alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Phase In – Real-Time Public Reporting Compliance Dates and Time Delays for Public 

(Reference § 43.5 and Appendix C to Part 43 for more Information Regarding Tim

Initial Compliance Date (except “Non-SDs/Non-MSPs”)July 16, 2012 (or 60 days after definitions)

+90 days +90 days +90 days 

Year 1=30 min.; After Year 1=15 min.Year 1=30 min.; After Year 1=15 min.

Year 1=30 min.; After Year 1=15 min. 

Year 1=30 min.; After Year 1=15 min.Year 1=30 min.; After Year 1=15 min.

Year 1=48 bus. hrs.; Year 2=36 bus. hrs.; After Y

SEF/DCMSD/MSP

Subj. to Mand. Clearing – Year 1=30 min.; After Year 1=15 min. •• Not Subj. to Mand. Clearing – Year 

Subj. to Mand. Clearing – Year 1=30 min.; After Year 1=15 min. •• Not Subj. to Mand. Clearing – Year 

Year 1=48 bus. hrs.; Year 2=36 bus. hrs.; After Y

Year 1=48 bus. hrs.; Year 2=36 bus. hrs.; After YYear 1=48 bus. hrs., Year 2=36 bus. hrs., After Y

Year 1=48 bus. hrs., Year 2=36 bus. hrs., After Y

77%10%

7%5%1%

Interest Rates

Approx. Notional % 

of Swap Market

FX

Other Commodity

Credit

Equity

SEF/DCMSD/MSP

SEF/DCMSD/MSPSEF/DCMSD/MSPSEF/DCMSD/MSP

Non-SD/Non-MSPNon-SD/Non-MSPNon-SD/Non-MSPNon-SD/Non-MSPNon-SD/Non-MSP

Initial Compliance Date 

(“Non-SDs/Non-MSPs”)

+90 days

Total Swap Market 100%

Subj. to Mand. Clearing – Year 1=30 min.; After Year 1=15 min. •• Not Subj. to Mand. Clearing – Year 1=1 hr.; AfSubj. to Mand. Clearing – Year 1=30 min.; After Year 1=15 min. •• Not Subj. to Mand. Clearing – Year 1=1 hr.; Af

Subj. to Mand. Clearing – Year 1=30 min.; After Year 1=15 min. •• Not Subj. to Mand. Clearing – Year 

*With respect to Non-SD/Non-MSP off-facility swaps that armandate (excluding those excepted from the clearing mandatare required to be cleared but are not cleared), the following tdissemination shall apply: Year 1=4 hrs; Year 2=2 hrs.; After
Exhibit 32
 
 In connection with the Annual Report of International Commercial Television, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), Kelvin Claney, Chief Executive Officer and Richard Ransom, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of their knowledge and belief:
 
 1.
the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
 
 2.
the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.
 
 Date: June 22, 2010
 
 /s/ Kelvin Claney
 Kelvin Claney, Chief Executive Officer
 
 /s/ Richard Ransom
 Richard Ransom, Chief Financial Officer
# C_2009256EN.01001002.xml

| 24.10.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 256/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.10.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 256/10

---

Action brought on 30 July 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic

(Case C-302/09)

2009/C 256/19

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: V. Di Bucci and E. Righini, acting as Agents)

Applicant:

Defendant: Italian Republic

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | Declare that, by failing to take, within the prescribed time-limits, all the measures necessary to withdraw the aid scheme considered unlawful and incompatible with the common market by Commission Decision 2000/394/EC of 25 November 1999 on aid to firms in Venice and Chioggia by way of relief from social security contributions under Laws Nos 30/1997 and 206/1995 (notified on 10 January 2000 under document number C(1999) 4268) (OJ 2000 L 150, p. 50) and to recover from the beneficiaries the aid granted under that scheme, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 2, 5 and 6 of that decision and under the EC Treaty; |
| --- | --- |

—

Declare that, by failing to take, within the prescribed time-limits, all the measures necessary to withdraw the aid scheme considered unlawful and incompatible with the common market by Commission Decision 2000/394/EC of 25 November 1999 on aid to firms in Venice and Chioggia by way of relief from social security contributions under Laws Nos 30/1997 and 206/1995 (notified on 10 January 2000 under document number C(1999) 4268) (OJ 2000 L 150, p. 50) and to recover from the beneficiaries the aid granted under that scheme, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 2, 5 and 6 of that decision and under the EC Treaty;

| — | order the Italian Republic to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Italian Republic to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

The time-limit within which Italy was to have withdrawn the scheme and recovered the aid unlawfully granted expired two months after notification of the decision. More than nine years later, the Italian authorities has recovered less than 2 %.

---
# C_2010024EN.01008001.xml

| 30.1.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 24/80 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.1.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 24/80

---

Action brought on 15 October 2009 — Kalmár v Europol

(Case F-83/09)

2010/C 24/152

Language of the case: Dutch

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Andreas Kalmár (The Hague, The Netherlands) (represented by: D. Coppens, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Europol

Defendant:

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Annulment of the decisions of Europol of 4 and 24 February 2009 concerning, respectively, the applicant’s dismissal of 4 May 2009 and his suspension. In addition, the application made by the applicant for reintegration and damages for the material and non-material harm suffered.

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | Annul the initial decisions of Europol of 4 and 24 February 2009 and the decision on the complaint of 18 July 2009 and order Europol to allow Mr Kalmár to resume his work there; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the initial decisions of Europol of 4 and 24 February 2009 and the decision on the complaint of 18 July 2009 and order Europol to allow Mr Kalmár to resume his work there;

| — | order Europol to pay compensation calculated from the date on which his contract was unduly terminated to the date on which his contract should actually have expired; |
| --- | --- |

—

order Europol to pay compensation calculated from the date on which his contract was unduly terminated to the date on which his contract should actually have expired;

| — | order Europol to pay EUR 25 000 in compensation for non-material harm suffered; |
| --- | --- |

—

order Europol to pay EUR 25 000 in compensation for non-material harm suffered;

| — | order Europol to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order Europol to pay the costs.

---
II-00725

From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

Dave Angle <dave.angle@ago.mo.gov>

Thursday, December 2, 2010 12:00 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.

Dave Angle

2245 Bluff Blvd

Columbia, MO 65109
Commodity Futures Trading Commission 

 Office of Public Affairs 

 Three Lafayette Centre 

 1155 21st Street, NW 

 Washington, DC 20581 

 www.cftc.gov

Interim Final Rule Regarding Reporting of Pre-enactment Swap Transactions 

The Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) announced the publication in the Federal Register of 

final regulations governing the reporting of pre-enactment swap transactions. The rules implement provisions 

of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010. 

On July 21, 2010, the Congress passed the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act. 

Among other things, the Dodd-Frank Act further amended the CEA to: 

• Require that swaps entered into before the date of the enactment of the Dodd-Frank Act be reported to a 

registered swap data repository. Section 723 of the Dodd-Frank Act added new Section 2(h)(5) to the CEA to 

require that data be reported to a registered swap data repository or the Commission no later than 180 days after the 

effective date of that Section (July 21, 2010). 

• Require that the Commission adopt an interim final within 90 days of the enactment date of the Dodd-Frank 

Act providing that such pre-enactment swaps shall be reported within 60 days after an appropriate swap data 

repository becomes registered or by the compliance date to be established by the permanent reporting rules to be 

established under Section 2(h)(5), whichever occurs first. 

What is the purpose of the interim final rule? 

The interim final rule establishes a reporting requirement for pre-enactment unexpired swaps that will remain in 

effect until permanent reporting rules are promulgated by the Commission pursuant to Section 2(h)(5) of the CEA. 

The interim final rule identifies the appropriate counterparties for reporting purposes and also establishes the information that 

should be preserved by counterparties until reporting can be effected 

What is an interim final rule? 

An interim final rulemaking permits an agency to adopt as final, for good cause shown, a rule that has not been 

subject to the Administrative procedure Act’s mandated public notice and opportunity to comment. In an interim 

final rulemaking, the agency publishes the rule as final and concurrently solicits public comment (See 5 U.S.C. § 553(b)(3)(B)). 

An interim final rulemaking is warranted in these circumstances by the necessity to provide timely notice to counterparties that 

they may become subject to a reporting requirement for pre-enactment swaps and to advise with respect to the data that 

should be preserved with respect to such reporting. 

Commodity Futures Trading Commission ♦ Office of Public Affairs ♦ 202-418-5080
II-Oll51

From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

karen muntzing <kmuntzingl @aol.com>

Thursday, December 2, 2010 6:45 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.

karen mtmtzing

5061 mengel lane

HIlliard, OH 43026
EX-10.3



 Exhibit 10.3 (1 of 2) 
  

			
	



	  	 PRESIDENT - ROBERT C. BARG

 
 VICE PRESIDENTS 

ALLEN E. EVANS, JR.

RANDOLPH K. GREEN

JOHN G. HATTNER
 C. H.
(SCOTT) REES III
 DANNY D. SIMMONS

DAN PAUL SMITH

THOMAS M. SOUERS


 April 29, 2016 
  

 
 Dr. José Antonio González Anaya 

Petróleos Mexicanos 
 Avenida Marina Nacional No. 329 

Torre Ejecutiva, Piso 44 
 Colonia Verónica Anzures 

11300 Ciudad de México 
 México 

Dear Dr. González Anaya: 
 We hereby consent to all
references to our firm as set forth in the Annual Report on Form 20-F of Petróleos Mexicanos (“Pemex”) for the year ending December 31, 2015 (the “Form 20-F”), under the heading “Exploration and Production
(Reserves)”, and to the filing of our audit letter dated April 29, 2016, as an exhibit to the Form 20-F. We have audited the estimates of Pemex’s proved oil, condensate, natural gas, and oil equivalent reserves, as of January 1, 2016, for
78 fields located in the Poza Rica-Altamira District in the North Region of Mexico. These estimates were prepared by Pemex Exploración y Producción in accordance with the reserves definitions of Regulation S-X Rule 4-10(a) of the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission. 
  

							
		 	Sincerely,	 	
		
		 	NETHERLAND, SEWELL INTERNATIONAL, S. DE R.L. DE C.V.
				
		 	By:	 	   




  
	 	
		 		 	Robert C. Barg, P.E.	 	
		 		 	President	 	

  
 EJS:DSS 

  
 2100 ROSS
AVENUE, SUITE 2200 • DALLAS, TEXAS 75201-2737 • PH: 214-969-5401 • FAX: 214-969-5411 








 Exhibit 10.3 (2 of 2) 
  

			
	



	  	 PRESIDENT - ROBERT C. BARG 

 
 VICE PRESIDENTS 

ALLEN E. EVANS, JR.

RANDOLPH K. GREEN

JOHN G. HATTNER
 C. H.
(SCOTT) REES III
 DANNY D. SIMMONS

DAN PAUL SMITH

THOMAS M. SOUERS


 April 29, 2016 
  

 
 Dr. José Antonio González Anaya 

Petróleos Mexicanos 
 Avenida Marina Nacional No. 329 

Torre Ejecutiva, Piso 44 
 Colonia Verónica Anzures 

11300 Ciudad de México 
 México 

Dear Dr. González Anaya: 
 We hereby consent to all
references to our firm as set forth in the Annual Report on Form 20-F of Petróleos Mexicanos (“Pemex”) for the year ending December 31, 2015 (the “Form 20-F”), under the heading “Exploration and Production
(Reserves)”, and to the filing of our audit letter dated April 29, 2016, as an exhibit to the Form 20-F. We have audited the estimates of Pemex’s proved oil, condensate, natural gas, and oil equivalent reserves, as of January 1, 2016, for
23 fields located in the Litoral de Tabasco Asset in the Southwest Marine Region. These estimates were prepared by Pemex Exploración y Producción in accordance with the reserves definitions of Regulation S-X Rule 4-10(a) of the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission. 
  

							
		 	Sincerely,	 	
		
		 	NETHERLAND, SEWELL INTERNATIONAL, S. DE R.L. DE C.V.
				
		 	By:	 	   




  
	 	
		 		 	Robert C. Barg, P.E.	 	
		 		 	President	 	


  
 2100 ROSS
AVENUE, SUITE 2200 • DALLAS, TEXAS 75201-2737 • PH: 214-969-5401 • FAX: 214-969-5411
# C_2012373EN.01000401.xml

| 1.12.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 373/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.12.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 373/4

---

Judgment of the General Court of 23 October 2012 — Vanhecke v Parliament

(Case T-14/09) (1)

1

(Privileges and immunities - Member of the Parliament - Waiver of immunity - Action for annulment - No further interest in bringing proceedings - No need to adjudicate)

2012/C 373/04

Language of the case: Dutch

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Frank Vanhecke (Bruges, Belgium) (represented by: R. Tournicourt, B. Siffert and S. Lippens, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: initially H. Krück, A. Baas and E. Waldherr and subsequently H. Krück, E. Waldherr and G. Corstens, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Application for annulment of the Decision of the European Parliament of 18 November 2008 waiving the parliamentary immunity of the applicant

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | declares that there is no need to adjudicate on the present action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

declares that there is no need to adjudicate on the present action;

| 2. | orders each party to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

orders each party to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 69, 21.3.2009.

1

---
Edward H. FLINT, petitioner, v. HEWLETT PACKARD COMPANY.

No. 16-490.

Supreme Court of the United States

Jan. 9, 2017.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals of Kentucky denied.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Elizabeth A. Weaver

Maura D. Corrigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

 _________________________________________ 

 Clerk

January 27, 2009 

0120 

Order 

 

January 27, 2009 

137689 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

v SC: 137689 

 COA: 272777 

Wayne CC: 06-006206 

LEANDREW LIDDELL, 

Defendant-Appellee. 

_________________________________________/ 

 On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the October 2, 2008 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the question presented should be reviewed by this Court.
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

1

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

MICHAEL WYLES,

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

 v.

MICHAEL J. ASTRUE,

 Defendant - Appellee.

No. 09-35805

D.C. No. 2:08-cv-01395-TSZ

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Washington

Thomas S. Zilly, Senior District Judge, Presiding

Argued and Submitted September 2, 2010

Seattle, Washington

Before: HAWKINS, McKEOWN and BEA, Circuit Judges.

Appellant Michael Wyles (“Wyles”) appeals the district court’s decision

affirming the denial of his application for social security benefits. Wyles contends

that the Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) erred by rejecting the opinion of his

examining physician, Dr. Richard Washburn (“Dr. Washburn”), who diagnosed

FILED

SEP 22 2010

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2

Wyles with impairments that met the requirements in the Listings of Impairments,

under 20 C.F.R. Pt. 404, Subpt. P, App. 1. We agree. We have jurisdiction under

28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we reverse and remand to the district court. 

We review the district court’s judgment de novo to determine whether the

ALJ supported his decision with substantial evidence and applied the correct legal

standards. 42 U.S.C. § 405(g); Tommasetti v. Astrue, 533 F.3d 1035, 1038 (9th

Cir. 2008).

Dr. Washburn determined that Wyles was disabled and unable to work due

to his bipolar disorder with major depression and psychotic symptoms, generalized

anxiety disorder, panic disorder, and a non-specific personality disorder.

Importantly, Dr. Washburn found that Wyles would remain unable to work for one

year—from November 2002 to November 2003—until he became stabilized on

medication for these mental illnesses. We therefore remand to the district court for

an award of benefits consistent with our holding that Wyles proved he was

disabled for that one year: November 2002–November 2003.

REVERSED AND REMANDED.
Jake MENDEL, as Personal Representative of the Estate of Thelma A. Mendel, petitioner, v. MORGAN KEEGAN & COMPANY, INC.

No. 16-394.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 31, 2016.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit denied.
Jose Luis VELASQUEZ-HUIPE, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 16-5583.

Supreme Court of the United States

Dec. 12, 2016.

*591Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied.
<PAGE 20>

<TABLE>
                                                                          EXHIBIT 11

AMERICAN GAMING & ENTERTAINMENT, LTD.
COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS (LOSS) PER SHARE

                                   Three Months Ended              Nine Months Ended
                                     September 30,                  September 30,
                                  1999             1998           1999            1998
                                  ____             ____           ____            ____

<S>                           <C>             <C>             <C>             <C>
Weighted average number
 of shares for computation     12,532,102      12,532,102     12,532,102       12,532,102
                               ==========      ==========     ==========       ==========

Net income (loss)             $10,431,000     $(2,060,000)    $9,981,000      $(5,914,000)

Dividends and accretion
on preferred stock                467,000         467,000      1,400,000        1,400,000
                                  _______         _______      _________        _________

Net income (loss) for common
stockholders                   $9,964,000     $(2,527,000)    $8,581,000      $(7,314,000)
                               ==========     ============    ==========      ============

Income (loss) for common
stockholders per common
share                               $0.80          $(0.20)         $0.68           $(0.58)
                                    =====          =======         =====           =======
</TABLE>