alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
II-00083

From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

Neil Nickols <nnickols@hotmail. com>

Monday, December 6, 2010 12:06 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.

Neil Nickols

11818 4th ave w

Everett, WA 98204
# C_2010037EN.01002201.xml

| 13.2.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 37/22 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.2.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 37/22

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from Court of Appeal (England & Wales) (Civil Division) made on 2 December 2009 — Nokia Corporation v Her Majesty's Commissioners of Revenue and Customs

(Case C-495/09)

2010/C 37/26

Language of the case: English

Referring court

Referring court

Court of Appeal (England & Wales) (Civil Division)

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Nokia Corporation

Applicant:

Defendant: Her Majesty's Commissioners of Revenue and Customs

Defendant:

Question referred

Question referred

Are non-Community goods bearing a Community trade mark which are subject to customs supervision in a Member State and in transit from a non-Member State to another non-Member State capable of constituting ‘counterfeit goods’ within the meaning of Article 2(1)(a) of Regulation 1383/2003/EC (1) if there is no evidence to suggest that those goods will be put ton the market in the EC, either in conformity with a customs procedure or by means of an illicit diversion.

1

---

(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1383/2003 of 22 July 2003 concerning customs action against goods suspected of infringing certain intellectual property rights and the measures to be taken against goods found to have infringed such rights

1

OJ L 196, p. 7

---
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<PAGE>

<ARTICLE>           5

<LEGEND>
                    The Schedule contains summary financial information
                    extracted from the financial statements for 
                    Pru-Bache Capital Return Futures Fund 2, L.P.
                    and is qualified in its entirety by reference
                    to such financial statements
</LEGEND>

<RESTATED>          

<CIK>               0000851786

<NAME>              Pru-Bache Capital Return Futures Fund 2, L.P.

<MULTIPLIER>        1

<FISCAL-YEAR-END>               Dec-31-1996

<PERIOD-START>                  Jan-1-1996

<PERIOD-END>                    Sep-30-1996

<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-Mos

<CASH>                          6,023,646

<SECURITIES>                    23,250,966

<RECEIVABLES>                   0

<ALLOWANCES>                    0

<INVENTORY>                     0

<CURRENT-ASSETS>                29,274,612

<PP&E>                          0

<DEPRECIATION>                  0

<TOTAL-ASSETS>                  29,274,612

<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>           1,587,800

<BONDS>                         0

<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>           0

<PREFERRED>                     0

<COMMON>                        0

<OTHER-SE>                      27,686,812

<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>    29,274,612

<SALES>                         0

<TOTAL-REVENUES>                3,098,216

<CGS>                           0

<TOTAL-COSTS>                   0

<OTHER-EXPENSES>                2,863,372

<LOSS-PROVISION>                0

<INTEREST-EXPENSE>              0

<INCOME-PRETAX>                 0

<INCOME-TAX>                    0

<INCOME-CONTINUING>             0

<DISCONTINUED>                  0

<EXTRAORDINARY>                 0

<CHANGES>                       0

<NET-INCOME>                    234,844

<EPS-PRIMARY>                   1.54

<EPS-DILUTED>                   0


</TABLE>
Willie C. SIMPSON, petitioner, v. Scott ECKSTEIN, Warden.

No. 16-9306.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 2, 2017.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit denied.
[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 124 (Wednesday, June 27, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Page 34180]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-16058]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RP98-430-001]


Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Corporation; Notice of Proposed 
Changes in FERC Gas Tariff

June 21, 2001.
    Take notice that on June 15, 2001, Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line 
Corporation (Transco) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas 
Tariff, Third Revised Volume No. 1, certain new and revised tariff 
sheets enumerated in Appendix A attached to the filing. The proposed 
effective date of such tariff sheets is July 15, 2001.
    Transco states that the purpose of the instant filing is to submit 
tariff sheets setting forth Transco's revised interconnect policy and 
to eliminate any references in Transco's tariff to proposed Rate 
Schedules DLS and DLS-R, all in compliance with the Commission's May 
17, 2001 order in this proceeding. Transco states that the revised 
interconnect policy sets forth the conditions applicable to the 
construction of new receipt and delivery interconnect facilities on 
Transco's pipeline system, and that such conditions are in compliance 
with the May 17 order and the Commission's new interconnect policy.
    Transco states that it will serve copies of the instant filing on 
its affected customers and interested State Commissions.
    Any person desiring to protest said filing should file a protest 
with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., 
Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Section 385.211 of the 
commission's Rules and Regulations. All such protests must be filed in 
accordance with Section 154.210 of the Commission's Regulations. 
Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the 
appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants 
parties to the proceedings. Copies of this filing are on file with the 
Commission and are available for public inspection in the Public 
Reference Room. This filing may be viewed on the web at http://www.ferc.fed.us/online/rims.htm (call 202-208-2222 for assistance).
    Comments, protests and interventions may be filed electronically 
via the internet in lieu of paper. See, 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and 
the instructions on the Commission's web site at 
http://www.ferc.fed.us/efi/doorbell.htm.

David P. Boergers,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 01-16058 Filed 6-26-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

September 9, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor,
Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h
Elizabeth A. Weave r 136482 Marilyn Kell y Maura D. Corriga n Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman, JOSEPH BURLINGAME, III, J ustices Plaintiff-Appellant,

v SC: 136482 COA: 284294 Sanilac CC: 05-030686-NI NATIONSRENT, INC. and JASON BROWN, Defendants,

and

NANCY BROWN, Defendant-Appellee.

________________ _________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the April 9, 2008 order 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.

d0828 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

September 9, 2008

Clerk
Gordon LASLEY, Jr., petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 16-7202.

Supreme Court of the United States

Jan. 17, 2017.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit denied.
United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 18-3232

___________________________

United States of America

 Plaintiff - Appellee

v.

Derrill Watt

 Defendant - Appellant

____________

Appeal from United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Missouri - St. Louis

____________

Submitted: July 15, 2019

Filed: July 22, 2019

[Unpublished]

____________

Before LOKEN, GRUENDER, and STRAS, Circuit Judges.

____________

PER CURIAM.

Derrill Watt pleaded guilty to possessing a firearm he knew was stolen, 18 

U.S.C. § 922(j). As part of his plea agreement, he waived his right to appeal his 

sentence unless it exceeded his Sentencing Guidelines range. The 80-month 
-2-

sentence the district court1 imposed was below his 84- to 105-month Guidelines 

range. In an Anders brief, Watt’s counsel requests permission to withdraw and 

identifies the applicability of a four-level Guidelines enhancement for possessing a

firearm in connection with another felony offense as an issue on appeal. See 

U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(b)(6)(B); see also Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). In 

a pro se brief, Watt makes the same argument.

We review the validity and applicability of an appeal waiver de novo. See

United States v. Scott, 627 F.3d 702, 704 (8th Cir. 2010). Upon careful review, we 

conclude that the appeal waiver is enforceable and that it is applicable to the issue 

raised on appeal. See United States v. Andis, 333 F.3d 886, 889–92 (8th Cir. 2003) 

(en banc) (explaining that an appeal waiver will be enforced if the appeal falls within 

the scope of the waiver, the defendant knowingly and voluntarily entered into the 

plea agreement and the waiver, and enforcing the waiver would not result in a 

miscarriage of justice). We have also independently reviewed the record and 

conclude that no other non-frivolous issues exist. See Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 

(1988). Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal and grant counsel permission to 

withdraw.

_______________________________________________

 

1

The Honorable Ronnie L. White, United States District Judge for the Eastern 

District of Missouri.
Alan DUNSTON, petitioner, v. Carolyn W. COLVIN, Acting Commissioner of Social Security.

No. 16-6231.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 31, 2016.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit denied.
Edward Robert STEINER, petitioner, v. Julie L. JONES, Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections, et al.

No. 16-9313.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 2, 2017.

Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed *in forma pauperis* denied, and petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit dismissed. See Rule 39.8. As petitioner has repeatedly abused this Court's process, the Clerk is directed not to accept any further petitions in noncriminal matters from petitioner unless the docketing fee required by Rule 38(a) is paid and petition submitted in compliance with Rule 33.1. See *Martin v. District of Columbia* *111*Court of Appeals,* 506 U.S. 1, 113 S.Ct. 397, 121 L.Ed.2d 305 (1992) (*per curiam* ).
---

EXHIBIT 13.1

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL
OFFICER PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 (18
U.S.C. SECTION 1350)

In connection with the Annual Report on Form 20-F of Titan
Trading Analytics Inc. (the Company) for the period ended October 31, 2012 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
Report), I, _Kenneth Powell, acting in the capacity of Interim CEO and CFO_ 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.

Date: February 27, 2013

By: /s/ Kenneth
PowellKenneth Powell, Interim CEO, CFO

This written statement is being furnished to the Securities
and Exchange Commission as an exhibit to the Companys Annual Report on Form
20-F. A signed original of this statement has been provided to the Company and
will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission or its staff upon request.

This certification accompanies this Annual Report on Form
20-F pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not,
except to the extent required by such Act, be deemed filed by the Company for
purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the
Exchange Act). Such certification will not be deemed to be incorporated by
reference into any filing under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the
Exchange Act, except to the extent that the Company specifically incorporates it
by reference.

---
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM SECURITY
ASSOCIATES INTERNATIONAL, INC.'S BALANCE SHEET AT JUNE 30, 1998 AND STATEMENTS
OF OPERATIONS FOR SIX MONTHS ENDED JUNE 30, 1998.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1
<CURRENCY> 0
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                       1,019,373
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                3,587,836
<ALLOWANCES>                                   453,710
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             4,524,237
<PP&E>                                       1,858,418
<DEPRECIATION>                                 442,995
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              40,481,543
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        7,889,363
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                  5,645,846
<COMMON>                                         6,350
<OTHER-SE>                                     785,850
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                40,481,543
<SALES>                                      8,629,317
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             8,629,317
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               10,706,413
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           1,183,687
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (3,482,865)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (3,482,865)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (3,482,865)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.55)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
PROPOSED AGENDA

MEETING WITH PROFESSIONAL STAFF OF THE

COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION AND THE

WORKING GROUP OF COMMERCIAL ENERGY FIRMS

THURSDAY, APRIL 28, 2011

2:00 PM

 ENTITY DEFINITIONS - FURTHER DEFINITION OF SWAP DEALER

o Provide overview of Working Group Member’s swap trading activity in different 

energy sectors

 Focus on oil/refined products, natural gas, and coal

o Discuss of scope and application of further definition of swap dealer

 Address line between trading and dealing in energy markets

 Address CFTC staff’s priority and concerns regarding the further 

definition of swap dealer

 Discuss market making, regular business, and de minimis exceptions

o Discuss fairness/equity concerns in developing regulatory framework 

implementing the definition of swap dealer

 Level playing field for market participants

 PRODUCT DEFINITIONS - FURTHER DEFINITION OF SWAP

o Discuss use of commodity options in physical energy markets

 Address concerns regarding whether commodity options embedded in 

forward contracts related to delivery should be swaps

 HEDGES OF COMMERCIAL RISK - FURTHER INTERPRETATION (TIME PERMITTING)

o Discuss language in proposed End-User Exemption and Definition of Major Swap 

Participant rules that could be interpreted as treating bona fide hedges on a 

speculative physical position as outright speculative swap position1

 

1

See discussion in footnote 23 of the End-User Exception rule and footnote 128 of the proposed Definition 

of Major Swap Participant rule.

76142.000002 EMF_US 35336772v1
EXHIBIT 4.12 


 


Letter of Consent 


 


I, Kai Wang (ID Card No.: 41050419821217106X),
am the duly married spouse of Kuan Song (ID Card No.: 410503198209212012). I hereby acknowledge, understand and agree that:


 


1. In accordance with the Equity Pledge
Agreement he signed in 2016, Kuan Song pledges to Acorn Trade (Shanghai) Co., Ltd.90% of the equity interest he holds in Beijing
HJX Technology Development Co., Ltd. (“Beijing HJX Technology”).


 


2. In accordance with the provisions of
the Exclusive Purchase Agreement entered into on [*], 2016, Kuan Song irrevocably grants Acorn Trade (Shanghai) Co., Ltd. the right
to at any time purchase or designate any third party to purchase all or part of the equity interest he holds in Beijing HJX Technology
and I have no objections against the above grant and its exercise.


 


3. In accordance with the Power of Attorney
he signed in 2016, Kuan Song irrevocably grants Gao Weiji his shareholder’s voting right at the shareholders’ meetings
of Beijing HJX Technology, including but not limited with respect to the sale or transfer of all or any part of the equity interest
he holds in Beijing HJX Technology, and his right to vote on such matters as the designation or appointment of a director of the
company at the shareholders’ meetings of Beijing HJX Technology.


 


4. I have no objections against the equity
pledge, the exclusive right to purchase, and the setup, grant and exercise of the Power of Attorney as described above and acknowledge
that I will not now or in the future assert any claims or take any actions that would oppose, prevent or hinder the exercise of
any of the above rights.


 


	 	/s/ Kai Wang
	 	(Signature)
# C_2010148EN.01001101.xml

| 5.6.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 148/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.6.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 148/11

---

Order of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 18 March 2010 — Caisse fédérale du Crédit mutuel Centre Est Europe (CFCMCEE) v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

(Case C-282/09 P) (1)

1

(Appeal - Article 119 of the Rules of Procedure - Community trade mark - Regulation (EC) No 40/94 - Article 7(1)(b) and (c) - Refusal to register - Overall assessment with regard to the goods and services referred to in the application for registration - Goods and services constitute homogeneous groups - Appeal in part manifestly unfounded and in part manifestly inadmissible)

2010/C 148/17

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Appellant: Caisse fédérale du Crédit mutuel Centre Est Europe (CFCMCEE) (represented by: P. Greffe and L. Paudrat, avocats)

Appellant:

Other party to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: A. Folliard-Monguiral, acting as Agent)

Other party to the proceedings:

Re:

Re:

Appeal brought against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber) of 20 May 2009 in Joined Cases T-405/07 and T-406/07 CFCMCEE v OHIM, by which the Court dismissed the actions brought by the appellant against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 10 July and 12 September 2007, dismissing its actions against the examiner’s refusal to register as trade marks of the word signs PAYWEB CARD and P@YWEB CARD for the goods and services within Classes 9, 36 and 38 of the Nice Agreement concerning the International Classification of Goods and Services for the Purposes of the Registration of Marks of 15 June 1957 — Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) and Article 73 of Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark (OJ 1994 L 11, p. 1) — Need for a separate examination of each of the grounds of refusal to register set out in Article 7(1) of that regulation — The requirement of reasons for the refusal to register with regard to each of the goods and services referred to in the application for registration — Goods and services constitute homogeneous groups

CFCMCEE

OHIM

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the appeal; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the appeal;

| 2. | Orders the Caisse fédérale du Crédit mutuel Centre Est Europe (CFCMCEE) to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the Caisse fédérale du Crédit mutuel Centre Est Europe (CFCMCEE) to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 233, 26.9.2009.

1

---