaluation; and  d) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s mostrecent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of anannual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely tomaterially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting;and 5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our mostrecent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’sauditors and the audit committee of registrant’s board of directors (or persons performingthe equivalent functions): a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the designor operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonablylikely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarizeand report financial information; and  b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management orother employees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal controlover financial reporting.      Date: May 10, 2006
#### THE NORTH AMERICA. THE W. S. TAYLOR. THE THOMAS J. SCULLY. THE MERCURY. SCULLY v. ATLANTIC COAST TRANSP. CO. et al.

(Circuit Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.

May 1, 1922.)

No. 293.

Appeal of the District Court of the United States for the Eastern District of New York. Libel for collision by Thomas J. Scully against the steam tugs North America and W. S. Taylor, claimed by the Atlantic Coast Transportation Company, with the steam tugs Thomas J. Scully and Mercury, claimed by Neptune Line, Inc., impleaded. Decree against the North America and the Thomas J. Scully, each for half of the damages (273 Fed. 263), and the Atlantic Coast Transportation Company appeals.

Affirmed.

Bigham, Englar & Jones, of New York City (C. Andrade, Jr., of New York City, of counsel), for Atlantic Coast Transportation Co. Burlingham, Veeder, Masten & Fearey, of New York City (Chauneey I. Clark and Charles E. Wythe, both of New York City, of counsel), for Neptune Line.

Before ROGERS, HOUGH, and MANTON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Decree affirmed.
* 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.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-41104

Summary Calendar

WAYMOND LEE JACKSON,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

WAYNE SCOTT, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice,

Institutional Division,

Defendant-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. G-96-CV-462

April 29, 1999

Before JOHNSON, DAVIS, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Waymond Lee Jackson, Texas prisoner # 696015, appeals the district

court’s dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim as frivolous. Jackson

alleged in his original complaint that he was denied adequate medical

care by Director Scott. He subsequently made allegations regarding the

denial of medical care by prison medical personnel in pleadings that the

district court should have construed as amendments to his complaint.

See FED. R. CIV. P. 15(a); United States v. Riascos, 76 F.3d 93, 94 (5th

Cir. 1996). He further alleged in his pleadings that a prison officer
2

was negligent in failing to maintain the prison restroom area in a safe

condition. Jackson argues that the district court abused its discretion

in declining to exercise its supplemental jurisdiction over his state

law negligence claim.

After careful review of both the record and Jackson’s brief, we

affirm the dismissal of Jackson’s claim that he was denied adequate

medical care. Jackson’s allegations merely assert a malpractice claim,

which is not sufficient to support a § 1983 cause of action. See

Varnado v. Lynaugh, 920 F.2d 320, 321 (5th Cir. 1991). 

Because negligence is not actionable under § 1983, we also affirm

the district court’s dismissal of Jackson’s claim that a prison officer

failed to properly maintain the prison restroom area. See Marsh v.

Jones, 53 F.3d 707, 711-12 (5th Cir. 1995). Finally, we find that the

district court did not abuse its discretion in declining to exercise its

supplemental jurisdiction over Jackson’s state law negligence claim.

See Cinel v. Connick, 15 F.3d 1338, 1344 (5th Cir. 1994).

AFFIRMED.
August 27, 1997

Meridian Fund, Inc.
Suite 306
60 East Sir Francis Drake Boulevard
Larkspur, California  94939

Re:  Issuance and Sale of 3,116,535 Shares of 
     Meridian Fund, Inc.; Rule 24f-2 Notice
     SEC File Nos. 2-90949; 811-04014      

Ladies and Gentlemen:  

         Meridian Fund, Inc. (the "Company") has requested our opinion in 
connection with the sale by the Company of 3,116,535 shares of the Company, 
aggregating the sales of two separate series (the "Shares") during the period
July 1, 1996 through June 30, 1997 inclusive ("Fiscal 1997").  We understand 
that a copy of this opinion will be provided to the Securities and Exchange 
Commission pursuant to Rule 24f-2(b)(1) under the Investment Company Act of 
1940, as amended.

         We have examined documents relating to the organization of the 
Company and the authorization for registration and issuance of shares of the 
Company.  We have also examined a certificate of the Secretary of the Company 
relating to the number of shares of the Company sold during Fiscal 1997.

         Based upon and subject to the foregoing, we are of the opinion that:

         The issuance and sale of the Shares of the Company have been duly 
and validly authorized by all appropriate corporate action, and assuming 
delivery by sale or in accord with a dividend reinvestment plan, in accordance
with the description set forth in the Company's current prospectuses under the
Securities Act of 1933, the shares have been duly authorized and were legally 
issued, fully paid and nonassessable. 

         We consent to the submission of a copy of this opinion to the 
Securities and Exchange Commission in connection with the filing of the 
Company's Rule 24f-2 Notice for Fiscal 1997, as contemplated in Rule 
24f-2(b)(1) under the Investment Company Act of 1940, as amended. 

         The opinion given above is subject to the condition that the Company 
shall have complied with the provision of any applicable laws, regulations, 
and permits of any state or foreign country in which any of the Shares was 
sold.

                                 Very truly yours,
                             
                                 /s/ MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP       
                                 ---------------------------
                                 MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP
Commodity Futures Trading Commission 

 Office of Public Affairs 

 Three Lafayette Centre 

 1155 21st Street, NW 

 Washington, DC 20581 

 www.cftc.gov

Q & A – Risk Management Requirements 

for Derivatives Clearing Organizations 

What Core Principles and other matters are addressed in this rulemaking? 

The Commission is proposing rules that would: (a) adopt a required application form for entities seeking to register 

as a derivatives clearing organization (DCO); (b) establish the regulatory standards for compliance with DCO Core 

Principles C (participant and product eligibility), D (risk management), E (settlement procedures), F (treatment of 

funds), G (default rules and procedures) and I (system safeguards); (c) implement heightened system safeguard 

standards and special enforcement authority with respect to DCOs that are designated by the Financial Stability 

Oversight Council as systemically important DCOs (SIDCOs); and (d) supplement the DCO reporting 

requirements proposed in a previous rulemaking. 

What requirements for participant and product eligibility are addressed in the proposed rules? 

The proposal addresses DCO participant requirements with the objective of achieving fair and open access through 

appropriate financial resource and operational requirements, and the DCO’s monitoring and enforcement of 

participant requirements. The proposed rules also address the factors that a DCO must consider in determining the 

eligibility of a product for clearing by the DCO. 

What risk management requirements are addressed in the proposed rules? 

The proposal addresses certain general requirements, including a requirement that a DCO must have a 

comprehensive written risk management framework, subject to internal audit, and a chief risk officer. The 

proposed rules contain requirements regarding the measurement of credit exposure (mark to market), margin 

(including methodology and coverage, independent validation, spread margins, price data, daily review and periodic 

back tests, and special provisions for customer margin). Finally, the proposal addresses certain other risk control 

mechanisms, including risk limits, review of large trader reports, stress tests, swaps portfolio compression, and 

review of clearing members’ risk management policies and procedures. 

What system safeguards are addressed in the proposed rules? 

The proposal addresses requirements for programs of risk analysis, business continuity and disaster recovery, 

location of resources and outsourcing, notification of the Commission, recordkeeping, and testing. 

What additional requirements for SIDCOs are included in this rulemaking? 

The Commission is proposing heightened standards for a SIDCO’s business continuity and disaster recovery plan 

with respect to the recovery time objective and geographic diversity. 

Commodity Futures Trading Commission ♦ Office of Public Affairs ♦ 202-418-5080
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 Annual Report of Versatech USA (the
“Company”) on Form 10-K for the period ending December 31, 2012 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Joe Arcaro, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
§1350, as adopted pursuant to §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; and                              
| | --- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| |     |                                                                                                                                                    
| | (2) | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.



IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this certification
as of May 6, 2013.



|/s/ Joe Arcaro          | 
|----------------------- | 
|Chief Executive Officer | 





---
mbcc-ex105_28.htm



Exhibit 10.5

 

AMENDMENT TO SHARED SERVICES AGREEMENT

 

This Amendment dated as of January 1, 2016 (“Amendment Effective Date”) by and between Nexstar Broadcasting, Inc. (“Nexstar”) and Mission Broadcasting, Inc. (“Mission”) is made to that certain Shared Services Agreement dated as of June 1, 2014 by and between Mission Broadcasting, Inc. and Nexstar Broadcasting, Inc., as amended by that certain amendment dated December 30, 2005 and as extended by letter agreement on May 28, 2014 (collectively, the “Agreement”).

 

WHEREAS, Mission is the licensee of television broadcast station KSAN-TV, San Angelo, Texas;

 

WHEREAS, Nexstar is the licensee of television broadcasting station KLST, San Angelo, Texas; 

 

WHEREAS, Mission and Nexstar have entered into the Agreement for their mutual benefit;

 

NOW THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the foregoing, Nexstar and Mission hereby amend the Agreement as follows:

 

1. Paragraph 4(g) of the Agreement is deleted in its entirety and the following is substituted in its place: “4(g) Services Fee. In consideration for the services to be provided to the Stations by Nexstar personnel as described in Sections 4(a) through 4(f), Mission will pay Nexstar the fee (“Services Fee”) described in Section 4(g).

 

(i)Base Amount. Subject to the remaining provisions of this Section 4(g), the base amount of the Services Fee will be $11,666.67 per month.

 

(ii) Payment Terms. The Services Fee will be payable monthly, in arrears, from and after the month during which this Agreement is executed, and will be prorated on a daily basis for the first and last months during which the sharing arrangements described in Sections 4(a) through 4(f) are in effect.” 

 

2.These revised payment terms are effective as of the Amendment Effective Date.

 

3. As so amended, all sections and provisions of the Agreement are hereby ratified in full. 

 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this amendment as of the Amendment Effective Date above.

 


			
	
NEXSTAR BROADCASTING, INC.

 
	
 
	
MISSION BROADCASTING, INC.

	
By: /s/ Thomas E. Carter
	
 
	
By: /s/ Dennis Thatcher

	
 

Name: Thomas E. Carter
	
 
	
 

Name: Dennis Thatcher

	
 

Title: EVP & Chief Financial Officer
	
 
	
 

Title: President
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 23.1

                        Consent of Independent Auditors

The Board of Directors
Adolor Corporation:

We consent to incorporation by reference in the registration statement (No. 333-
51222) on Form S-8 of Adolor Corporation of our report dated March 2, 2001,
except as to the second paragraph of note 8, which is as of March 22, 2001,
relating to the consolidated balance sheets of Adolor Corporation and Subsidiary
(a development-stage company) as of December 31, 1999 and 2000, and the related
consolidated statements of operations, comprehensive loss, stockholders' equity
(deficit) and cash flows for each of the years in the three-year period ended
December 31, 2000, and for the period from August 9, 1993 (inception) to
December 31, 2000, which report appears in the December 31, 2000, Annual Report
on Form 10-K of Adolor Corporation.

                                        /s/ KPMG LLP

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
March 30, 2001
Exhibit
32.1





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 Defense Solutions Holding, Inc. (the
“Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2009 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (“Report”), I, Timothy D.
Ringgold, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that
to the best of my knowledge:





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





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






May 19,
2009




/s/ Timothy D. Ringgold


Timothy
D. Ringgold


Chief
Executive Officer








- 32
-
David JENNINGS, et al. v. Alejandro RODRIGUEZ, et al.

No. 15-1204.

Supreme Court of the United States

Dec. 15, 2016.

Ian Heath Gershengorn, Acting Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Petitioners.

Ian Heath Gershengorn, Acting Solicitor General, Benjamin C. Mizer, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Edwin S. Kneedler, Deputy Solicitor General, Leon Fresco, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Zachary D. Tripp, Assistant to the Solicitor General, Sarah S. Wilson, *472Erez R. Reuveni, Attorneys, Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Petitioners.

Mark H. Haddad, Sean A. Commons, Wen W. Shen, Sidley Austin LLP, Los Angeles, CA, Judy Rabinovitz, Michael K.T. Tan, Cecillia D. Wang, Steven R. Shapiro, New York, NY, Ahilan T. Arulanantham, Michael Kaufman, ACLU Foundation of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, Jayashri Srikantiah, Stanford Law School, Immigrants' Rights Clinic, Stanford, CA, for Respondents.

The parties are directed to file supplemental briefs addressing the following questions: 1) Whether the Constitution requires that aliens seeking admission to the United States who are subject to mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b) must be afforded bond hearings, with the possibility of release into the United States, if detention lasts six months. 2) Whether the Constitution requires that criminal or terrorist aliens who are subject to mandatory detention under Section 1226(c) must be afforded bond hearings, with the possibility of release, if detention lasts six months. 3) Whether the Constitution requires that, in bond hearings for aliens detained for six months under Sections 1225(b), 1226(c), or 1226(a), the alien is entitled to release unless the government demonstrates by clear and convincing evidence that the alien is a flight risk or a danger to the community, whether the length of the alien's detention must be weighed in favor of release, and whether new bond hearings must be afforded automatically every six months.

The briefs are to be filed simultaneously with the Clerk and served upon opposing counsel on or before 2 p.m., Tuesday, January 17, 2017. *Amicus* briefs may be filed with the Clerk and served upon counsel on or before 2 p.m., Friday, January 27, 2017. Reply briefs are to be filed simultaneously with the Clerk and served upon opposing counsel on or before 2 p.m., Monday, February 6, 2017. The word limits and cover colors for the briefs should correspond to the provisions of Rule 33.1(g) pertaining to briefs on the merits rather than to the provision pertaining to supplemental briefs.