alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
```

[Federal Register: April 22, 2002 (Volume 67, Number 77)]
[Notices]
[Page 19558]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr22ap02-30]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION


Guidelines for Ensuring and Maximizing the Quality, Objectivity,
Utility, and Integrity of Information Disseminated by the Commodity
Futures Trading Commission

AGENCY: Commodity Futures Trading Commission.

ACTION: Notice of availability of draft report.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC or agency) in
accordance with Section 515 of the Treasury and General Government
Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2001 (Public Law 106-554; H.R. 5658)
as implemented by the final guidelines published by the Office of
Management and Budget, Executive Office of the President, on September
28, 2001 (66 FR 49718) and on January 3, 2002 (67 FR 369) (and
reprinted in their entirety on February 22, 2002, 67 FR 8452),
"Guidelines for Ensuring and Maximizing the Quality, Objectivity,
Utility, and Integrity of Information Disseminated by Federal
Agencies,'' has posted its draft report on the CFTC website, http://www.cftc.gov/. This report provides the agency's information quality
guidelines and explains how such guidelines will ensure and maximize
the quality, objectivity, utility, and integrity of information,
including statistical information, disseminated by the CFTC. The draft
report also details the administrative mechanisms that will allow
affected persons to seek and obtain appropriate correction of
information maintained and disseminated by the CFTC that does not
comply with the OMB or agency guidelines.

DATES: Comments on the draft report should be received by June 1, 2002.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Barbara W. Black, Office of the
Executive Director, Commodity Futures Trading Commission, 1155 21st
Street, NW., Washington, DC 20581, e-mail: [email protected], telephone:
(202) 418-5130.

    Dated: April 16, 2002.
Jean A. Webb,
Secretary of the Commission.
[FR Doc. 02-9715 Filed 4-19-02; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6351-01-M
```
II-00718

From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

Anne Curran <dublinborn@comcast.net>

Thursday, December 2, 2010 12:05 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.

Anne Curran

7254 Cloister Drive

Sarasota, FL 34231
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-5233

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

VERNON LEON CARTER,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Newport News. Jerome B. Friedman, 

Senior District Judge. (4:10-cr-00085-JBF-TEM-1)

Submitted: May 13, 2011 Decided: June 2, 2011

Before MOTZ and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Michael S. Nachmanoff, Federal Public Defender, Keith Loren 

Kimball, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Norfolk, Virginia, 

for Appellant. Neil H. MacBride, United States Attorney, 

Kristine E. Wolfe, Special Assistant United States Attorney, 

Newport News, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Vernon Leon Carter pled guilty to one count of being a 

felon in possession of a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 

§ 922(g)(1) (2006). On appeal, he challenges the district 

court’s decision at sentencing to apply the two-level 

enhancement for recklessly creating a substantial risk of

serious bodily injury or death while being pursued by police 

pursuant to U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 3C1.2 (2010). 

Finding no error, we affirm.

This court reviews the district court’s factual 

findings regarding a sentencing enhancement for clear error and 

the legal interpretations of the Guidelines de novo. United 

States v. Carter, 601 F.3d 252, 254 (4th Cir. 2010). An 

individual’s acts are considered “reckless” when he “was aware 

of the risk created by his conduct and the risk was of such a 

nature and degree that to disregard that risk constituted a 

gross deviation from the standard of care that a reasonable 

person would exercise in such a situation.” USSG §§ 2A1.4 cmt. 

n.1, 3C1.2 cmt. n.2. We conclude that Carter’s conduct during 

the pursuit, in which he tossed a loaded handgun over a fence in 

a residential neighborhood with the intent that it will not be 

found by the police is sufficient to support the two-level 

increase.
3

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of conviction. We 

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal 

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the 

court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
1019.

#### Wood, ordinary, for use, etc., *v.*United States Fidelity and Guaranty Company.

Hill, C. J.

1. An insufficient verification of a plea in abatement is a mere matter of form, and is an amendable defect; and if the plaintiff does not object to the verification of the plea before issue joined, it will be too late for him to do so thereafter. Civil Code, §5045; *Ward*v. *Frick Company,*95 *Ga.*804 (22 S. E. 899).

2. The better practice is to submit the issue of the plea in abatement before trying the merits of the case;, but where both issues are sub*672mitted- together, and the verdict of the jury is restricted to the finding in favor of the plea in abatement, no harm is done, and the error is not reversible.

Action on bond, from city court of Dublin — Judge Burch. January 6, 1908.

Submitted April 21,

Decided August 4, 1908.

*Ira S. Chappell,*for plaintiff.

*Williams & Blackshear, J. S. Adams,*for defendant.

3. The evidence is sufficient to justify the verdict in favor of the plea in abatement. *Judgment affirmed.*
Demario COVINGTON, aka Booger, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 16-6092.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 31, 2016.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied.
David Van OSTEN, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 16-6306.

Supreme Court of the United States

Nov. 7, 2016.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit denied.
Lance C. SHOCKLEY, petitioner, v. MISSOURI.

No. 15-9076.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 3, 2016.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Missouri denied.
[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 124 (Wednesday, June 27, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Page 34274]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-16044]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

NORTHEAST DAIRY COMPACT COMMISSION


Notice of Meeting

AGENCY: Northeast Dairy Compact Commission.

ACTION: Notice of meeting.

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

SUMMARY: The Compact Commission will hold its regular monthly meeting 
to consider matters relating to administration and enforcement of the 
price regulation. This meeting will be held in So. Portland, Maine, 
continuing the Commission's program of holding a meeting in each of the 
Compact states. In addition to receiving reports and recommendations of 
its standing Committees, the Commission will receive a number of 
informational reports about the impact of the over-order price 
regulation in Maine.

DATES: The meeting will begin at 10 a.m. on Monday, July 9, 2001.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at the Best Western Merry Manor, 
700 Main Street, So. Portland, Maine 04106.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Daniel Smith, Executive Director, 
Northeast Dairy Compact Commission, 64 Main Street, Room 21, 
Montpelier, VT 05602. Telephone (802) 229-1941.

    Authority: 7 U.S.C. 7256.

    Dated: June 20, 2001.
Daniel Smith,
Executive Director.
[FR Doc. 01-16044 Filed 6-26-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 1650-01-P
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999             DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999             DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                          71,653                  11,111
<SECURITIES>                                    68,596                       0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    3,476                   1,092
<ALLOWANCES>                                     (282)                   (229)
<INVENTORY>                                          0                       0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 1,581                     411
<PP&E>                                          11,617                   3,448
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (3,615)                 (1,148)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 153,774                  14,975
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            6,125                   4,331
<BONDS>                                              0                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0                  18,911
<PREFERRED>                                          0                       0
<COMMON>                                            24                       5
<OTHER-SE>                                     147,131                 (9,020)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   153,774                  14,975
<SALES>                                              0                       0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                12,898                   3,384
<CGS>                                           10,835                   3,471
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   27,990                   9,950
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0                       0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               (287)                   (186)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (24,097)                (10,085)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0                       0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (24,097)                (10,085)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0                       0
<CHANGES>                                            0                       0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (24,097)                (10,089)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (1.70)                  (2.05)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0                       0


</TABLE>
Kenneth CLEGG, Jr., petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 16-6260.

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.
II-00933

From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

Ellen Leopold <eleopold@comcast.net>

Thursday, December 2, 2010 9:55 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.

Ellen Leopold

48 Hudson Place

Cambridge, MA 02138
In the

Court of Appeals

Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Worth

No. 02-17-00281-CR

KEVIN M. GIBSON, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS

§

§

§

§

§

On Appeal from the 213th District 

Court

of Tarrant County (1389802D)

February 28, 2019

Opinion by Justice Birdwell

(nfp)

JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that there 

was no error in the trial court’s judgment. It is ordered that the judgment of the trial 

court is affirmed.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS 

By /s/ Wade Birdwell

 Justice Wade Birdwell
#### Cesar Augusto CISNEROS-VALDEZ, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 09-72332.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Feb. 21, 2012.*

Filed March 2, 2012.

Steven P. Brazelton, Law Offices of Steven P. Brazelton, Reno, NV, for Petitioner.

Stuart Nickum, OIL, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel Ice, Office of the Chief Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.

Before: FERNANDEZ, McKEOWN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Cesar Augusto Cisneros-Valdez, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence factual findings. *Zehatye v. Gonzales,*453 F.3d 1182, 1184-85 (9th Cir.2006). We deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s denial of CAT relief because CisnerosValdez failed to establish it is more likely than not he would be tortured at the instigation or with the acquiescence of the Guatemalan government. *See Silaya v. Mukasey,*524 F.3d 1066, 1073 (9th Cir.2008). We reject Cisneros-Valdez’s contention that the agency did not consider the State Department country report as he has not overcome the presumption that it considered this evidence. *See Fernandez v. Gonzales,*439 F.3d 592, 603 (9th Cir.2006). Accordingly, Cisneros-Valdez’s CAT claim fails.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.
Third District Court of Appeal

State of Florida 

Opinion filed July 10, 2024.

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________

No. 3D23-1753

Lower Tribunal No. AHHCH8E

________________

William Craig Thomas,

Appellant,

vs.

The State of Florida, 

Appellee.

An appeal conducted pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 

(1967), from the County Court for Miami-Dade County, Robin Faber, Judge.

William Craig Thomas, in proper person.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, for appellee.

Before LOGUE, C.J., and MILLER, and BOKOR, JJ. 

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 


Before the 


COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION 


In the Matter of the Application of 

Clear Markets North America, Inc. for 

Registration as a Swap Execution Facility 

ORDER OF REGISTRATION 

Clear Markets N01ih America, Inc. ("Clear Markets") has submitted to the Commodity 

Futures Trading Commission ("Commission" or "CFTC"), pursuant to Section 5h of the 

Commodity Exchange Act ("Act"), 7 U.S.C. § 7b-3, and Commission Regulation 37.3(b ), 17 

C.F.R. § 37.3(b), an application for registration as a swap execution facility, which includes 

submissions dated August 19, 2013 through May 2, 2016. 

Having reviewed Clear Markets' application, the Commission HEREBY ORDERS that, 

pursuant to Section 5h of the Act and Commission Regulation 37.3(b)(6)(i), Clear Markets is 

granted registration as a swap execution facility, subject to the terms and conditions specified 

herein: 

(1) Clear Markets shall comply with all representations and submissions made by 

Clear Markets in support of its application for registration as a swap execution facility, as shown 

in the application record; 

(2) Clear Markets shall comply with all provisions of the Act and all requirements set 

forth in the Commission's regulations, as may be amended or adopted from time to time, that are 
applicable to swap execution facilities, provided that as prior relief granted by Commission staff 

pursuant to Commission regulation 140.99 remains in effect: 

(a) In lieu of complying with the specific requirements of Commission 

Regulations 37.9(a)(2) and 37.203(a) that are addressed in CFTC Letter No. 15-24, Clear 

Markets shall comply with the terms and conditions of CFTC Letter No. 15-24, for the 

duration set forth therein; 

(b) In lieu of complying with the specific requirements of Commission 

Regulation 43 .2 that are addressed in CFTC Letter No. 15-60, Clear Markets shall 

comply with the terms and conditions of CFTC Letter No. 15-60, for the duration set 

forth therein; 

(c) In lieu of complying with the specific requirements of Commission 

Regulations 37.205(a) and 37.205(b)(2) that are addressed in CFTC Letter No. 15-68, 

Clear Markets shall comply with the terms and conditions of CFTC Letter No. 15-68, for 

the duration set forth therein; and 

(3) Clear Markets shall be responsible for compliance with the terms and conditions 

of this Order of Registration, with respect to all regulatory services performed by any third party 

service provider on behalf of Clear Markets, within or outside of the jurisdiction of the United 

States. 

Issued in Washington, D.C. on this 27th day of June, 2016. 

By the Commission 

Christopher J. irkpatrick 

Secretary of the Commission 

2
II-O0310

From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

Gene Webb <webby3 @gmail.com>

Friday, December 3, 2010 4:05 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.

Gene Webb

2 Neame Ave.

San Rafael, CA 94901
Steven JANAKIEVSKI, petitioner, v. Philip GRIFFIN, Executive Director, Rochester Psychiatric Center.

No. 16-6293.

Supreme Court of the United States

Nov. 14, 2016.

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