alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2010346EN.01001402.xml

| 18.12.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 346/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.12.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 346/14

---

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 21 October 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Szombathelyi Városi Bíróság (Hungary)) — Criminal proceedings against Emil Eredics, Mária Vassné Sápi

(Case C-205/09) (1)

1

(Police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters - Framework Decision 2001/220/JHA - Standing of victims in criminal proceedings - Meaning of ‘victim’ - Legal persons - Mediation in criminal proceedings - Detailed rules of application)

2010/C 346/23

Language of the case: Hungarian

Referring court

Referring court

Szombathelyi Városi Bíróság

Parties in the main proceedings

Parties in the main proceedings

Emil Eredics, Mária Vassné Sápi

Re:

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Szombathelyi Városi Bíróság — Interpretation of Article 1(a) and Article 10 of Council Framework Decision 2001/220/JHA of 15 March 2001 on the standing of victims in criminal proceedings — Criminal proceedings in which the victim is a legal person and in which mediation in criminal cases is excluded by national law — Concept of ‘victim’ in the framework decision — Inclusion, as regards the provisions on mediation in criminal cases, of persons other than natural persons? — Conditions for the application of mediation in criminal proceedings

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court hereby rules:

| 1. | Articles 1(a) and 10 of Council Framework Decision 2001/220/JHA of 15 March 2001 on the standing of victims in criminal proceedings must be interpreted as meaning that the concept of ‘victim’ does not extend to legal persons for the purposes of the promotion of mediation in criminal proceedings in Article 10(1). |
| --- | --- |

1.

Articles 1(a) and 10 of Council Framework Decision 2001/220/JHA of 15 March 2001 on the standing of victims in criminal proceedings must be interpreted as meaning that the concept of ‘victim’ does not extend to legal persons for the purposes of the promotion of mediation in criminal proceedings in Article 10(1).

| 2. | Article 10 of the Framework Decision 2001/220 must be interpreted as not requiring Member States to make recourse to mediation possible for all offences the substantive components of which, as defined by national legislation, correspond essentially to those of offences for which mediation is expressly provided by that legislation. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Article 10 of the Framework Decision 2001/220 must be interpreted as not requiring Member States to make recourse to mediation possible for all offences the substantive components of which, as defined by national legislation, correspond essentially to those of offences for which mediation is expressly provided by that legislation.

---

(1)  OJ 2009 C 205, 29.08.2009.

1

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

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                         433,986
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  869,333
<ALLOWANCES>                                    75,000
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,333,902
<PP&E>                                       1,066,008
<DEPRECIATION>                                 750,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               3,048,830
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,338,025
<BONDS>                                      1,511,226
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           177
<OTHER-SE>                                     199,402
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 3,048,830
<SALES>                                        735,305
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               735,305
<CGS>                                          413,296
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,435,338
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                75,512
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (775,545)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (775,545)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (775,545)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.44)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.44)
        

</TABLE>
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

Before the 

COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION 

TRADINGSCREEN INC. 

v. 

ICE FUTURES U.S., INC. and ICE SWAP 

TRADE 

CFTC Docket No. 14-E-01 

ORDER PURSUANT TO 

DELEGATED AUTHORITY 

RECEIVED CFTC 

Office of Proceedings 

Proceedings Clerk 

4:59pm, Jut 25, 2014 

On October 11, 2013, complainant TradingScreen Inc. filed a notice of appeal from a 

request that the Commission review the decision of ICE Futures U.S., Inc. and ICE Swap Trade 

(the "Exchanges"), to deny complainant access to the Exchanges' markets in complainant's 

capacity as an independent software vendor, effective as of September 26, 2013. On May 29, 

2014, the parties filed a joint Stipulation for Dismissal with the Office of Proceedings. In 

accordance with the Stipulation, all parties shall bear their own costs, fees and expenses, 

including attorneys' fees in connection with this appeal. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 1 

Dated: July 25, 2014 

Robert A. Sc wartz 

Deputy General Counsel 

Commodity Futures Trading Commission 

1 By the Commission pursuant to delegated authority. 17 C.F.R. § 9.9(b)(vii).
# C_2011103EN.01002202.xml

| 2.4.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 103/22 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.4.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 103/22

---

Judgment of the General Court of 17 February 2011 — Annco v OHIM — Freche et fils (ANN TAYLOR LOFT)

(Case T-385/09) (1)

1

(Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the Community word mark ANN TAYLOR LOFT - Earlier national word mark LOFT - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

2011/C 103/39

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Annco, Inc. (Wilmington, Delaware, United States) (represented by: G. Triet, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: A. Folliard-Monguiral, Agent)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Freche et fils associés (Paris, France)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM:

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 1 July 2009 (Case R 1485/2008-1), relating to opposition proceedings between Freche et fils associés and Annco, Inc.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 1 July 2009 (Case R 1485/2008-1); |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 1 July 2009 (Case R 1485/2008-1);

| 2. | Declares that the remainder of the action is inadmissible; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Declares that the remainder of the action is inadmissible;

| 3. | Orders OHIM to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders OHIM to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 282, 21.11.2009.

1

---
II-00378

From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

thomas hall <thomaschallmd@comcast.net>

Thursday, December 2, 2010 10:23 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.

thomas hall

1348 sudden valley

bekllingham, WA 98229
GOOGLE, INC., petitioner, v. Alfonso CIOFFI, et al.

No. 16-200.

Supreme Court of the United States

Jan. 9, 2017.

Motion of Public Knowledge, et al. for leave to file a brief as *amici curiae* granted. Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit denied.
# C_2010037EN.01002401.xml

| 13.2.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 37/24 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.2.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 37/24

---

Action brought on 9 December 2009 — European Commission v French Republic

(Case C-510/09)

2010/C 37/29

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: M. Patakia and G. Zavvos, acting as Agents)

Applicant:

Defendant: French Republic

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | Declare that, by not notifying at the planning stage the decree of 13 March 2006 concerning the use of unprepared blends of products referred to in Paragraph L.253-1 of the Rural Code in the context of the procedure provided for by Directive 98/34/EC of 22 June 1998 laying down a procedure for the provision of information in the field of technical standards and regulations and of rules on Information Society services, as amended by Directive 98/48/EC of 20 July 1998 (1), the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 8(1) of that directive; |
| --- | --- |

—

Declare that, by not notifying at the planning stage the decree of 13 March 2006 concerning the use of unprepared blends of products referred to in Paragraph L.253-1 of the Rural Code in the context of the procedure provided for by Directive 98/34/EC of 22 June 1998 laying down a procedure for the provision of information in the field of technical standards and regulations and of rules on Information Society services, as amended by Directive 98/48/EC of 20 July 1998 (1), the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 8(1) of that directive;

1

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

—

order the French Republic to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

By its action, the European Commission complains that the defendant did not notify it, before its adoption, of the ministerial decree at issue concerning the use of unprepared blends of phytopharmaceutical products with an agricultural value, although that decree clearly constitutes a technical rule within the meaning of Directive 98/34 and which should, on that ground, have been notified to it at the planning stage since it is not covered by the derogation under Article 10 of that directive.

According to the Commission, the defendant acknowledged the relevance of that infringement since, following the receipt of the reasoned opinion, the French authorities notified the Commission of a draft decree repealing the ministerial decree at issue and reproducing its substance. However, at the date the present action was brought, that draft decree had still not been adopted by the French authorities or, in any event, the Commission had still not been informed thereof.

---

(1)  Directive 98/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 July 1998 amending Directive 98/34/EC laying down a procedure for the provision of information in the field of technical standards and regulations (OJ 1998 L 217, p. 18).

1

---
Exhibit 31.2

CERTIFICATION OF PERIODIC REPORT

I, Carlton Parfitt, Chief Financial Officer of Golden Spirit Mining Ltd., a
Delaware Corporation (the "Company"), certify, pursuant to Section 302 of the
Sarbanes- Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:

1.      I have reviewed this amended annual report on Form 10-KSB/A for the year
ended December 31, 2004 of GOLDEN SPIRIT MINING LTD.

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

3.      Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this amended report, fairly present in all material
respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the
registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this annual report;

4.      The registrant's other certifying officers and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a - 14 and 15d - 14) for the registrant and we have:

        a.      designed such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure that
	material information relating to the registrant, including its
	consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those
	entities, particularly during the period in which this annual report is
	being prepared;

        b.      evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure
	controls and procedures as of a date within 90 days prior to the filing
	date of this annual report (the "Evaluation Date"); and

        c.      presented in this amended report our conclusions about the
	effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures based on our
	evaluation as of the Evaluation Date;

5.      The registrant's other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based
on our most recent evaluation, to the registrant's auditors and the audit
committee of registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the
equivalent function):

        a.      All significant deficiencies in the design or operation of
	internal controls which could adversely affect the registrant's ability
	to record, process, summarize and report financial data and have
	identified for the registrant's auditors any material weaknesses in
	internal controls; and

        b.      Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or
	other employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal
	controls; and

6.      The registrant's other certifying officers and I have indicated in this
quarterly report whether or not there were significant changes in internal
controls or in other factors that could significantly affect internal controls
subsequent to the date of our most recent evaluation, including any corrective
actions with regard to significant deficiencies and material weaknesses.

Date: April 20, 2005

  /s/ Carlton Parfitt
      --------------
     Carlton Parfitt
     Director and Chief Financial Officer
II-00785

From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

Ronald Peterson <rcp95240@yahoo.com>

Thursday, December 2, 2010 11:23 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.

Ronald Peterson

5600 Walnut Avenue

Sacramento, CA 95841
# C_2009282EN.01002701.xml

| 21.11.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 282/27 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.11.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 282/27

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberverwaltungsgericht für das Land Nordrhein-Westfalen, Münster (Germany) lodged on 31 August 2009 — Pietro Infusino v Oberbürgermeisterin der Stadt Remscheid

(Case C-348/09)

2009/C 282/46

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Referring court

Oberverwaltungsgericht für das Land Nordrhein-Westfalen, Münster

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Pietro Infusino

Applicant:

Defendant: Oberbürgermeisterin der Stadt Remscheid

Defendant:

Question referred

Question referred

Does the term ‘imperative grounds of public security’ contained in Article 28(3) of Directive 2004/38/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States, amending Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 and repealing Directives 64/221/EEC, 68/360/EEC, 72/194/EEC, 73/148/EEC, 75/34/EEC, 75/35/EEC, 90/364/EEC, 90/365/EEC and 93/96/EEC (1) cover only threats posed to the internal and external security of the State in terms of the continued existence of the State with its institutions and important public services, the survival of the population, foreign relations and the peaceful co-existence of nations?

1

---

(1)  OJ 2004 L 158, p. 77.

1

---
Howard Paul LEVY, petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS, III, Attorney General.

No. 17-7205.

Supreme Court of the United States

Feb. 26, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit denied.
Rashad Adib RUSHDAN, petitioner, v. MARYLAND.

No. 16-386.

Supreme Court of the United States

Nov. 28, 2016.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Special Appeals of Maryland denied.
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

DEBBIE VAUGHN,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

No. 4D2023-1166

[March 21, 2024]

Appeal from the County Court for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm 

Beach County; Ashley C. Zuckerman, Judge; L.T. Case No. 

502022MM003655AMB.

Carey Haughwout, Public Defender, and Erika Follmer, Assistant 

Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Richard Valuntas, 

Senior Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

MAY, FORST and KUNTZ, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
**EXHIBIT 31.2****Certification**     I, Paul S. Feeley, certify that:1. I have reviewed this Annual Report on Form 10-K of Central Bancorp, Inc.; 2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report; 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in thisreport; 4. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:     (a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosurecontrols and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is madeknown to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which thisreport is being prepared;     (b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and proceduresand presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosurecontrols and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report, based on suchevaluation; and     (c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (theregistrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materiallyaffected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal controlover financial reporting; and5. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and theaudit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions):     (a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affectthe registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and     (b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees whohave a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.Date: June 21, 2007           /s/ Paul  S. Feeley   Paul S. Feeley   Senior Vice President, Chief Financial Officerand Treasurer