alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-1706

JOHN D. BLACK, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus JAMES SHARPE, Mayor, Newark, New Jersey; CHRISTIE WHITMAN, Governor, New Jersey; RICHARD L. GRUBER, Esquire, Defendants - Appellees.Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard, District Judge. (CA-96-454-5-H) Submitted: July 30, 1998 Decided: August 25, 1998 Before WIDENER, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. John D. Black, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant filed an untimely notice of appeal. We dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. The time periods for filing notices of appeal are governed by Fed. R. App. P. 4. These periods are “mandatory and jurisdictional.” Browder v. Director, Dep’t of Corrections , 434 U.S. 257, 264 (1978) (quoting United States v. Robinson , 361 U.S. 220, 229 (1960)). Parties to civil actions have thirty days withinwhich to file in the district court notices of appeal from judgments or final orders. Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1). The only exceptions to the appeal period are when the district court extends the time to appeal under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5) or reopens the appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6). The district court entered its order on November 8, 1996; Appellant’s notice of appeal was filed on May 11, 1998, which is beyond the thirty-day appeal period. Appellant’s failure to note a timely appeal or obtain an extension of the appeal period leavesthis court without jurisdiction to consider the merits of Appellant’s appeal. We therefore dismiss the appeal. We deny Black’s motion to amend his complaint. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented inthe materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
Frantonio Lee BRUNSON, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 16-7139.

Supreme Court of the United States

Jan. 9, 2017.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied.
II-00893

From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

Yvonne Hansen <yhansen@austin.rr.com>

Thursday, December 2, 2010 10:17 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.

Yvonne Hansen

6206 HillstonDr

Austin, TX 78745
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                                        <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                    3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                               0
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               3,332,752
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,985,270
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                   1,347,482
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 3,332,752
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               348,456
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (228,587)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (228,587)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (228,587)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (1.31)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (1.31)
        

</TABLE>
**EXHIBIT 23.1**

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on Form S-8 (No. 333-54938, No. 333-43090, No. 333-90725, No. 333-54936, No. 333-117507, No. 333-135598, No. 333-147179) ofCyberSource Corporation of our reports dated February 26, 2009, with respect to the consolidated financial statements and schedule of CyberSource Corporation, and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting of CyberSourceCorporation, included in this Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31, 2009. 

/s/    ERNST & YOUNG LLP 

San Jose, California 

February 26, 2010
II-Ol040

From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

Don Pratt <dbp91044@aol.com>

Thursday, December 2, 2010 8:51 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.

Don Pratt

210 Walton Ave

Lexington, KY 40502
EXHIBIT 31.2
 Certification
  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 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 report;3.
    
    Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in
this 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
report;4.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing and
maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and
15d-15(e)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules
13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for the registrant and have:
     5.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent
evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and the
audit committee of the registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent
functions):
   Date: June 20, 2008
    /s/     Paul  S. FeeleyPaul S. FeeleySenior Vice President, Chief Financial Officer 
and Treasurer
1195.

#### Avery *v.*The State.

Hill, C. J.

1. The judges of the superior courts have jurisdiction to hear and determine certioraries in criminal cases, as in civil cases, in vacation, and in a county other than that wherein the plaintiff in certiorari was tried and convicted. Renal Code, §§ 764,-767; Civil Code, § 4323.

2. The judge of the superior court, on the application of either the plaintiff in certiorari or the solicitor-general, can pass an order fixing a time and place for hearing the certiorari; and when the time and place is *461fixed by the court on the application of the solicitor-general, the solicitor-general shall give the accused or his attorney ten days’ notice in writing of the time and place of the hearing. This notice need not be given by him officially; it is sufficient if given by any one' acting under his direction. If the accused, by his counsel, appear at the time and place so fixed and participate 0ixx the hearing, he will be presumed to have’ waived the ten days’ notice required by statute (Civil Code, § 4324).

Certiorari, from Putnam superior court — Judge Lewis. April 20, 1908.

Submitted June 9,

Decided June 18, 1908.

*W. T. Davidson,*for plaintiff in error.

*J. E. Pottle, solicitor-general,*contra.

3. The verdict was fully supported by the evidence, and there was no error in overruling the certiorari. *Judgment affirmed.*
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. RP96-389-024]

Take notice that on June 13, 2001, Columbia Gulf Transmission Company (Columbia Gulf) tendered for filing to the Commission the following contract for disclosure of a recently negotiated rate transaction:

FTS-1 Service Agreement No. 70692 between Columbia Gulf Transmission Company and Warren Power, LLC, dated June 6, 2001

Columbia Gulf requests that the Commission accept the FTS-1 service agreement to be effective within thirty (30) days of the filing date of such service agreement.

Columbia Gulf states that copies of the filing have been served on all parties on the official service list created by the Secretary in this proceeding.

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, N.E., Washington, D.C. 20426, in accordance with Sections 385.214 or 385.211 of the Commission's Rules and Regulations. All such motions or 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. 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, 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.

Linwood A. Watson, Jr.,

Acting Secretary.

[FR Doc. 01-15860  Filed 6-22-01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
Leonard PATTERSON, petitioner, v. Bruce BEEMER, Attorney General of Pennsylvania, et al.

No. 16-6459.

Supreme Court of the United States

Nov. 28, 2016.

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

Justice ALITO took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.
Exhibit 10.6


 




UNSECURED PROMISSORY NOTE












February 17, 2016




U.S. $25,000.00 












FOR VALUE RECEIVED, the undersigned, Eos Petro, Inc., a Nevada corporation (the "Issuer"), hereby promises to pay to the order of Plethora Enterprises, LLC, a Wyoming limited liability company (the "Payee"), at such place as the Payee shall direct in writing, the principal sum of Twenty Five Thousand Dollars ($25,000.00), with interest at 10.00% on the unpaid balance.  All references to Dollars herein are to lawful currency of the United States of America.







All unpaid principal of this Note and accrued interest shall be due and payable on July 1, 2016 (the "Maturity Date"). This Note may be prepaid at any time in whole or in part without penalty.







In any action at law or in equity to enforce or construe any provisions or rights under this Note, the unsuccessful party or parties to such litigation, as determined by a court pursuant to a final offer, judgment or decree, shall pay to the successful party or parties all costs, expenses and reasonable attorneys' fees incurred by such successful party.







This Note and all actions arising out of or in connection with this Note shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of California, without regard to the conflicts of law provisions of the State of California, or of any other state.

















Eos Petro, Inc.


A Nevada corporation












By: /s/ Nikolas Konstant


    Nikolas Konstant


    Its: Chief Financial Officer
seb_Ex10_1



		

			Exhibit 10.1

		





		
			SEABOARD TRIUMPH FOODS, LLC
		

		
			 
		

		
			AMENDMENT TO EXHIBIT  A
		

		
			TO
		

		
			SUBSCRIPTION AGREEMENT
		

		
			 
		

		
			 
		

		
			Seaboard Triumph Foods, LLC (“STF”), Triumph Foods, LLC (“TF”) and Seaboard Foods of Iowa, LLC (formerly known as Seaboard TF Holdings, LLC) (“SF”), agree and consent to the amendment and restatement of Exhibit A to the Seaboard Triumph Foods, LLC Subscription Agreement dated May 13, 2015 (the “Subscription Agreement”) by and between Seaboard Triumph Foods, LLC (the “Company”) and SF, to be replaced by Exhibit A attached hereto.
		

		
			 
		

		
			Date:  February 29, 2016
		

		
			 
		

			
					
						 

					
					
						SEABOARD TRIUMPH FOODS LLC

				
	
					
						 

					
					
						 

					
					
						 

				
	
					
						 

					
					
						By:

					
					
						/s/ Terry J. Holton

				
	
					
						 

					
					
						Name:

					
					
						Terry J. Holton

				
	
					
						 

					
					
						Title:

					
					
						Vice President

				



		
			 
		

			
					
						 

					
					
						SEABOARD FOODS OF IOWA LLC

				
	
					
						 

					
					
						 

					
					
						 

				
	
					
						 

					
					
						By:

					
					
						/s/ Robert L. Steer

				
	
					
						 

					
					
						Name:

					
					
						Robert L. Steer

				
	
					
						 

					
					
						Title:

					
					
						Vice President

				



		
			 
		

			
					
						 

					
					
						TRIUMPH FOODS, LLC

				
	
					
						 

					
					
						 

					
					
						 

				
	
					
						 

					
					
						By:

					
					
						/s/ Mark S. Campbell

				
	
					
						 

					
					
						Name:

					
					
						Mark S. Campbell

				
	
					
						 

					
					
						Title:

					
					
						Chief Executive Officer

				



		
			 
		

		
			 
		

		
			 
		

		
			 
		

		
			


		 


 



		

			 

		




EXHIBIT  A
		

		
			 
		

		
			[Omitted]
		

		
			 
		

		
			Seaboard Corporation undertakes to provide to the Securities and Exchange Commission Exhibit A, as requested, subject to Seaboard's right to request confidential treatment under the Freedom of Information Act.
		

		
			 
		


		 


		

			-2-
Jeffrey Marshall ALSBORG, petitioner, v. Gary SWARTHOUT, Warden, et al.

No. 16-7113.

Supreme Court of the United States

Jan. 9, 2017.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.
# C_2009090EN.01001503.xml

| 18.4.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 90/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.4.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 90/15

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from High Court of Justice (England & Wales), Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court) (United Kingdom) made on 13 February 2009 — Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry v Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency

(Case C-62/09)

2009/C 90/24

Language of the case: English

Referring court

Referring court

High Court of Justice (England & Wales), Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court)

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry

Applicant:

Defendant: Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency

Defendant:

Questions referred

Questions referred

Does Article 94(1) of Directive 2001/83/EC (1) preclude a public body forming part of a national public health service, in order to seek to reduce its overall expenditure on medicines, from implementing a scheme which offers financial incentives to medical practices (which may in turn provide a financial benefit to the prescribing doctor) to prescribe a specific named medicine supported by the incentive scheme that is either:

1

| (a) | a different prescription medicine to the medicine previously prescribed by thedoctor to the patient; or |
| --- | --- |

(a)

a different prescription medicine to the medicine previously prescribed by thedoctor to the patient; or

| (b) | a different prescription medicine to that which otherwise might have beenprescribed to the patient but for the incentive scheme, |
| --- | --- |

(b)

a different prescription medicine to that which otherwise might have beenprescribed to the patient but for the incentive scheme,

where such a different prescription medicine is from the same therapeutic class of medicines used for treatment of the patient's particular condition.

---

(1)  Directive 2001/83/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 November 2001 on the Community code relating to medicinal products for human use OJ L 311, p. 67

1

---
# C_2011145EN.01002602.xml

| 14.5.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 145/26 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.5.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 145/26

---

Judgment of the General Court of 24 March 2011 — Cybergun v OHIM — Umarex Sportwaffen (AK 47)

(Case T-419/09) (1)

1

(Community trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - Community word mark AK 47 - Absolute ground for refusal - Descriptive character - Article 7(1)(c) and Article 52(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

2011/C 145/43

Language of the case: German

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Cybergun SA (Bondoufle, France) (represented by: S. Guyot, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: G. Schneider, Agent)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervening before the General Court: Umarex Sportwaffen GmbH & Co. KG (Arnsberg, Germany) (represented by: M.-H. Hoffmann, lawyer)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervening before the General Court:

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 5 August 2009 (Case R 1101/2007-1) relating to invalidity proceedings between Umarex Sportwaffen GmbH & Co. KG and Cybergun SA.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Cybergun SA to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Cybergun SA to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 312, 19.12.2009.

1

---
II-O0901

From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

Corey E. Olsen <ceolsen@execpc.com>

Thursday, December 2, 2010 10:13 AM

dfadefinitions <dfadefinitions@CFTC.gov>

Re: No loopholes in Dodd-Frank

1) Securities and Exchange Commission/Commodities Futures Trading Commission, Re: Commercial Risk (CFTC PIN

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 (PIN 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 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.

Corey E. Olsen

CEO Pipe Organs/Golden Ponds Farm

Delafield, WI 53018