alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
ROSENTHAL COLLINS ~~~g~f CJ(-Ib 

Received CFTC · ··· c.F. T.C. 

01/07/2008 

~~r-On zms Jfi.M -s Ptt 3= 39 

David A. Stawick, Secretary 

Commodity Futures Trading Commission 

Three Lafayette Center 

OFC. Of THE SECRETARiAT 

1155 21st Street, N.W. 

Washington, D.C. 20581 COMMENT 

ICE CLEAR SECTION 4(C) REQUEST 

Dear Mr. Stawick: 

0 

I 

., 

• ' 'I' 

I am writing to voice Rosenthal Collins Group, LLC's support for ICE Clear U.S. Inc. and ICE Futures U.S., 

Inc.'s exemption requests related to their plans to clear over the counter swap transactions in sugar, coffee and 

cocoa, as published in the Federal Register on December 6, 2007, at 72 F.R. 68862. 

Rosenthal Collins Group, LLC support ICE's plan to offer OTC swap market participants the ability 

to substitute a swap position for a cleared-only, cash-settled futures contract, as this will offer such OTC market 

participants additional flexibility in managing their overall position. We also support ICE's request that Floor 

Members, subject to certain conditions, be deemed ESPs for the purpose of entering into the OTC transactions, 

as described in the request for exemption. 

Fu.qll~,r, we believe the exemption requests are appropriate to this goal, and that granting the exemption request 

wiii therefore benefit participants in the OTC swap market. In addition, we believe that granting the relief 

requested will not affect the ability of ICE Clear US or ICE Futures US to satisfy their respective self-regulatory 

duties under the Commodity Exchange Act (the "Act") or affect the ability ofthe Commission to fulfill its 

regulatory obligation under the Act. 

Beyond these specific exemption requests, we also believe that the current regulatory distinctions that treat 

agricultural swap contracts differently than swap contracts in non-agricultural products are unnecessary and 

have the effect of limiting innovation and flexibility in the agricultural markets. Therefore, we request that the 

Commission support in its future regulatory interpretations harmonious treatment of agricultural and nonagricultural swaps wherever possible. 

In closing, we believe that all of the conditions for the exercise of the Commission's Exemptive Authority under 

Section 4(c) are met by the ICE proposals and they should be granted in all respects. 

;~;;~ -4-----

George Recchia 

Executive Vice President 

Chief Operating Officer 

Rosenthal Collins Group, LLC 

Phone: (312) 795-7911 

Fax: (312) 795-7611 

Email: grecchia@rcgdirect.com 

ROSENTHAL COLLINS GROUP, LLC 

216 West Jackson Boulevard Chicago, Illinois 60606 Phone (312) 460-9200 

www.rcgdirect.com
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 Mantra Venture Group Ltd.(the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended August 31, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Larry Kristof, Chief Executive 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.








Dated:  October 20, 2009








By:      /s/ Larry Kristof


Larry Kristof


President, Chief Executive Officer
EXHIBIT 11


                         COMMUNITY FINANCIAL CORPORATION
                           For the Three Months Ended

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                  September 30, 1998              September 30, 1997
                            ------------------------------  ------------------------------
                                       Weighted                        Weighted
                                       Average   Per-Share             Average   Per Share
                             Income     Shares     Amount    Income     Shares     Amount
                            --------  ---------  ---------  --------  ---------  ---------
<S>                         <C>       <C>          <C>      <C>       <C>          <C>
Basic EPS

Income available to
 common stockholders .....  $373,143  2,569,837    $0.14    $329,204  2,550,746    $0.13

Effect of Dilutive
  Securities

Options ..................        --     20,494       --          --      15,248      --

Diluted EPS

Income available to
  common stockholders ....  $373,143  2,590,331    $0.14    $329,204  2,565,994    $0.13
</TABLE>


                         COMMUNITY FINANCIAL CORPORATION
                            For the Six Months Ended

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                  September 30, 1998              September 30, 1997
                            ------------------------------  ------------------------------
                                       Weighted                        Weighted
                                       Average   Per-Share             Average   Per Share
                             Income     Shares     Amount    Income     Shares     Amount
                            --------  ---------  ---------  --------  ---------  ---------
<S>                         <C>       <C>          <C>      <C>       <C>          <C>
Basic EPS

Income available to
 common stockholders .....  $879,503  2,567,181    $0.34    $824,377  2,550,728    $0.33

Effect of Dilutive
  Securities

Options ..................        --     37,740       --          --      15,651      --

Diluted EPS

Income available to
  common stockholders ....  $879,503  2,604,921    $0.34    $824,377  2,566,379    $0.33
</TABLE>
#### Ernestine Engler, Respondent, v Mark Kalmanowitz et al., Appellants.

[876 NYS2d 366]

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Walter B. Tolub, J.), entered August 1, 2008, which denied defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, and the motion granted. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment in favor of defendants dismissing the complaint.

Defendants in this legal malpractice action demonstrated plaintiff could not prove that but for their alleged negligence, she would have prevailed on the merits in the underlying litigation *(see e.g. Davis v Klein,*88 NY2d 1008 [1996]). Plaintiff alleged that Celebrity Cruise Lines had an open seam in its carpet, which created a tripping hazard when pressure was applied from pedestrian traffic. She failed, however, by either her witnesses or her expert, to show that defendants had notice of this allegedly defective condition. Witnesses for both sides testified that this open seam was not visibly noticeable *(see Cooper v Kelner & Kelner,*45 AD3d 323 [2007]). Plaintiffs expert’s attestation that the carpet’s adhesive had lost its holding strength over time, causing the seam to open, was insufficient to establish notice, since it failed to show that the alleged defect was visible and apparent for a sufficient period of time to permit the ship operators to discover and remedy it *(see Peffers v Hilton Hotels Corp.,*279 AD2d 386 [2001]). Concur—Tom, J.P., Mazzarelli, Nardelli, Catterson and Moskowitz, JJ.
Exhibit 99.1



Annual CEO Certification

(Section 303A.12 (a) of the New York Stock Exchange Listed Company Manual)



As the Chief Executive Officer of Burlington Northern Santa Fe Corporation, and as required by Section 303A.12(a) of the New York Stock Exchange
Listed Company Manual, I hereby certify that as of the date hereof I am not aware of any violation by the Company of NYSEs Corporate Governance listing standards, other than has been notified to the Exchange pursuant to Section 303A.12(b)
and disclosed as an attachment hereto.



|                                               
|-----------------------------------------------
|/s/ Matthew K. Rose                            
|Matthew K. Rose                                
|Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer
|May 19, 2005                                   



[No
attachment accompanied this Annual CEO Certification.]
* 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. 97-30748

Summary Calendar

 

CURLEY CHAVALIER,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

CRIMINAL JUSTICE FACILITY OF IBERIA PARISH;

NATHANIEL MITCHELL; DAN DAVID, WARDEN; SIDNEY 

HEBERT, SHERIFF; ERROL ANTOINE ROMO ROMERO, 

SHERIFF; ROBERT GREEN; AL MERITT,

Defendants-Appellees.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Louisiana

USDC No. 96-CV-1930

- - - - - - - - - -

August 25, 1998

Before JOLLY, BENAVIDES, and PARKER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Curley Chavalier appeals the dismissal of his civil rights

action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for alleged torture and abuse which

occurred while he was incarcerated at Iberia Parish Criminal

Justice Facility. Chavalier argues that the district court erred

in granting the defendants’ motion for summary judgment and

dismissing his action as time-barred. He contends that the

doctrine of contra non valentem agere nulla currit praescripto
No. 97-30748 

-2-

operates to suspend limitations and make this action timely. He

also argues that the district court erred in excluding expert

testimony which he submitted in opposition to summary judgment. 

We have reviewed the record and the briefs of the parties

and affirm substantially for the reasons given by the district

court. See Chavalier v. Criminal Justice Facility of Iberia

Parish, 96-CV-1930 (W.D. La. June 18, 1997). Chavalier has

failed to meet his burden of establishing that there is a genuine

issue of material fact, or that the district court erred in its

evidentiary or legal holdings. FED. R. CIV. P. 56(e); Melton v.

Teachers Ins. & Annuity Ass’n of America, 114 F.3d 557, 559 (5th

Cir. 1997). 

AFFIRMED.
September 27, 1996



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

Re:  Issuance and Sale of 3,213,028 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 3,213,028 shares of the Company, 
aggregating the sales of two separate series (the "Shares") during the period 
July 1, 1995 through June 30, 1996 inclusive ("Fiscal 1996").  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 1996.

          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 1996, 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
May
17, 2016


 


To
the Members of the Board of Directors of


EMRISE
Corporation,


 


This
letter shall serve as formal notice of my resignation, effective immediately, from my position as a member of the Board of Directors
of EMRISE Corporation (the “Company”), and all other positions with the Company to which I have been assigned, regardless
of whether I served in such capacity. The resignation is not the result of any disagreement with the Company on any matter relating
to the Company’s operations, polices or practices.


 


	Sincerely,	 
	 	 
	/s/
    Otis Baskin	 
	Otis
    Baskin
Gregory Lee GRAY, petitioner, v. CALIFORNIA.

No. 16-6153.

Supreme Court of the United States

Nov. 28, 2016.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.
[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 118 (Tuesday, June 19, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Page 32939]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-15404]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Office of the Secretary


Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request

ACTION: Notice.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Department of Defense has submitted to OMB for clearance, the 
following proposal for collection of information under the provisions 
of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35).
    Title and OMB Number: Defense Federal Administration Supplement 
(DFARS) Supplement Part 236, Construction and Architect-Engineer 
Contracts, and Related Clauses at 252.236; OMB Number 0704-0255.
    Type of Request: Extension.
    Number of Respondents: 2,710.
    Responses Per Respondents: 1.
    Annual Responses: 7,740.
    Average Burden Per Response: 101 hours.
    Needs and Uses: Department of Defense contracting officers need 
this information to evaluate contractor proposals for contract 
modifications; to determine that a contractor has removed obstructions 
to navigation; to review contractor requests for payment for 
mobilization and preparatory work; to determine reasonableness of costs 
allocated to mobilization and demobilization; and to determine 
eligibility for the 20 percent evaluation preference for United States 
firms in the award of some oversea construction contracts.
    Affected Public: Business or Other For-Profit.
    Frequency: On Occasion.
    Respondent's Obligation: Required to Obtain or Retain Benefits.
    OMB Desk Officer: Mr. David M. Pritzker.
    Written comments and recommendations on the proposed information 
collection should be sent to Mr. Pritzker at the Office of Management 
and Budget, Desk Officer for DoD, Room 10236, New Executive Office 
Building, Washington, DC 20503.
    DOD Clearance Officer: Mr. Robert Cushing.
    Written requests for copies of the information collection proposal 
should be sent to Mr. Cushing, WHS/DIOR, 1215 Jefferson Davis Highway, 
Suite 1204, Arlington, VA 22202-4302.

    Dated: June 12, 2001.
Patricia L. Toppings,
Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
[FR Doc. 01-15404 Filed 6-18-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 5001-08-M
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 Annual Report of CyberSource
Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-K for the period ending December 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Michael A. Walsh, President and Chief Executive
Officer of the Company, certify as of the date hereof, solely for purposes of 18 U.S.C. Section 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 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 at the dates and for
the periods indicated.
| | --- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                        |  |  |  |  |  |                      |  |                                                       
|----------------------- |  |  |  |  |  | -------------------- |  | ------------------------------------------------------
|                        |  |  | 
|Date: February 26, 2010 |  |  |  |  |  | /s/ Michael A. Walsh
|                        |  |  |  |  |  |                      |  | Michael A. Walsh President
and Chief Executive Officer

This certification is not deemed filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission and is not
to be incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company under the Securities Act of 1933 or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (whether made before or after the date of the Report), irrespective of any general incorporation language
contained in such filing.
TERRY DIXON,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO 

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND 

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D15-2326

_____________________________/

Opinion filed September 22, 2016.

An appeal from the Circuit Court for Duval County.

Mallory D. Cooper, Judge.

Diana L. Johnson of Johnson and Lufrano, P.A., Jacksonville, for Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Sharon S. Traxler, Assistant Attorney 

General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

ROBERTS, C.J., WETHERELL and BILBREY, JJ., CONCUR.
Exhibit 32.1



CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER

PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350



I, Francis E. Wilde, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that
the Quarterly Report of Tarantella, Inc. on Form 10-Q/A for the fiscal quarter ended December 31, 2003 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such
Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q/A fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and results of operations of Tarantella, Inc.



By:

/s/ Francis E. WildeName: Francis E. WildeTitle: Chief Executive Officer(Principal Executive Officer)July 19, 2004
##### 



Exhibit 31.2
 CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO RULES 13A-14 AND 15D-14
OF THE SECURITIES ACT OF 1934
  1.
    
    I have reviewed this Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2006 of Meadow Valley Corporation (the Report);2.
    
    Based on my knowledge, the 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 the Report;3.
    
    Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in the Report, fairly present in all material respects the
financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and
for, the periods presented in the Report;4.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer(s) 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 we 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 the Report is being prepared;b)
    
    Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure
controls and procedures and presented in the Report our conclusions about the
effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the
period covered by the Report based on such evaluation; andc)
    
    Disclosed in the Report any change in the registrants internal
control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most
recent fiscal annual (the registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an
annual report) 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(s) and I have disclosed, based on our
most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the
registrants auditors and the audit committee of the 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; andb)
    
    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: March 30, 2007
    
    /s/ David D. Doty

David D. DotyChief Financial Officer
Dear 

CFTC STAFF INTERPRETATIVE 

· LETTER # 7f.t; -!l.· 

COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COJV\MISSION 

2033 K Street, N.W., VYashinglon, D.C. 20581 

Jvlay 4, 1976 

This is in response to your letter of April 27, 1976, with 

which you submitted, pursuant tO· section 5a(l2) of the 

Connnodity Exchange Act ("Act 11 ), proposed amendments to 

New York Cocoa Exchange,. Inc. ( 11Exchange") Trade Rule 3 

relating to daily price limits for cocoq. Trade Rule 3 

presently provides that the daily price limit for cocoa 

is $.02 per pound above or below: the previous business . day's ·clearing price or, if no clearing price has been 

established, from the price of the first transaction. The 

Exchange proposes to amend Trade Rule 3: by increasing· the.· 

daily price limits for cocoa from $.02 to $.04 per pound and by limiting cocoa's daily trading range in any contract month to $.04. The Exchange explained in its April 27 

letter that the proposed amendment to Trade Rule 3 is in 

response to recent pressures on prices for cocoa futures 

traded at both the London.Cocoa Terminal Market and the 

Exchange and is designed as an interim measure until the 

.Exchange submits to the Commission and receives section 

Sa(12) approval of a variable pri.ce limit rule for cocoa. 

Because the concept of a daily trading range with varying 

parameters depending on the lowest or the highest previous price of any contract month on that trading day is a concept unique to the Exchange, it wi11 require further·study before the Division can make a recommendation to the 

Commission respecting approval of the proposal. Neverthe~ 

less, the Division wtll not recormnend, fo·r a period of 

' \. .. . . . 
\· 

-· 2 -

sixty (60) days, that the Commiss·ion ·institute enforcement 

action against the Exchange if the Exchange irnplements the 

proposed amendment without Conrrnission approval. This should 

give the Exchange adequate time to adopt a variable limits 

rule replacing the proposed interim'rule. 

... 

Sincerely, 

~4-- Thomas A. Russo 

Director 

~ivision of Trading and Harkets