alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
II-00339

From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

Alan Herman <ahermanhome@earthlink.net>

Friday, December 3, 2010 12:25 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.

Alan Herman

5569 N 16 St

Arlington, VA 22205
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                                   5
<LEGEND>
    (Replace this text with the legend)
</LEGEND>
<CIK>     0000852447
<NAME>                                      EUROMED INC
<MULTIPLIER>                                1
<CURRENCY>                                  $US
       
<S>                                         <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                               3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                           DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                              APR-1-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                JUN-30-1998
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                             1
<CASH>                                      736,140
<SECURITIES>                                0
<RECEIVABLES>                               300,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                0
<INVENTORY>                                 0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            1,042,140
<PP&E>                                      0
<DEPRECIATION>                              0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              1,042,140
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       57,000
<BONDS>                                     0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                       0
<PREFERRED>                                 0
<COMMON>                                    14,300
<OTHER-SE>                                  970,840
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                1,042,140
<SALES>                                     0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            0
<CGS>                                       0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               128,807
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                            0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                          0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             (128,807)
<INCOME-TAX>                                0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                         (128,807)
<DISCONTINUED>                              0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                             0
<CHANGES>                                   0
<NET-INCOME>                                (128,807)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                               (0.09)
<EPS-DILUTED>                               (0.09)
        

</TABLE>
II-00231

From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

Merle Gothard <merlegothard@gmail.com>

Friday, December 3, 2010 1:47 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.

Merle Gothard

7871 Quail Park Wy

Antelope, CA 95843
THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13-22-00470-CV

Robert B. Martinez

v.

Emilia Castillo Martinez

On Appeal from the

150th District Court of Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 2021CI03825

JUDGMENT

THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered this cause on 

appeal, concludes the appeal should be dismissed. The Court orders the appeal 

DISMISSED in accordance with its opinion. No costs are assessed, due to appellant’s 

inability to pay costs.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.

February 2, 2023
Document Headings

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

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Energy

###### Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

          - [Docket No. CP01-52-000]

Take notice that on December 18, 2000, pursuant to Section 7(c) of the Natural Gas Act, 15 U.S.C. 717f(c), and Part 157 of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (Commission) Regulations, Raton Gas Transmission Company (Raton) filed an abbreviated application for an amendment to its certificate of public convenience and necessity.

Raton requests that the Commission amend Raton's present certificate, and authorize Raton to transport natural gas on behalf of Zia Natural Gas Company, Raton Natural Gas Company and the City of Las Vegas, New Mexico.

                    Any person desiring to be heard or to protest said filing should file a motion to intervene or a protest with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Sections 385.211 or 385.214 of the Commission's Rules and Regulations. All such motions or protests must be filed on or before February 2, 2001. 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. Any person wishing to become a party must file a motion to intervene. 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 and protests 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. 01-1579  Filed 1-19-01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
# C_2011055EN.01003501.xml

| 19.2.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 55/35 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.2.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 55/35

---

Order of the General Court (First Chamber) of 13 December 2010 — Martinet v Commission

(Case T-163/09) (1)

1

2011/C 55/63

Language of the case: French

The President of the First Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 141, 20.6.2009.

1

---
Richard D. DAVIS, III, petitioner, v. FOLSOM CORDOVA UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, et al.

No. 16-1389.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 2, 2017.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                          21,901
<SECURITIES>                                    29,013
<RECEIVABLES>                                   39,584
<ALLOWANCES>                                  (25,556)
<INVENTORY>                                      1,982
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                79,666
<PP&E>                                          57,809
<DEPRECIATION>                                (44,865)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 118,792
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           48,830
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       112,826
<OTHER-SE>                                    (54,833)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   118,792
<SALES>                                         21,683
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                25,241
<CGS>                                            5,948
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   10,126
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                35,228
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 111
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (19,487)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,482
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (20,969)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (20,969)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.59)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.59)
        

</TABLE>
Sidney BENDER, petitioner, v. Barack H. OBAMA, President of the United States, et al.

No. 16-419.

Supreme Court of the United States

Nov. 28, 2016.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit denied.
# C_2009282EN.01005502.xml

| 21.11.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 282/55 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.11.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 282/55

---

Action brought on 21 September 2009 — Visti Beheer BV v OHIM — Meister (GOLD MEISTER)

(Case T-372/09)

2009/C 282/104

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Visti Beheer BV (Rotterdam, Nethrerlands) (represented by: A. Herbertz, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Meister + Co. AG (Wollerau, Switzerland)

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

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | Vary the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market of 26 June 2009 (Case R 1465/2008-1) so that it annuls the decision of the Office for Harmonisation in opposition procedure B 1 134 651 and grants the Community trade mark application No 5 243 209 for the contested goods; |
| --- | --- |

—

Vary the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market of 26 June 2009 (Case R 1465/2008-1) so that it annuls the decision of the Office for Harmonisation in opposition procedure B 1 134 651 and grants the Community trade mark application No 5 243 209 for the contested goods;

| — | Order OHIM to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order OHIM to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: the applicant

Applicant for a Community trade mark:

Community trade mark concerned: the figurative mark ‘GOLD MEISTER’ in respect of goods and services in Classes 3, 14, 16, 35, 37, 40 and 42 (Application No 5 243 209)

Community trade mark concerned:

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Meister + Co. AG

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings:

+

Mark or sign cited in opposition: the German word mark No 39 534 716 and the Community mark No 2 607 737‘MEISTER’ for goods in Class 14, whereas the opposition is directed solely against the registration for goods in that Class

Mark or sign cited in opposition:

Decision of the Opposition Division: Upheld the opposition

Decision of the Opposition Division:

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

Decision of the Board of Appeal:

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (1) as there is no likelihood of confusion between the conflicting trade marks.

Pleas in law:

1

---

(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark (OJ 2009 L 78, p. 1)

1

---
Leon ROBINSON, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 17-7500.

Supreme Court of the United States

Feb. 20, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the District of Columbia Court of Appeals denied.
Kenneth MARSHALL, petitioner, v. Charles BRADLEY, Warden.

No. 16-7051.

Supreme Court of the United States

Jan. 17, 2017.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit denied.
Celeste PUPPOLO, Personal Representative of the Estate of Nancy V. Puppolo, petitioner, v. HOLY CROSS HOSPITAL OF SILVER SPRING, INC.

No. 16-1410.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 2, 2017.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Special Appeals of Maryland denied.
Richard Charles LUSSY, petitioner, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE.

No. 17-918.

Supreme Court of the United States

March 19, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit denied.
II-00699

From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

Richard Rheder <wellredwolf@yahoo.com>

Thursday, December 2, 2010 12:22 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.

Richard Rheder

P.O.B. 931

Woodstock, NY 12498
John STOCKMAN, petitioner, v. Mary BERGHUIS, Warden.

No. 15-9328.

Supreme Court of the United States

Jan. 9, 2017.

Petition for rehearing denied.
Court of Appeals

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A24A0434. MICHAEL G. LALONDE v. TAYLOR ENGLISH DUMA, LLP et

al.

Michael Lalonde sued his former attorneys, Taylor English Duma, LLP, and

one of its partners, Michael H. Trotter, for legal malpractice. The trial court granted

summary judgment to the law firm and Trotter, and Lalonde appealed to this Court.

We affirmed the grant of summary judgment in Lalonde v. Taylor English Duma,

LLP, 349 Ga. App. 853 (825 SE2d 237) (2019) (physical precedent only), and in

doing so, determined that the cross appeal was moot. Id. at 863 (4). The Supreme

Court initially granted Lalonde’s application for writ of certiorari, see Lalonde v.

Taylor English Duma, LLP, Case No. S19C1110 (Nov. 18, 2019), but later

determined the writ was improvidently granted and denied it. See Lalonde v. Taylor

English Duma, LLP, Case No. S19G1110 (Apr. 6, 2020).

Upon remittitur, Lalonde filed a motion for a pretrial conference, arguing that

the trial court granted summary judgment only on one of his claims and that his lost

market value and attorney fees claims remained to be adjudicated. The trial court

denied Lalonde’s motion, finding that all of his claims were fully resolved adversely

to him by this Court. From that order, Lalonde filed this direct appeal.

Pretermitting whether the trial court’s order was final under OCGA § 5-6-34

(a) (1), the court correctly determined that this Court previously adjudicated all of

Lalonde’s claims. And Lalonde may not relitigate issues already decided by this

Court. See Massey v. Massey, 294 Ga. 163, 165 (2) (751 SE2d 330) (2013) (“‘[A]

party is not entitled to a second appeal from a single order.’[Cit.]”). “It is axiomatic

that the same issue cannot be relitigated ad infinitum. The same is true of appeals of

November 17, 2023
the same issue on the same grounds. Our determination in the earlier appeal is res

judicata; the instant appeal is therefore barred, and we are without jurisdiction to

review this same matter for a second time.” Echols v. State, 243 Ga. App. 775, 775

(534 SE2d 464) (2000) (citation omitted). 

Accordingly, Lalonde presents no issue for review, and this appeal is hereby

DISMISSED. 

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________

I certify that the above is a true extract from

the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court

hereto affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

11/17/2023
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

December 27, 2005 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice
129378 Michael F. Cavanagh Elizabeth A. Weaver Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman, Justices

v SC: 129378 COA: 262245 Osceola CC: 03-003608-FC RAY DARWIN MAGUIRE, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application fo r leave to appeal th e July 22, 2005 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.

K ELLY , J., would hold this case in abeyance for People v Drohan , lv gtd 472 Mich 881 (2005).

s1219 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.

December 27, 2005

Clerk
Melvin MANNING, petitioner, v. HUDSON COUNTY, NEW JERSEY.

No. 16-5470.

Supreme Court of the United States

Jan. 9, 2017.

Petition for rehearing denied.
Warren WADDY, petitioner, v. OHIO.

No. 17-7145.

Supreme Court of the United States

Feb. 26, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals of Ohio, Franklin County denied.
II-01213

From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

Richard Matthews <Rickmmmm@aol.com>

Wednesday, December 1, 2010 2:39 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.

Richard Matthews

2942 S. Carolina St.

San Pedro, CA 90731-6620