alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2013225EN.01007802.xml

| 3.8.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 225/78 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.8.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 225/78

---

Order of the General Court of 15 May 2013 — Al-Faqih and MIRA v Council and Commission

(Case T-322/09) (1)

1

(Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures taken against persons and entities associated with Usama bin Laden, the Al-Qaida network and the Taliban - Freezing of funds - Withdrawal from the list of persons concerned - No need to adjudicate)

2013/C 225/174

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicants: Saad Al-Faqih (London, United Kingdom) and Movement for Islamic Reform in Arabia (MIRA) (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: J. Jones, Barrister, and A. Raja, solicitor)

Applicants:

Defendants: Council of the European Union (represented initially by R. Szostak and E. Finnegan, then by E. Finnegan and J.-P. Hix, agents); and European Commission (represented by T. Scharf and M. Konstantinidis, agents)

Defendants:

Re:

Re:

Application for annulment of Council Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 of 27 May 2002 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities associated with Usama bin Laden, the Al-Qaida network and the Taliban, and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 467/2001 prohibiting the export of certain goods and services to Afghanistan, strengthening the flight ban and extending the freeze of funds and other financial resources in respect of the Taliban of Afghanistan (OJ 2002 L 139, p. 9), as amended for the 42nd time by Commission Regulation (EC) No 14/2005 of 5 January 2005 (OJ 2005 L 5, p. 10), for the 48th time by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1190/2005 of 20 July 2005 (OJ 2005 L 193, p. 27), for the 75th time by Commission Regulation (EC) No 492/2007 of 3 May 2007 (OJ 2007 L 116, p. 5) and for the 116th time by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1102/2009 of 16 November 2009 (OJ 2009 L 303, p. 39), and/or an application for annulment of Regulations Nos 14/2005, 1190/2005, 492/2007 and 1102/2009, in so far as they concern the applicants

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

The General Court orders:

| 1. | There is no need to adjudicate on the action. |
| --- | --- |

1.

There is no need to adjudicate on the action.

| 2. | The Council of the European Union and the European Commission shall jointly and severally pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The Council of the European Union and the European Commission shall jointly and severally pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 113, 1.5.2010.

1

---
II-O0091

From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

Gary Granat <ggranat@earthlink.net>

Monday, December 6, 2010 1:09 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.

Gary Granat

P.O. Box 254

Palisade, CO 81526-0254
II-00563

From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

Guy Zahller <gop.r.war.criminals@gmail.com>

Thursday, December 2, 2010 2:44 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.

Guy Zahller

146 Creek Drive, #C

Aptos, CA 95003
Ramiro CANALES, petitioner, v. Ronald C. FOX, Assistant Warden, et al.

No. 16-6907.

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.
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent

except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

July 2, 2003

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 03-10026

Summary Calendar

 

WINDELL EUGENE HENRY; ET AL.,

Plaintiffs,

WINDELL EUGENE HENRY,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

WAYNE SCOTT, Director; TOM BAKER, Director; 

ALLEN POLANSKY,

Defendants-Appellees.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 3:01-CV-1585-G

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

Before REAVLEY, SMITH and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Windell Eugene Henry, formerly Texas prisoner # 935525,

appeals the district court’s dismissal without prejudice of his

42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil-rights suit in which Henry alleged that

four prison law libraries were inadequate and deprived inmates of

their constitutional right of access to court. The district
No. 03-10026

-2-

court dismissed the suit on the defendants’ motion pursuant to

28 U.S.C. § 1997e for failure to exhaust administrative remedies.

It is unnecessary to address the exhaustion issues that

Henry asserts on appeal because Henry has stated, and the record

reflects, that he was released from custody during the pendency

of this suit. Accordingly, Henry’s conditions-of-confinement

suit, which sought only declaratory and injunctive relief, is

moot, and the appeal must be dismissed accordingly. See Dailey

v. Vought Aircraft Co., 141 F.3d 224, 227 (5th Cir. 1998); Rocky

v. King, 900 F.2d 864, 867 (5th Cir. 1990). It is irrelevant

that Henry filed his lawsuit as a purported class action, because

he never sought class certification in the district court. See

Rocky, 900 F.2d at 869 (purported class action is moot when the

named plaintiff’s individual claim became moot before class

certification). 

APPEAL DISMISSED AS MOOT.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                          11,471
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                               0
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                     0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                     74,524
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                               0
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                                 0
<LOANS>                                        162,177
<ALLOWANCE>                                      3,609
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 249,428
<DEPOSITS>                                     172,413
<SHORT-TERM>                                     9,000
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                              2,033
<LONG-TERM>                                     14,500
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        25,256
<OTHER-SE>                                      26,226
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                  51,482
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                  3,251
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                1,011
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                   130
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                 4,392
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                               1,692
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,856
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                            2,536
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                       45
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                  1,836
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  1,276
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                       1,276
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       805
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .19
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .19
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    4.43
<LOANS-NON>                                        480
<LOANS-PAST>                                         0
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                    225
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                 3,646
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                      145
<RECOVERIES>                                        63
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                3,609
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                             2,292
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                          1,317
        

</TABLE>
EPIC SYSTEMS CORPORATION, petitioner, v. Jacob LEWIS.

No. 16-285.

Supreme Court of the United States

Jan. 25, 2017.

The following briefing schedule is adopted:

Petitioner in Nos. 16-285 and 16-300 and respondent in No. 16-307 will file opening and reply briefs under the schedule set forth in Rules 25.1 and 25.3. Respondent in Nos. 16-285 and 16-300 and petitioner in No. 16-307 will file response *909briefs under the schedule set forth in Rule 25.2.
Exhibit 32.1

SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATIONS

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Avatech Solutions, Inc. (the
Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission and to which this Certification is an exhibit (the Report), the undersigned hereby certify, 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 result of operations of the Company for the periods reflected therein.



|                   |  |                                           
|------------------ |  | ------------------------------------------
|Date: May 15, 2006 |  | /s/ Donald R. Walsh                       
|                   |  | Donald R. Walsh                           
|                   |  | Chief Executive Officer                   
|                   | 
|                   |  | /s/ Lawrence Rychlak                      
|                   |  | Lawrence Rychlak                          
|                   |  | Vice President and Chief Financial Officer



29
# C_2010024EN.01004101.xml

| 30.1.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 24/41 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.1.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 24/41

---

Action brought on 27 November 2009 — European Commission v Czech Republic

(Case C-481/09)

2010/C 24/71

Language of the case: Czech

Parties

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: S. Pardo Quintillán and M. Thomannová-Körnerová, acting as Agents)

Applicant:

Defendant: Czech Republic

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | declare that, by failing to adopt all such laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2006/7/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 February 2006 concerning the management of bathing water quality and repealing Directive 76/160/EEC, (1) or in any event, by failing to inform the Commission thereof, the Czech Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 18 of that directive; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare that, by failing to adopt all such laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2006/7/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 February 2006 concerning the management of bathing water quality and repealing Directive 76/160/EEC, (1) or in any event, by failing to inform the Commission thereof, the Czech Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 18 of that directive;

1

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

—

order Czech Republic to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

The period for implementing the directive into domestic law expired on 24 March 2008.

---

(1)  OJ 2006 L 64, p. 37.

1

---
James L. HINES, petitioner, v. Lon PORCH, et al.

No. 17-896.

Supreme Court of the United States

Feb. 20, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Alabama denied.
James Edward THORNBERG, petitioner, v. STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY, et al.

No. 16-5829.

Supreme Court of the United States

Nov. 28, 2016.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit denied.
# C_2009113EN.01004602.xml

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

16.5.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 113/46

---

Action brought on 2 March 2009 — Merhzaoui v Council

(Case F-18/09)

2009/C 113/96

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

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

Applicant:

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Defendant:

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

First, annulment of the decision to assign the applicant to the career stream AST 1-7. Secondly, annulment of the decision not to promote him to grade AST 2 in the 2008 promotion procedure and of the decisions to promote less deserving officials to that grade.

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Tribunal should:

| — | annul the decision to assign the applicant, with effect from 1 May 2006, to the career stream AST 1-7. |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision to assign the applicant, with effect from 1 May 2006, to the career stream AST 1-7.

| — | annul the appointing authority’s decision not to promote him to grade AST 2 in the 2008 promotion procedure and, so far as necessary, the decisions to promote less deserving officials to that grade; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the appointing authority’s decision not to promote him to grade AST 2 in the 2008 promotion procedure and, so far as necessary, the decisions to promote less deserving officials to that grade;

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

—

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

---
```

[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 123 (Tuesday, June 26, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Page 33945]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-15969]

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

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Opal Creek Scenic Recreation Area (SRA) Advisory Council; Notice 
of Meeting

AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA.

ACTION: Notice of meeting.

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

SUMMARY: An Opal Creek Scenic Recreation Area Advisory Council meeting 
will convene in Stayton, Oregon on Monday, July 16, 2001. The meeting 
is scheduled to begin at 6:00 p.m., and will conclude at approximately 
8:30 p.m. The meeting will be held in the South Room of the Stayton 
Community Center located on 400 West Virginia Street in Stayton, 
Oregon.
    The Opal Creek Wilderness and Opal Creek Scenic Recreation Area Act 
of 1996 (Opal Creek Act) (Pub. L. 104-208) directed the Secretary of 
Agriculture to establish the Opal Creek Scenic Recreation Area Advisory 
Council. The Advisory Council is comprised of thirteen members 
representing state, county and city governments, and representatives of 
various organizations, which include mining industry, environmental 
organizations, inholders in Opal Creek Scenic Recreation Area, economic 
development, Indian tribes, adjacent landowners and recreation 
interests. The council provides advice to the Secretary of Agriculture 
on preparation of a comprehensive Opal Creek Management Plan for the 
SRA, and consults on a periodic and regular basis on the management of 
the area. The tentative agenda will focus developing standards and 
guidelines for management of the SRA and discussion of public 
involvement strategies.
    The public comment period is tentatively scheduled to begin at 8:00 
p.m. Time allotted for individual presentations will be limited to 3 
minutes. Written comments are encouraged, particularly if the material 
cannot be presented within the time limits of the comment period. 
Written comments may be submitted prior to the July 16 meeting by 
sending them to Designated Federal Official Stephanie Phillips at the 
address given below.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For more information regarding this 
meeting, contact Designated Federal Official Stephanie Phillips; 
Willamette National Forest, Detroit Ranger District, HC 73 Box 320, 
Mill City, OR 97360; (503) 854-3366.

    Dated: June 20, 2001.
Y. Robert Iwamoto,
Deputy Forest Supervisor.
[FR Doc. 01-15969 Filed 6-25-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-11-M
```
Juan Roberto RINCON-RINCON, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 16-7162.

Supreme Court of the United States

Jan. 17, 2017.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied.
ANTHONY E. BROOKS,

Appellant,

v.

WASTE PRO OF FLORIDA/ 

LIBERTY MUTUAL 

INSURANCE,

Appellees.

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO 

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND 

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D15-850

_____________________________/

Opinion filed October 9, 2015.

An appeal from an order of the Judge of Compensation Claims.

Diane B. Beck, Judge.

Date of Accident: July 12, 2012.

Anthony E. Brooks, pro se, Appellant.

Juan Carlos Garcia, Tampa, and Annie Kwong of Quintairos, Prieto, Wood & Boyer, 

P.A., Orlando, for Appellees.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

ROBERTS, C.J., MARSTILLER and MAKAR, JJ., CONCUR.
Kingsley BERNARD, petitioner, v. Tamyra JARVIS, Warden.

No. 17-5686.

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.
# Reference Contract OI & Limits

January 24, 2011

# Equivalent Open Interest

# Unadjusted Open Interest

# image1.png
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS AUSTIN

-__ Hcmorsblo c. J. #Llde county .~udit~,r, luooer County Corpue 

### Christi,Texas / 

### 853

Dear Sir;



### Thoooeontlal

thlr

al80 llko your o 83266, whioh 

### rea

Cea~ua, aad whioh re judiolal districts, tlon of tra3sorlpt by law, shall be Three ThouQo3hre per annutsto be paid 

### orother court reporWW8.iere

"The Crlnlnal District Court in thla County also covers Kloberg, Kenedy, nlllaoy a4 Cassron Counties, and any four of the oountfsa co;aprialng suoh Judiolal dlstrlot sect tho sggregte popul~tlon requlremmt andother roqulreuents enmerrted in auoh artlole. Weshould like to knowwbotber this County rhauld not pay the reporter for this Court on the barle of +3,000.00 a8provided in eufd .atlcle Z3Ebd. * * l"?horablo C. J. Wilde, page 2 

### 856

By Ac?tE o? 1925, 39th hgialature, page 244, chapter 79, paragraph 1, (Article 199, Sea. 28, Subdivisions 1 to 8, lnoluelve, Vernon’6 Annotated Civil Statutes) the Legislature “continued as.established for the counties of Nuecee, Kleberg, Kenedy, Willaoy and Camron a orlminal district court,” whioh le the aam as referred to in your communication. It will be noted that five (5) oountiee compose the judioial district in whioh said oourt has jurisdiction. alone oompoae eald judloial district. Thus, said rive counties

Article 23286, Vernon’s Annotated Civil Statutes, hereinabove quoted rrom your letter andtherein rersrred to as Artlolo 23266, applied only to the salary of the orflcial shorthandroporter ln eaoh judiolal dirtriet eoaposed of four oapnties, with an aggregate oxoeae population aa therein eet forth, andwhich four oountiee *alone oonstitute one or more judioiel dlstricte~e (Kmphaeia ours)

It 16obvious, therefore, that tho provisions or said Artiolo 23266, Vernon’s Annotated Civil Statutes, have no applloation to the salary of the offlOlaI shorthand reporter ror the Criminal Distrlot Court for the countiee of Dueoes, KIeberg, Kenedy, Willaoy and Cameron.

Art1010 2327a, Vernon’r Annotated Clvll Statutes, rlres the salary of the ortloial oourt reporter 

### la eaOhjudlolel district eompoeed of two or more oountlse at $2,700 per annum,“in addition to the oompensatlon for transcript fees end allowances for expenses as nowprovided by lag.”

You are, thererore, advised that the salary of the 

### orrlolal shorthand reporter for the Criminal District Court of ibsoee, Kleberg, Kenedy, Wlllaoy and Caneron Counties 1s rlxed andgoverned by the provlaione of ’ Article 2327a, supra.

Your8 very truly ATT{ IRNHGii’WALOFTEXAS /A--

L. E. Blewellen

Assietant
David Lynn MOSS, petitioner, v. Lorie DAVIS, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division.

No. 16-5864.

Supreme Court of the United States

Nov. 7, 2016.

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