alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
llUV lC Ut:l ll::JlC! 

COMMENT 

REF: Trading off the centralized market. 

To whom it may concern~ 

I would like to address the guidelines for block trading, 

specifically, determining the minimum size requirement. 

In hindsight I think we can all agree that average trade size is in 

no way an indication for block size. In addition, I would like to make 

my case that average size order is also not a good indicator. 

Small·speculators tend to gravitate towards more liquid 

markets; therefore these markets have large amounts of one through 

one hundred lot orders. These orders have no bearing on what size 

the traders of that market can handle, yet they would be included i~ 

determining the average size order. Many large orders are entered 

into the market place in piecemeal, so as not to adversely affect the 

market (a very common practice that experienced traders and 

brokers use instead of shopping their size to market makers as a 

block and getting scalped). When orders are broken up this way, they 

do not represent the true size of the order, once again affecting the 

average size. 

If block trading is going to continue, the minimum size 

requirement should be of a magnitude that all the traders in that 

market COMBINED could not handle in an orderly fashion. I can think 

of no easy way to determine this except using the average d?ily 

volume as the minimum size requirement. 

Arguments that include, needing one price, or needing a q{j,ick 

fill, are frivolous and should not be a good enough reason to allow 

prearranged trading. · .. 

-··\ 

,-·. i 

F'. 1 

Thank You, 

Matthew Zwielich ~,· . . . ..... : ....... 

::.:_ . .. ·.~· 

'!.._i - ~ .. : 

•- --· II, - ,-, • f 

-..''· ·"' ~ ,_, ,_. -· . ·'
II-00558

From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

Sharon Chastain <sharchas@gmail.com>

Thursday, December 2, 2010 2:49 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.

Sharon Chastain

22255 Dorre Don Way SE

Maple Valley, WA 98038
II-00671

From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

Edward Maupin <edmaupin@usa.net>

Thursday, December 2, 2010 12:41 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.

Edward Maupin

3340 Sixth Avenue

San Diego, CA 92103
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 Defense

###### Office of the Secretary

# AGENCY:

Department of Defense.

# ACTION:

Notice of advisory committee meeting date changes.

# SUMMARY:

On Monday, March 12, 2001 (66 FR 14359) the Department of Defense announced closed meetings of the Defense Science Board (DSB) Task Force on Intelligence Needs for Homeland Defense. These meetings have been rescheduled from June 25-26, 2001, to June 26-27, 2001; and from July 23-24, 2001, to July 24-25, 2001.

Both meetings will be held at Strategic Analysis Inc., 3601 Wilson Boulevard, Suite 600, Arlington, VA.

Dated: June 21, 2001.

L. M. Bynum,

Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.

[FR Doc. 01-16030  Filed 6-26-01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 5001-08-M
John D. McDOWELL, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 16-7126.

Supreme Court of the United States

Jan. 9, 2017.

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

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. RES. 216 

Amending the Rules of the House of Representatives to ensure that Members 

have a reasonable amount of time to read legislation that will be voted 

upon. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 5, 2009 

Mr. PAUL (for himself, Mr. BARTLETT, Mr. BUCHANAN, Mr. BURTON of Indiana, and Mr. JONES) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Rules 

RESOLUTION 

Amending the Rules of the House of Representatives to 

ensure that Members have a reasonable amount of time 

to read legislation that will be voted upon. 

1 Resolved, That (a) the Rules of the House of Rep2 resentatives are amended by redesignating rule XXIX as 

3 rule XXX and by inserting after rule XXVIII the following 

4 new rule: 

5 ‘‘RULE XXIX 

6 ‘‘TIME TO READ LEGISLATION BEFORE VOTING

7 ‘‘1. Notwithstanding any provision of these rules, no 

8 bill, joint resolution, conference report, or amendment be9 tween the Houses shall be voted on by the House unless 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with BILLS
2 

•HRES 216 IH 

1 the text of that measure has been available to all Members 

2 and their staffs in both printed and electronic format for 

3 at least 10 days and any manager’s amendment or other 

4 amendment which makes substantive changes to the legis5 lation has been made available in both printed and elec6 tronic versions for at least 72 hours before the scheduled 

7 vote on such legislation. 

8 ‘‘2. Clause 1 shall not apply to— 

9 ‘‘(1) the intelligence authorization bill, appro10 priations, or other legislation containing classified 

11 information, or conference report thereon, if Mem12 bers have at least 7 days to study the contents of 

13 such measure; and 

14 ‘‘(2) congressional declarations of war or au15 thorization of military force to respond to attacks on 

16 the United States. 

17 ‘‘3. Notwithstanding any provision of these rules, any 

18 citizen who is eligible to vote and who is not an employee 

19 of the executive or judicial branch of the Government may 

20 petition the board of the Office of Congressional Ethics 

21 to investigate allegations that a Member voted for any 

22 measure that violated this rule.’’. 

23 (b) Clause 6(c) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House 

24 of Representatives is amended by inserting before the peVerDate Nov 24 2008 03:20 Mar 06, 2009 Jkt 079200 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\HR216.IH HR216

jbell on PROD1PC69 with BILLS
3 

•HRES 216 IH 

1 riod at the end thereof the following: ‘‘, or a rule or order 

2 that would waive the provisions of rule XXIX’’. 

Æ 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with BILLS
Page 1 

Commodity Futures Trading Commission 

CEA CASES 

NAME: CLAUD WILKES 

CITATION: 9 Agric. Dec. 1198 

DOCKET NUMBER: 52 

DATE: OCTOBER 31, 1950 

DOCUMENT TYPE: STAY ORDER 

(No. 2579) 

In re CLAUD WILKES. CEA Doc. No. 52. Decided October 31, 1950. 

Stay Order -- Prior Order Stayed Pending Petition for Reconsideration

Order of October 11, 1950 * stayed pending petition for reconsideration and 

shall not become effective until further order issued. 

* 9 Agric. Dec. 1194 (9 A.D. 1194), supra. -- Ed. 

 

Mr. Harry B. Kelleher, of Kelleher, Hurley & Kohlmeyer, New Orleans, Louisiana, 

for petitioner. Mr. Benj. M. Holstein for Commodity Exchange Authority. 

Decision by Thomas J. Flavin, Judicial Officer

STAY ORDER

On October 11, 1950, an order was entered in this proceeding suspending 

respondent's trading privileges for a period of 60 days. On October 30, 1950, 

respondent filed a petition to reconsider the order entered. Pending action on 

the petition for reconsideration, the order of October 11, 1950, is stayed and 

shall not become effective until a further order is entered in this proceeding. 

Copies hereof shall be served upon the parties and the contract markets under 

the act. 

LOAD-DATE: December 15, 2008 
Page 2
**Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 6 May 2010 – Commission v Poland**

**(Case C‐311/09)**

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Taxation – VAT – International carriage of persons – Flat-rate taxation of transporters domiciled outside the national territory

1.                     *Member States – Obligations – Failure to fulfil obligations – Justification (Art. 226 EC) (see para 18)*

2.                     *Actions for failure to fulfil obligations – Right of the Commission to bring judicial proceedings – To be exercised at its
discretion (Art. 226 EC) (see para 19)*

3.                     *Actions for failure to fulfil obligations – Examination of the merits by the Court – Situation to be taken into consideration
– Situation on expiry of the period laid down in the reasoned opinion (Art. 226 EC) (see para 31)*

4.                     *Actions for failure to fulfil obligations – Proof of failure – Burden of proof on Commission (Art. 226 EC) (see point 34)*

5.                     *Tax provisions – Harmonisation of laws – Turnover taxes – Common system of value added tax – Taxable amount – Deduction of
input tax – Obligations of persons liable for payment of the tax (Council Directive 2006/112, Arts 73, 168 and 273) (see para
39, operative part)*

**Re:**

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Infringement of Articles 73, 168 and 273 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1) – International carriage of persons by road – National rules requiring transporters domiciled abroad to pay VAT under a flat-rate system based only on the number of persons transported to the national territory and which does not allow any right to deduct tax paid at an earlier stage. |

**Operative part:**

The Court:

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 1. | | Declares that, by charging value added tax in the manner set out in Chapter 13, Paragraph 35(1), (3), (4) and (5), of the Regulation of the Minister for Finance of 27 April 2004 on the implementation of certain provisions of the Law on the taxation of goods and services, the Republic of Poland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 73, 168 and 273 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax; |

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 2. | | Orders the Republic of Poland to pay the costs. |
II-00799

From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

John Gates <jgates04@neo.rr.com>

Thursday, December 2, 2010 11:15 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.

John Gates

517 Center Rd

Akron, OH 44319
William C. SALLIE, petitioner, v. Eric SELLERS, Warden.

No. 16-5876.

Supreme Court of the United States

Nov. 14, 2016.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit denied.
Alejandro MARTINEZ, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 16-6167.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 31, 2016.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit denied.
II-00058

From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

Eric Morse <corkladiowa@yahoo.com>

Tuesday, December 7, 2010 10:40 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.

Eric Morse

536 3rd Street

West Des Moines, IA 50265
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                                            9
<MULTIPLIER>                                      1000
       
<S>                                              <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                    3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              MAR-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                                   SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                             9,587
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                                 0
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                       0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                       0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                        8,134
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                             8,035
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                               8,134
<LOANS>                                          207,807
<ALLOWANCE>                                        3,014
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   464,472
<DEPOSITS>                                       377,618
<SHORT-TERM>                                      25,900
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                                4,810
<LONG-TERM>                                            0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                  0
<PREFERRED>                                            0
<COMMON>                                           2,791
<OTHER-SE>                                        53,353
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                   464,472
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                    4,324
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                    704
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                   3,250
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                   8,278
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                                 3,911
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 4,221
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                              4,057
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                         50
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                     0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                    4,509
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                     (121)
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                          (121)
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                        0
<CHANGES>                                              0
<NET-INCOME>                                         (85)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      (0.03)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      (0.03)
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                      7.47
<LOANS-NON>                                        5,928
<LOANS-PAST>                                       5,928
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                       0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      359
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                   3,031
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                        114
<RECOVERIES>                                          21
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                  3,014
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                               3,014
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                    0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                                0
        


</TABLE>
II-Oll31

From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

Edward labrosse <edlabrosse@yahoo.com>

Thursday, December 2, 2010 8:03 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.

Edward labrosse

n62w15725 cherry hill dr

menomonee falls, WI 53051
# C_2009069EN.01005501.xml

| 21.3.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 69/55 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.3.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 69/55

---

Action brought on 30 January 2009 — Faria v OHIM

(Case F-7/09)

(2009/C 69/122)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Marie-Hélène Faria (Muchamiel, Spain) (represented by: L. Levi, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market

Defendant:

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Application for annulment of the evaluation report in respect of the period from 1 October 2006 to 30 September 2007, and an order that the defendant pay compensation for the loss suffered by the applicant.

Form of order sought

The applicant claims the Tribunal should:

| — | Annul the evaluation report in respect of the period from 1 October 2006 to 30 September 2007; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the evaluation report in respect of the period from 1 October 2006 to 30 September 2007;

| — | So far as necessary, annul the decision of 17 October 2008 rejecting the complaint brought by the applicant; |
| --- | --- |

—

So far as necessary, annul the decision of 17 October 2008 rejecting the complaint brought by the applicant;

| — | Order the defendant to pay damages to compensate for the non-material harm suffered, assessed on equitable principles at EUR 100 000; |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the defendant to pay damages to compensate for the non-material harm suffered, assessed on equitable principles at EUR 100 000;

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

—

Order OHIM to pay the costs.

---
Keith REID, petitioner, v. HURLEY MEDICAL CENTER.

No. 16-5514.

Supreme Court of the United States

Jan. 9, 2017.

Petition for rehearing denied.