alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
II-00332

From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

Lew Douglas <lpdouglas@gmail. com>

Friday, December 3, 2010 1:21 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.

Lew Douglas

5823 Patton St.

Oakland, CA 94618
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.6

                                  CERTIFICATION
                       PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
           AS ADOPTED BY SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

         I, James H. Tate, as Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
of Thermadyne Capital Corp. (the "Company") certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as adopted by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that
to my knowledge:

         (1) the accompanying Form 10-Q report for the period ending September
30, 2002 as filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (the
"Report") fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

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

Dated:  November 14, 2002

                                        /s/      James H. Tate
                                        ---------------------------------
                                        James H. Tate
                                        Senior Vice President and
                                        Chief Financial Officer of the
                                        Company
**Judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) of 29 September 2011 – New Yorker SHK Jeans v OHIM – Vallis K. – Vallis A. (FISHBONE)**

**(Case T-415/09)**

Community trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for registration of the Community word mark FISHBONE – Earlier national figurative mark FISHBONE BEACHWEAR – Relative ground for refusal – Partial refusal of registration – Genuine use of the earlier mark – Consideration of additional evidence – Statement of reasons – Proof of genuine use – Likelihood of confusion – Article 42(2) and (3) and Article 76(2) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 – Second sentence of Rule 22(2) of Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 – Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009 – First subparagraph and second subparagraph, heading (a), of Article 15(1) and Article 42(2), (3) and (5) of Regulation No
207/2009 – Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009

1.                     *Community trade mark – Observations of third parties and opposition – Examination of the opposition – Proof of use of the
earlier mark – Time-limit set by the Office – Submission of additional evidence after expiry of the time-limit where there
are new factors – Lawfulness (Commission Regulation No 2868/95, Art. 1, Rule 22(1)) (see paras 27, 31)*

2.                     *Community trade mark – Observations of third parties and opposition – Examination of the opposition – Proof of use of the
earlier mark – Genuine use – Concept – Criteria for assessment (Council Regulation No 207/09, Art. 42(2) and (3)) (see paras
51-53)*

3.                     *Community trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark – Relative grounds for refusal – Opposition
by the proprietor of an earlier identical or similar mark registered for identical or similar goods or services – Likelihood
of confusion with the earlier mark (Council Regulation No 207/09, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 87, 94, 97)*

**Re:**

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 30 July 2009 (Case R 1051/2008-1), concerning opposition proceedings between Vallis K. – Vallis A. & Co. OE and New Yorker SHK Jeans GmbH & Co. KG. |

**Operative part**

The Court:

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

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 2. | | Orders New Yorker SHK Jeans GmbH & Co. KG to pay the costs. |
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                           1,858
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    9,774
<ALLOWANCES>                                       655
<INVENTORY>                                     12,530
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                24,375
<PP&E>                                          17,919
<DEPRECIATION>                                  13,265
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  32,338
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           15,529
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                           51,268
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                    (36,969)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    32,338
<SALES>                                         21,431
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                21,431
<CGS>                                           12,912
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   12,912
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                12,250
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 682
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (4,463)
<INCOME-TAX>                                       128
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (4,591)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (4,591)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (.37)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.37)


</TABLE>
Kevin NARCISSE, petitioner, v. Burl CAIN, Warden.

No. 15-9436.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 3, 2016.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied.
II-00613

From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

James Luzenski <luzenski@netscape.net>

Thursday, December 2, 2010 1:31 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.

James Luzenski

2612 Sturla Dr

San Jose, CA 95148
# C_2009113EN.01004603.xml

| 16.5.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 113/46 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.5.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 113/46

---

Action brought on 6 March 2009 — Lopez Sanchez v Council

(Case F-19/09)

2009/C 113/97

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Carolina Lopez Sanchez (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: S. Orlandi, A. Coolen, J.-N. Louis, E. Marchal, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Defendant:

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Annulment of the decision not to promote the applicant to grade AST 3 in the 2008 promotion procedure and, so far as necessary, of the decisions to promote less deserving officials to that grade.

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Tribunal should:

| — | annul the decision of the appointing authority not to promote the applicant to grade AST 3 in the 2008 promotion procedure and, so far as necessary, the decisions to promote less deserving officials to that grade; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of the appointing authority not to promote the applicant to grade AST 3 in the 2008 promotion procedure and, so far as necessary, the decisions to promote less deserving officials to that grade;

| — | order the Council of the European Union to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Council of the European Union to pay the costs.

---
1 2 3

1 Telzer Sam Pricewaterhouse Coopers 1

2 Cheeseman Ann Ernst & Young 1

3 Jamroz Mike Deloitte & Touche 1

4 Flowers Rich Grant Thornton 1

5 Hague John McGladrey 1

6 Holloway Mark SIFMA / Goldman Sachs 1 2

7 Tirrell Bill SIFMA / Merrill Lynch 1 2

8 Cocco Alessandro JP Morgan 2

9 Flaherty Eileen Newedge 1 2

10 Downs Yvonne Jefferies 1 2

11 Rothman Howard Vision Financial Markets, LLC 1 2 3

12 De Leon William PIMCO 1

13 Thum William C. ICI / The Vanguard Group 2 3

14 Cooper Charley State Street Global Markets (eExchange) 2 3

15 Bagan Anne CME Group 1

16 Driscoll Dan NFA 1 2 3

17 Ramtahal Anand FINRA 1

18 Richards Steve PCAOB 1

19 Filler Ron NYU Law 1 2 3

20 Davis Warren Sutherland Asbill & Brennan 2 3

21 Kemp Todd National Grain and Feed Association 2 3

22 Richardson Bob RGRichardson Consulting 3

23 Ayotte-Brennan Christine Fidelity Management and Research 2 3

24 Bregasi Nevis ICI / MFS Investment Mgmt 2 3

25 Yeres David CIEBA / Clifford Chance 2 3

26 Hurst Steve Merchants Data Repository LLC 3

27 Dawley Mike FIA / Goldman Sachs 2 3

28 Perkins Chris Citi 3

29 Burke Maureen FIA / BAML 2 3

30 Foley Kevin FIA / Katten Muchin Rosenman 2 3

31 Lukken Walt FIA 2 3

32 Roe John L. BTR Trading Group, Inc. 3

33 Parke Ross Barclays Capital Inc 2

34 Taylor Kim CME Group 3

Name First Name Affiliation

Panel
John Joseph WILSON, petitioner, v. Juan CARLOS, et al.

No. 16-6372.

Supreme Court of the United States

Jan. 9, 2017.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit denied.
# C_2009090EN.01001702.xml

| 18.4.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 90/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.4.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 90/17

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Lietuvos Aukščiausiasis Teismas (Republic of Lithuania) lodged on 16 February 2009 — Kirin Amgen, Inc. v Lietuvos Respublikos valstybinis patentų biuras

(Case C-66/09)

2009/C 90/27

Language of the case: Lithuanian

Referring court

Referring court

Lietuvos Aukščiausiasis Teismas

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Claimant: Kirin Amgen, Inc.

Claimant:

Defendant: Lietuvos Respublikos valstybinis patentų biuras

Defendant:

Questions referred

Questions referred

| 1. | Is the date, referred to in Article 19(2) of Regulation No 1768/92, (1) upon which that regulation enters into force to be understood for Lithuania as the date of its accession to the European Union? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Is the date, referred to in Article 19(2) of Regulation No 1768/92, (1) upon which that regulation enters into force to be understood for Lithuania as the date of its accession to the European Union?

1

| 2. | Should the answer to the first question be in the affirmative, what is the relationship between Article 19 and Article 7 of Regulation No 1768/92 when calculating the six-month period and which of those articles is it necessary to apply in a case? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Should the answer to the first question be in the affirmative, what is the relationship between Article 19 and Article 7 of Regulation No 1768/92 when calculating the six-month period and which of those articles is it necessary to apply in a case?

| 3. | Did an authorisation to place a product on the market in the European Community enter into force unconditionally in the Republic of Lithuania from the date of its accession to the European Union? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Did an authorisation to place a product on the market in the European Community enter into force unconditionally in the Republic of Lithuania from the date of its accession to the European Union?

| 4. | Should the answer to the third question be in the affirmative, can the entry into force of the authorisation to place the product on the market be equated to its grant for the purposes of Article 3(b) of Regulation No 1768/92? |
| --- | --- |

4.

Should the answer to the third question be in the affirmative, can the entry into force of the authorisation to place the product on the market be equated to its grant for the purposes of Article 3(b) of Regulation No 1768/92?

entry into force

grant

---

(1)  Council Regulation (EEC) No 1768/92 of 18 June 1992 concerning the creation of a supplementary protection certificate for medicinal products (OJ 1992 L 182, p. 1).

1

---
Theodore LUCZAK, petitioner, v. Randy PFISTER, et al.

No. 17-7313.

Supreme Court of the United States

Feb. 20, 2018.

Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed *in forma pauperis* denied, and the petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit dismissed. See Rule 39.8.
II-00321

From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

Julie McCarthy <momsblues@comcast.net>

Friday, December 3, 2010 2:35 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.

Julie McCarthy

10169 Oak St

Westminster, CO 80021
H. Res. 235 

In the House of Representatives, U. S., 

March 12, 2009. 

Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule 

XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the 

Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of 

the bill (H.R. 1262) to amend the Federal Water Pollution 

Control Act to authorize appropriations for State water pollution control revolving funds, and for other purposes. The first 

reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. All points of order 

against consideration of the bill are waived except those arising under clause 9 or 10 of rule XXI. General debate shall 

be confined to the bill and shall not exceed one hour equally 

divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority 

member of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. After general debate the bill shall be considered for 

amendment under the five-minute rule. It shall be in order 

to consider as an original bill for the purpose of amendment 

under the five-minute rule the amendment in the nature of 

a substitute recommended by the Committee on Transpor-
2 

•HRES 235 EH 

tation and Infrastructure now printed in the bill. The committee amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be considered as read. All points of order against the committee 

amendment in the nature of a substitute are waived except 

those arising under clause 10 of rule XXI. Notwithstanding 

clause 11 of rule XVIII, no amendment to the committee 

amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be in order except those printed in the report of the Committee on Rules 

accompanying this resolution. Each such amendment may be 

offered only in the order printed in the report, may be offered 

only by a Member designated in the report, shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for the time specified in the 

report equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an 

opponent, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not 

be subject to a demand for division of the question in the 

House or in the Committee of the Whole. All points of order 

against such amendments are waived except those arising 

under clause 9 or 10 of rule XXI. At the conclusion of consideration of the bill for amendment the Committee shall rise 

and report the bill to the House with such amendments as 

may have been adopted. Any Member may demand a separate 

vote in the House on any amendment adopted in the Committee of the Whole to the bill or to the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute. The previous question 

shall be considered as ordered on the bill and amendments 
3 

•HRES 235 EH 

thereto to final passage without intervening motion except 

one motion to recommit with or without instructions. 

SEC. 2. House Resolutions 218, 219, and 229 are laid 

on the table. 

Attest: 

Clerk.
Anthony SULLY, petitioner, v. Ron DAVIS, Warden.

No. 16-6603.

Supreme Court of the United States

Jan. 23, 2017.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.
II-00626

From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

Elizabeth Patten <bethpatten@yahoo.com>

Thursday, December 2, 2010 1:13 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.

Elizabeth Patten

6960 Hazeltine Ave

Van Nuys, CA 91405
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 PW Eagle, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), I, Jerry A. Dukes, 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 results of operations of the Company.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Dated: May 6, 2005



/s/ Jerry A. DukesJerry A. DukesChief Executive Officer