alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
II-00598

From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

Bruce sims <saexodus@cox.net>

Thursday, December 2, 2010 1:46 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.

Bruce sims

211 N.Citrus,#104

Escondido, CA 92027-3443
# C_2010080EN.01001201.xml

| 27.3.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 80/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 80/12

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Stuttgart (Germany) lodged on 31 December 2009 — Andreas Michael Seeger v Generalstaatsanwaltschaft Stuttgart

(Case C-554/09)

2010/C 80/20

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Referring court

Oberlandesgericht Stuttgart

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Andreas Michael Seeger

Appellant:

Respondent: Generalstaatsanwaltschaft Stuttgart

Respondent:

Question referred

Question referred

Can the term ‘materials’ in the second indent of Article 13(d) of Regulation (EC) No 561/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 March 2006 (1) be interpreted as also capable of including packaging materials, such as empty drinks bottles (empties), carried by a wine and drinks merchant who runs a shop, makes deliveries to his customers once a week and, while doing so, collects the empties to take them to his wholesaler?

1

---

(1)  OJ 2006 L 102, p. 1.

1

---
---

CERTIFICATION

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, the undersigned officer of Azco
Mining Inc. (the Company) hereby certifies that the Companys Quarterly Report
on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended December 31, 2005 (the Report) fully
complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in the Report
fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results
of operations of the Company.

|Date: August 2, 2006 | By: /s/ Pierce
      Carson                       
|-------------------- | --------------------------------------------------
|                     | Pierce Carson                                     
|                     | Chief
      Executive Officer, President, Director
|                     | and
      Principal Accounting Officer            

---
# C_2012366EN.01002901.xml

| 24.11.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 366/29 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.11.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 366/29

---

Judgment of the General Court of 10 October 2012 — Ningbo Yonghong Fasteners v Council

(Case T-150/09) (1)

1

(Dumping - Imports of certain iron or steel fasteners originating in China - Market economy treatment - Time-limit for adopting the decision on that treatment - Manifest error of assessment - Burden of proof - Adjustment to costs - Article 2(5) and (7)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 384/96 (now Article 2(5) and (7)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009))

2012/C 366/54

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Ningbo Yonghong Fasteners Co. Ltd (Zhouhan, China) (represented by: F. Graafsma and J. Cornelis, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented: initially by J.-P. Hix, acting as Agent, assisted by G. Berrisch and G. Wolf, lawyers, and subsequently by J.-P. Hix and B. Driessen, acting as Agents, assisted by Berrisch)

Defendant:

Interveners in support of the defendant: European Commission (represented by: H. van Vliet and C. Clyne, acting as Agents); and European Industrial Fasteners Institute AISBL (EIFI) (Brussels, Belgium) (represented: initially by J. Bourgeois, Y. van Gerven and E. Wäktare, and subsequently by Bourgeois, lawyers)

Interveners in support of the defendant:

Re:

Re:

Application for annulment of Council Regulation (EC) No 91/2009 of 26 January 2009 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of certain iron or steel fasteners originating in the People’s Republic of China (OJ 2009 L 29, p. 1).

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Ningbo Yonghong Fasteners Co. Ltd to bear its own costs and to pay those of the Council of the European Union and of the European Industrial Fasteners Institute AISBL; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Ningbo Yonghong Fasteners Co. Ltd to bear its own costs and to pay those of the Council of the European Union and of the European Industrial Fasteners Institute AISBL;

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

3.

Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 141, 20.6.2009.

1

---
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 17-2127

ATTORNEY GRIEVANCE COMMISSION OF MARYLAND,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

JASON EDWARD RHEINSTEIN,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. 

Marvin J. Garbis, Senior District Judge. (1:17-cv-02550-MJG)

Submitted: January 28, 2019 Decided: February 5, 2019

Before WILKINSON and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed in part and affirmed in part by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Jason E. Rheinstein, Appellant Pro Se. Brian E. Frosh, Attorney General of Maryland, 

Michele J. McDonald, Assistant Attorney General, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY 

GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Jason Edward Rheinstein appeals the district court’s orders granting the Attorney 

Grievance Commission of Maryland’s motion to remand for lack of federal jurisdiction 

and denying Rheinstein’s emergency motion to stay remand pending appeal or for 

reconsideration or for appropriate relief. We dismiss in part and affirm in part the district 

court’s orders denying the notice of removal and remanding the case to state court and 

denying Rheinstein’s emergency motion.

“An order remanding a case to the State court from which it was removed is not 

reviewable on appeal or otherwise, except that an order remanding a case to the State 

court from which it was removed pursuant to [28 U.S.C. §§ 1442 or 1443 (2012)] shall be 

reviewable by appeal or otherwise.” 28 U.S.C. § 1447(d) (2012). Rheinstein removed 

the action pursuant to the federal officer removal statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1442, and, pursuant 

to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1441(a (2012), on the ground that it presented a federal question. 

A defendant seeking to remove a case under Section 1442 must 

establish (1) [he] is a federal officer or a person acting under that officer; 

(2) a colorable federal defense; and (3) the suit is for an act under color of 

office, which requires a causal nexus between the charged conduct and 

asserted official authority. 

Northrup Grumman Tech. Servs., Inc. v. DynCorp Int’l LLC, 865 F.3d 181, 186 (4th Cir. 

2017) (internal citations and quotation marks omitted). Because Rheinstein failed to 

meet his burden of establishing that he met these criteria, we affirm the portion of the 

district court’s orders remanding for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under the federal 

officer removal statute and denying the emergency motion. The remainder of the appeal 
3

must be dismissed because this court lacks jurisdiction to review the district court’s order.

See 28 U.S.C. § 1447(d). 

We therefore dismiss the appeal in part and affirm in part. We dispense with oral 

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the 

materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED IN PART,

AFFIRMED IN PART
Exhibit 31.2



CERTIFICATION



I, Lawrence Rychlak, certify that:



1. I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Avatech Solutions, Inc.;



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



3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included 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 periods presented in this report;



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



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



(b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the Registrants disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions
about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and



(c) Disclosed in this report any change in the Registrants internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the
Registrants most recent fiscal quarter (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 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 Registrants board of directors (or persons performing the
equivalent function):



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



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



|                        |  |  |  |                                           
|----------------------- |  |  |  | ------------------------------------------
|                        |  | 
|Date: February 14, 2006 |  |  |  | /s/ Lawrence Rychlak                      
|                        |  |  |  | Lawrence Rychlak                          
|                        |  |  |  | Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
Jeremy DAVIS, petitioner, v. Cindy GRIFFITH, Warden.

No. 16-6480.

Supreme Court of the United States

Jan. 9, 2017.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Missouri denied.
II-O0501

From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

Loren Richards <srichl @msn.com>

Thursday, December 2, 2010 4:19 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.

Loren Richards

3682 Los Angeles Avenue

Warren, MI 48091
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                 6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                               0
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                               10,788,025
<ALLOWANCES>                                   274,000
<INVENTORY>                                 11,521,422
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            22,742,032
<PP&E>                                      27,111,922
<DEPRECIATION>                               5,173,530
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              50,597,262
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       23,939,843
<BONDS>                                      9,094,579
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                       10,037,500
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        66,218
<OTHER-SE>                                   7,459,122
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                50,597,262
<SALES>                                     38,906,644
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            38,906,644
<CGS>                                       31,126,329
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               31,126,329
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             5,895,018
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 9,227
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           1,385,292
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                490,778
<INCOME-TAX>                                    50,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            440,778
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   440,778
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .01
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .01
        



</TABLE>
II-00654

From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

Will Koenitzer <shonto88tc@comcast.net>

Thursday, December 2, 2010 12:54 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.

Will Koenitzer

4240 SW Fairhaven Drive

Corvallis, OR 97333
JGJ MERCHANDISE CORP., petitioner, CITY OF NEW YORK, NEW YORK, et al.

No. 17-844.

Supreme Court of the United States

Feb. 20, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals of New York denied.
Christopher Linus FRIES, petitioner, v. FLORIDA.

No. 15-9192.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 3, 2016.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District denied.
II-00480

From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

David Knutzen <keepsake@chorus.net>

Thursday, December 2, 2010 5:42 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.

David Knutzen

5096 Tuggle Lane

Waunakee, WI 53597
In the Matter of DISBARMENT OF Raymond Leland EICHENBERGER, III.

No. D-3004.

Supreme Court of the United States

Feb. 20, 2018.

Disbarment order entered.
UNITED STA TES OF AMERICA 

Before the 

COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION 

CHAZON QTA QUANTITATIVE TRADING 

TRADING ARTISTS, LLC 

0 

""O..,, 

::o::!! 

0("') 

nr'Tl 

l""'lo 

,.., "Tl 

0 

--o X:;o 

e>o 

Cl>n 

(")1"11 

r-~ 

rr10 

:::o- :xi5 

en 

and CFTC Docket No. CRAA 16-0 I 

LAWRENCE I. FEJOK WU 

v. 

NATIONAL FUTURES ASSOCIATION 

ORDER OF SUMMARY 

AFFIRMANCE 

~ 

-.... 

i! 

N 

C> 

~-

-

0 

.. 

U1 

U1 

Upon review of the record and the parties' appellate submissions, we have determined 

that the findings and conclusions of the National Futures Association are supported by the weight 

of the evidence, and the choice of sanction is neither excessive nor oppressive in light of the 

violation and public interest; we therefore adopt them. We also find that none of the arguments 

on appeal present important questions oflaw or policy. Accordingly, we summarily affirm the 

decision of the National Futures Association without opinion. 1 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

By the Commission (Acting Chairman GIANCARLO and Commissioner BOWEN.) 

Christop 

c/2Jia 

er J. Rirkpatrk 

L.~ Secretary of the Commission 

Commodity Futures Trading Commission 

Dated: June 20, 2017 

1 Pursuant to Commission Regulation I 7 I .33(b), 17 C.F.R. § I 71.33(b), neither the initial decision nor the 

Commission's order of summary affimance shall serve as a Commission precedent in other proceedings. 

::0 . m 

(") 

fT1 

-

< 

fT1 

0 

(") 

.., 

-t 

(')
# C_2009256EN.01000703.xml

| 24.10.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 256/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.10.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 256/7

---

Action brought on 22 July 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Spain

(Case C-281/09)

2009/C 256/14

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: L. Lozano Palacios and C. Vrignon, Agents)

Applicant:

Defendant: Kingdom of Spain

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | Declare that, by allowing flagrant, repeated and serious infringements of the rules laid down in Article 18(2) of Council Directive of 3 October 1989 on the coordination of certain provisions laid down by law, regulation or administrative action in Member States concerning the pursuit of television broadcasting activities (89/552/EEC (1)), the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 3(2) of that directive, read in conjunction with Article 10 of the EC Treaty; |
| --- | --- |

—

Declare that, by allowing flagrant, repeated and serious infringements of the rules laid down in Article 18(2) of Council Directive of 3 October 1989 on the coordination of certain provisions laid down by law, regulation or administrative action in Member States concerning the pursuit of television broadcasting activities (89/552/EEC (1)), the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 3(2) of that directive, read in conjunction with Article 10 of the EC Treaty;

1

| — | Order the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

The Commission submits that the restrictive interpretation which the Kingdom of Spain gives to the concept of advertising spots — which results in certain advertising practices (in particular, infomercials, telepromotion spots, sponsorship spots and micro-advertising spots) not being regarded as advertising spots, and therefore not being subject to the hourly limits imposed by Directive 89/552/EEC — infringes that directive.

---

(1)  OJ 1989 L 298, p. 23.

1

---