alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
II-01079

From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

Dennis Feichtinger <djfeich@aol.com>

Thursday, December 2, 2010 8:24 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.

Dennis Feichtinger

2711 Riverside

Trenton, MI 48183
Victor EDWARDS, petitioner, v. Julie L. JONES, Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections.

No. 15-9563.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 3, 2016.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Florida denied.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                                        <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                    9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                       1,024,947
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,024,947
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          170,961
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                     853,986
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,024,947
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                79,666
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,457
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (81,123)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (81,123)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (81,123)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (.47)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.47)


</TABLE>
Gilles K. KOUASSI, petitioner, v. WESTERN ILLINOIS UNIVERSITY, et al.

No. 16-648.

Supreme Court of the United States

Jan. 17, 2017.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit denied.
#### Frank Peeler *v.*The State.

A First Continuance is a matter of right when the requirements of the statute have been complied with, and no fact discrediting or falsifying the affidavit is shown; and under such circumstances a refusal of the continuance is error.

Appeal from the District Court of Johnson. Tried below before the Hon. D. M. Prendergast.

No brief for the appellant has come to the hands of the reporters.

*H. H. Boone,*Attorney General, and *W. B. Dunham,*for the State.

White, J.

The indictment in this case, which is a good one, was framed under Article 321 of the Penal Code (Pasc. Dig., Art. 1946), which is as follows : “ If any person shall convey into any jail any disguise, instrument, arms, or any other thing useful to aid any prisoner in escaping, with intent to facilitate the escape of a prisoner lawfully detained in such jail on an accusation of felony, or shall, in any other manner calculated to effect the object, aid in the escape of a prisoner legally confined in jail, he shall be punished by imprisonment in the penitentiary not less than two nor more than five years.”

Defendant made an application for a continuance, which was overruled by the court, and bill of exceptions saved. It is admitted by the attorney general that the application shows due diligence to obtain the testimony of the witness. We are of the same opinion. Where such is the case the rule is, when the application for continuance complies with the requirements of the statute, no discretion exists in granting it. *Dinkens*v. *The State,*42 Texas, 250. And it is error to refuse an application for a first continuance *456which complies with the statutory requirements. *Austin*v. *The State,*42 Texas, 345; *Skaro*v. *The State,*43 Texas, 88.

“When the requisites of the statute which entitle a party to the continuance of his cause have been complied with, and no fact is shown to discredit or falsify the affidavit which shows them, the continuance becomes a matter of right to him who asks it.” *Shackleford*v. *The State,*43 Texas, 138.

For the error of the court in refusing to grant the continuance in the case the judgment is reversed and the cause remanded.

*Reversed and remanded.*
[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 123 (Tuesday, June 26, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Page 33989]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-15992]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Coast Guard

[USCG-2001-9970]


Great Lakes Pilotage Advisory Committee; Vacancies

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DOT.

ACTION: Request for applications.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is soliciting applications for appointment as 
a member who has a background in finance or accounting to the Great 
Lakes Pilotage Advisory Committee (GLPAC). GLPAC advises the Coast 
Guard on regulations and policies for the pilotage of vessels on the 
Great Lakes.

DATES: Application forms should reach us on or before July 26, 2001.

ADDRESSES: You may request an application form by writing to Commandant 
(G-MW), U.S. Coast Guard, 2100 Second Street SW., Washington, DC 20593-
0001; by calling 202-267-6164; or by faxing 202-267-4700. Send your 
application in written form to the above address. This notice and the 
application form are available on the Internet at http://dms.dot.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Frank Flyntz, Executive Director of 
GLPAC, or Tom Lawler, Assistant to the Executive Director, telephone 
202-267-1068 or 202-267-1241, fax 202-267-4700.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Great Lakes Pilotage Advisory Committee 
is a Federal advisory committee under 5 U.S.C. App. 2. It advises the 
Assistant Commandant for Marine Safety and Environmental Protection on 
matters relating to Great Lakes pilotage. It may advise, consult with, 
report to, and make recommendations to the Secretary of the Department 
of Transportation and may make these recommendations available to the 
Congress.
    GLPAC meets at the call of the Secretary at least once a year. It 
may also meet at the call of a majority of its members. Its 
subcommittees and working groups may meet to consider specific problems 
as required.
    GLPAC is composed of seven members as follows:
    (a) The President of a pilots' association in each of the three 
Great Lakes pilotage districts.
    (b) One member who represents the interests of vessel operators 
that contract for Great Lakes pilotage services.
    (c) One member who represents the interests of Great Lakes ports.
    (d) One member who represents the interests of shippers whose 
cargoes are transported through Great Lakes ports; and
    (e) One member.
    The candidate for appointment by the Secretary of Transportation 
must be recommended to the Secretary by a unanimous vote of the members 
serving on the Committee.
    In support of the policy of the Department of Transportation on 
gender and ethnic diversity, we encourage qualified women and members 
of minority groups to apply.

    Dated: June 1, 2001.
Jeffrey P. High,
Director, Waterways Management.
[FR Doc. 01-15992 Filed 6-25-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-15-P
<PAGE>

                                                                    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 K&F Industries, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2005 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Kenneth
M. Schwartz, 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; and

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

/s/ KENNETH M. SCHWARTZ
-----------------------------------------
Kenneth M. Schwartz
President and Chief Executive Officer
May 13, 2005
# C_2010195EN.01000201.xml

| 17.7.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 195/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.7.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 195/2

---

Judgement of the Court (Third Chamber) of 20 May 2010 — European Commission v Republic of Poland

(Case C-228/09) (1)

1

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations - VAT - Directive 2006/112/EC - Articles 78, 79, 83 and 86 - Taxable amount - Sale of a car - Inclusion in the taxable amount of a duty applicable to non-registered cars)

2010/C 195/02

Language of the case: Polish

Parties

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: D. Triantafyllou and A. Stobiecka-Kuik, acting as Agents)

Applicant:

Defendant: Republic of Poland (represented by: M. Dowgielewicz, M. Jarosz and A. Rutkowska, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Infringement of Articles 78, 79, 83 and 86 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1) — Sale of a motor vehicle — Inclusion in the taxable amount of a duty payable on the registration of a vehicle

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the application. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the application.

| 2. | Orders the European Commission to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the European Commission to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 233 of 26.9.2009.

1

---
Gary FRAKES, petitioner, v. Dustin OTT, et al.

No. 16-696.

Supreme Court of the United States

Jan. 23, 2017.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied.
Exhibit No. 32.1



                   CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
                    AND CHIEF FINANCIAL 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 filing of American Asset Management Corporation
(the Company) Annual Report on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended September
30, 2004 with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
Report), I,  Richard G. Gagliardi, the Chief Executive Officer and Chief
Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certify, to the best of my knowledge
and belief, 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; and

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



                                 _/s/ Richard G. Gagliardi____________
                                 Richard G. Gagliardi
                                 Chief Executive and Financial Officer

Date:  November 18, 2004
**Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 12 May 2011 – Commission v Austria**

**(Case C-441/09)**

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Value added tax – Directive 2006/112/EC – Application of a reduced rate – Live animals normally intended for use in the preparation of foodstuffs for human and animal consumption – Supply, importation and acquisition of certain live animals, in particular horses

Tax provisions – Harmonisation of laws – Turnover taxes – Common system of value added tax – Discretionary power of the Member States to apply a reduced rate to certain supplies of goods and services (Council Directive
2006/112, Arts 96 and 98 and Annex III) (see paras 40, 43-50)

**Re**

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Breach of Articles 96 and 98, read in conjunction with Annex III, of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1) – Reduced rate – Supply, importation and acquisition of certain live animals (in particular horses) not intended for the preparation or production of foodstuffs for human or animal consumption. |

**Operative part**

The Court:

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 1. | | Declares that, by applying a reduced rate of value added tax to all supplies, imports and intra-Community acquisitions of horses, the Republic of Austria has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 96 and 98 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax, read in conjunction with Annex III thereto; |

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 2. | | Orders the Republic of Austria to pay the costs; |

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 3. | | Orders the French Republic and the Kingdom of the Netherlands to bear their own costs. |
<PAGE>

                                                                  Exhibit 10.182
[LOGO]
TYCO
capital
                         [LETTERHEAD OF TYCO CAPITAL]

                                                                  March 15, 2002

          READY-MIX, INC.
          3430 E FLAMINGO RD
          LAS VEGAS, NV 89121-5003

             RE:  Rewrite Account #00019122-00043835 Reference is made to the
             Lease Agreement dated February 24, 1997 between READY-MIX, INC.,
             its leasee, and The CIT Group/Equipment Financing.


               You have requested and we have approved your request to term out
          your residual for 36 months. Your new payment stream will be as
          follows;

          Thirty-six(36) monthly payments of $10,979.72, beginning on April 1,
          2002 plus applicable taxes and continuing on the same day of each
          month until the maturity of this loan.
          One (1) monthly payments of $1.00, plus applicable taxes, which shall
          be the final payment due on April 1, 2005.

               This renewal extension agreement and the other documents
          referenced herein or contemplated hereby represent the final agreement
          between the parties and may not be contradicted by evidence or prior,
          contemporaneous or subsequent oral agreements of the parties hereto.
          There are no unwritten oral agreements among the parties. Except as
          modified herein, the agreement and all documents executed in
          connection therewith shall continue in full force and effect.

               If the foregoing is acceptable to you, would you please indicate
          so by signing this letter where indicated below then fax a copy to us
          at 480-784-9514 and return the original via overnight mail to us.

          Sincerely,

          David Fanchi
          Portfolio Specialist
          480-784-2313 Phone
          480-858-1494 Fax

          By:           Kenneth D. Nelson
                        ---------------------
          Print Name:   KENNETH D. NELSON
                        ---------------------
          Title:        VICE PRESIDENT
                        ---------------------
          Dated:        3-18-02
                        ---------------------
Jeremy Benjamin FERREIRA, petitioner, v. CALIFORNIA.

No. 16-6655.

Supreme Court of the United States

Jan. 9, 2017.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeal of California, Second Appellate District denied.
# C_2009282EN.01002101.xml

| 21.11.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 282/21 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.11.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 282/21

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bayerischer Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 14 August 2009 — Mensch und Natur AG v Freistaat Bayern

(Case C-327/09)

2009/C 282/38

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Referring court

Bayerischer Verwaltungsgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Mensch und Natur AG

Applicant:

Defendant: Freistaat Bayern

Defendant:

Questions referred

Questions referred

| 1. | Does the fourth paragraph of Article 249 EC preclude a Commission decision which, according to its wording, is addressed to a particular person from being interpreted as being also binding on other undertakings which, according to the spirit and purpose of the decision, are to be treated in the same way? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Does the fourth paragraph of Article 249 EC preclude a Commission decision which, according to its wording, is addressed to a particular person from being interpreted as being also binding on other undertakings which, according to the spirit and purpose of the decision, are to be treated in the same way?

| 2. | Is the Commission Decision of 22 February 2000 refusing the placing on the market of “Stevia rebaudiana Bertoni: plants and dried leaves” as a novel food or novel food ingredient (2000/196/EC), (1) under Article 1 of which Stevia rebaudiana Bertoni: plants and dried leaves may not be placed on the Community market as a food or food ingredient, also binding on the claimant which at present places “Stevia rebaudiana Bertoni: plants and dried leaves” on the Community market? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Is the Commission Decision of 22 February 2000 refusing the placing on the market of “Stevia rebaudiana Bertoni: plants and dried leaves” as a novel food or novel food ingredient (2000/196/EC), (1) under Article 1 of which Stevia rebaudiana Bertoni: plants and dried leaves may not be placed on the Community market as a food or food ingredient, also binding on the claimant which at present places “Stevia rebaudiana Bertoni: plants and dried leaves” on the Community market?

1

---

(1)  Commission Decision of 22 February 2000 refusing the placing on the market of ‘Stevia rebaudiana Bertoni: plants and dried leaves’ as a novel food or novel food ingredient under Regulation (EC) No 258/97 of the European Parliament and of the Council (notified under document number C(2000) 77); OJ 2000 L 61, p. 14.

1

---
Audrey L. MICKEY, petitioner, v. Judge SPANAGAL, et al.

No. 16-6457.

Supreme Court of the United States

Jan. 9, 2017.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit denied.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of the Treasury

###### Office of Thrift Supervision

          - [AC-1: OTS Nos. H-3697 and 14379]

                    Notice is hereby given that on January 12, 2001, the Director, Examination Policy, Office of Thrift Supervision, or                           ( print page 6764)                        his designee, acting pursuant to delegated authority, approved the application of BUCS Federal Bank, Owings Mills, Maryland, convert to the stock form of organization. Copies of the application are available for inspection at the Dissemination Branch, Office of Thrift Supervision, 1700 G Street, NW, Washington, DC 20552, and the Southeast Regional Office, Office of Thrift Supervision, 1475 Peachtree Street, NE., Atlanta, GA 30309.                

Dated: January 12, 2001.

Nadine Y. Washington,

Corporate Secretary.

[FR Doc. 01-1577  Filed 1-19-01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6720-01-M