alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>	6

<CIK>	0000744822

<NAME>	Fidelity Investment Trust

<SERIES>

	<NUMBER>	141

	<NAME>	Fidelity Southeast Asia Fund

<MULTIPLIER>	1,000



<S>

<C>

<PERIOD-TYPE>
year
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>
oct-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>
oct-31-1999
<INVESTMENTS-AT-COST>
258,867
<INVESTMENTS-AT-VALUE>
359,202
<RECEIVABLES>
3,302
<ASSETS-OTHER>
4,877
<OTHER-ITEMS-ASSETS>
0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>
367,381
<PAYABLE-FOR-SECURITIES>
1,915
<SENIOR-LONG-TERM-DEBT>
0
<OTHER-ITEMS-LIABILITIES>
4,784
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES>
6,699
<SENIOR-EQUITY>
0
<PAID-IN-CAPITAL-COMMON>
404,234
<SHARES-COMMON-STOCK>
29,688
<SHARES-COMMON-PRIOR>
27,479
<ACCUMULATED-NII-CURRENT>
566
<OVERDISTRIBUTION-NII>
0
<ACCUMULATED-NET-GAINS>
(144,491)
<OVERDISTRIBUTION-GAINS>
0
<ACCUM-APPREC-OR-DEPREC>
100,373
<NET-ASSETS>
360,682
<DIVIDEND-INCOME>
4,773
<INTEREST-INCOME>
344
<OTHER-INCOME>
32
<EXPENSES-NET>
4,306
<NET-INVESTMENT-INCOME>
843
<REALIZED-GAINS-CURRENT>
534
<APPREC-INCREASE-CURRENT>
103,804
<NET-CHANGE-FROM-OPS>
105,181
<EQUALIZATION>
0
<DISTRIBUTIONS-OF-INCOME>
562
<DISTRIBUTIONS-OF-GAINS>
0
<DISTRIBUTIONS-OTHER>
0
<NUMBER-OF-SHARES-SOLD>
19,445
<NUMBER-OF-SHARES-REDEEMED>
17,300
<SHARES-REINVESTED>
64
<NET-CHANGE-IN-ASSETS>
137,343
<ACCUMULATED-NII-PRIOR>
348
<ACCUMULATED-GAINS-PRIOR>
(145,090)
<OVERDISTRIB-NII-PRIOR>
0
<OVERDIST-NET-GAINS-PRIOR>
0
<GROSS-ADVISORY-FEES>
2,665
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>
0
<GROSS-EXPENSE>
4,369
<AVERAGE-NET-ASSETS>
300,109
<PER-SHARE-NAV-BEGIN>
8.130
<PER-SHARE-NII>
 .030
<PER-SHARE-GAIN-APPREC>
3.970
<PER-SHARE-DIVIDEND>
 .020
<PER-SHARE-DISTRIBUTIONS>
0
<RETURNS-OF-CAPITAL>
0
<PER-SHARE-NAV-END>
12.150
<EXPENSE-RATIO>
146





</TABLE>
Clayton S. CREEK, petitioner, v. SOUTH DAKOTA BOARD OF PARDONS AND PAROLES, et al.

No. 16-6245.

Supreme Court of the United States

Dec. 5, 2016.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit denied.
Sandra LAYNE, petitioner, v. Shawn BREWER, Warden.

No. 17-856.

Supreme Court of the United States

Feb. 20, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit denied.
II-00520

From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

Linda Hopfer <hoppiel @sbcglobal.net>

Thursday, December 2, 2010 3:50 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.

Linda Hopfer

1982 Centurion Dr.

Fenton, MO 63026
Jonathan Joel GIL-MARTINEZ, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 16-6836.

Supreme Court of the United States

Jan. 9, 2017.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit denied.
# C_2010024EN.01001903.xml

| 30.1.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 24/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.1.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 24/19

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Najwyższy (Poland) lodged on 28 October 2009 — Polska Telefonia Cyfrowa sp. z o.o. v Prezes Urzędu Komunikacji Elektronicznej

(Case C-410/09)

2010/C 24/33

Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Referring court

Sąd Najwyższy

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Polska Telefonia Cyfrowa sp. z o.o.

Applicant:

Defendant: Prezes Urzędu Komunikacji Elektronicznej

Defendant:

Question referred

Question referred

Does Article 58 of the Act of Accession (OJ 2003 L 236, p. 33) allow reliance to be placed against individuals in a Member State upon European Commission guidelines (OJ 2002 C 165, p. 6) of which, under Article 16(1) of Directive 2002/21/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on a common regulatory framework for electronic communications networks and services (Framework Directive) (OJ 2002 L 108, p. 33), the national regulatory authority should take the utmost account when carrying out an analysis of the relevant markets, where those guidelines have not been published in the Official Journal of the European Union in the language of that State and that language is an official language of the European Union?

Official Journal of the European Union

---
cbim_ex103.htm

 EXHIBIT 10.3
  
 Contract for Sale of Goods
  
 This Contract for Sale of Goods is made this 18 day of October, 2017 by and between Dongguan Kande electronics co., LTD. The address: Longcheng street 2 number 2, Qing Xi town, dongguan city, guangdong province, China (“Seller”) and CASTLE BRIDGE IMPACT MEDIA INC, 3 Banyatelep, Visegrad 2025 Hungary (“Buyer”), for the purchase of the goods made by Seller. 
  
 1. Term. This Contract shall begin on October 18th, 2017, and end by October 30th, 2018, unless the parties agree otherwise. 
  
 2. Delivery. Buyer will give Seller 90 days’ advance notice regarding the quantity requested for delivery. Upon receipt of the request for delivery, Seller will arrange for delivery through a carrier chosen by Seller, the costs of which shall be F.O.B. 
  
 3. Appointment. Buyer hereby appoints Supplier, and Supplier accepts such appointment, to act as a non-exclusive supplier of the Products to buyer.
  
 4. Prices. The prices paid by buyer to seller for Products shall initially be as set forth in agreement between seller and buyer. Buyer shall have the right to purchase products at item prices. Prices are exclusive of all taxes, insurance, and shipping and handling charges, which are buyer’s sole responsibility.
  
 5. Acceptance. Buyer will have the right to inspect the goods upon receipt, Buyer must give notice to Seller of any claim for damages on account of condition, quality, or grade of the goods, and Buyer must specify the basis of the claim in detail. Failure of Buyer to comply with these conditions will constitute irrevocable acceptance of the goods by Buyer. All notices between the parties must be in writing and delivered by courier or by certified mail, return receipt requested. 
  
 6. Confidentiality. Each of the parties hereto agrees to hold confidential and proprietary information and trade secrets obtained from the other, and designated as such in writing by the disclosing party, in confidence and not to use or disclose such confidential and proprietary information and trade secrets to third parties without the consent of the other party, except that each of parties may disclose such information to their respective employees and agents who need to know such information for the purposes of operating their respective businesses. The parties agree that the provisions contained in this paragraph shall survive the termination of this Agreement.
  
 7. Warranty. Seller warrants that the goods sold hereunder are new and free from substantive defects in workmanship and materials. Seller's liability under the foregoing warranty is limited to replacement of goods or repair of defects or refund of the purchase price at Seller's sole option. No other warranty, express or implied, is made by Seller, and none shall be imputed or presumed. 
  
 8. Governing Law. This Contract shall be governed by the laws of the State of NV. Any disputes hereunder will be heard in the appropriate federal and state courts located in NV. 
  
 Buyer 
 /s/ Mester Frigyes 
  
 Seller
 /s/ Zhou Yingling
Allan L, ROTHER, petitioner, v. Harold W. CLARKE, Director, Virginia Department of Corrections.

No. 16-5919.

Supreme Court of the United States

Nov. 14, 2016.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied.
**Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 4 February 2010 – Commission v Sweden**

**(Case C‐185/09)**

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Directive 2006/24/EC – Electronic communications – Retention of data generated or processed in connection with the provision of electronic communications services – Failure to transpose within the prescribed period

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. 9)

**Re:**

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | Failure of Member State to fulfil obligations – Failure to adopt, within the prescribed period, the provisions necessary to comply Directive 2006/24/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 March 2006 on the retention of data generated or processed in connection with the provision of publicly available electronic communications services or of public communications networks and amending Directive 2002/58/EC (OJ 2006 L 105, p. 54). |

**Operative part**

The Court:

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 1. | | Declares that, by failing to adopt, within the prescribed period, the provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2006/24/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 March 2006 on the retention of data generated or processed in connection with the provision of publicly available electronic communications services or of public communications networks and amending Directive 2002/58/EC, the Kingdom of Sweden has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive; |

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 2. | | Orders the Kingdom of Sweden to pay the costs. |
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 205 Reported in House (RH)]

                                                  House Calendar No. 14
111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. RES. 205

                          [Report No. 111-23]

Providing for further consideration of the bill (H.R. 1106) to prevent 
    mortgage foreclosures and enhance mortgage credit availability.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 4, 2009

  Mr. Hastings of Florida, from the Committee on Rules, reported the 
  following resolution; which was referred to the House Calendar and 
                         ordered to be printed

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
Providing for further consideration of the bill (H.R. 1106) to prevent 
    mortgage foreclosures and enhance mortgage credit availability.

    Resolved, That during further consideration of the bill (H.R. 1106) 
to prevent mortgage foreclosures and enhance mortgage credit 
availability, pursuant to House Resolution 190, amendment number 1 
printed in House Report 111-21 shall be considered as perfected by the 
modification printed in the report of the Committee on Rules 
accompanying this resolution.
                                                  House Calendar No. 14

111th CONGRESS

  1st Session

                              H. RES. 205

                          [Report No. 111-23]

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

Providing for further consideration of the bill (H.R. 1106) to prevent 
    mortgage foreclosures and enhance mortgage credit availability.

_______________________________________________________________________

                             March 4, 2009

        Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed
```
Commodity Futures Trading Commission ♦ Office of Public Affairs ♦ 202-418-5080

Commodity Futures Trading Commission

Office of Public Affairs

Three Lafayette Centre

1155 21st Street, NW

Washington, DC 20581

www.cftc.gov

Harmonization of Compliance Obligations for Registered Investment 

Companies Required to Register as Commodity Pool Operators

The Commodity Futures Trading Commission (“Commission” or “CFTC”) is proposing to amend the reporting 

requirements applicable to certain investment companies registered under the Investment Company Act of 1940, 

whose advisors would be required to register with the Commission as commodity pool operators (CPOs) pursuant 

to changes adopted by the Commission to § 4.5.

Background

The Commission proposed in February 2011, and recently adopted as final rules, revisions to the requirements for 

determining which persons should be required to register as CPOs under § 4.5. The Commission is adopting the 

proposed changes to § 4.5, with some minor modifications, and is proposing certain provisions to facilitate 

compliance by registered investment companies with the Commission’s disclosure, reporting, and recordkeeping 

requirements. The proposed amendments to promote harmonization are based on the consideration of comments 

that were submitted on the previously proposed amendments to § 4.5, information provided during a staff 

roundtable on July 16, 2011 (“Roundtable”), and meetings with interested parties.

Rationale

The Commission received a number of comments regarding the changes to § 4.5. Specifically, commenters 

suggested that sponsors of investment companies registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission 

(“SEC”), which would also be required to register as CPOs under § 4.5, may be subject to duplicative, inconsistent, 

and possibly conflicting, disclosure and reporting requirements. This proposed rulemaking attempts to harmonize 

Commission and SEC requirements to minimize the compliance burden on these registrants.

Changes to Compliance Obligations

The Commission is proposing to amend § 4.12(c) such that the CPO of any pool whose units of participation will 

be offered and sold pursuant to an effective registration statement under the Securities Act of 1933 may claim the 

relief from the delivery and acknowledgement requirements under § 4.21, certain periodic financial reporting 

obligations under § 4.22, and the requirement that records be maintained at the CPO’s main office under § 4.23 

with respect to that pool.
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this

opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the

limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 01-20415

Summary Calendar

 

KENNARD LAZENBY,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

WILTEL COMMUNICATION, doing business as 

Williams Communications Solutions,

Defendant-Appellee.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 99-CV-3435

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

February 22, 2002

Before DAVIS, BENAVIDES, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Kennard Lazenby appeals from an adverse summary judgment

disposing of his race discrimination claims. After de novo review

of the briefs and summary judgment evidence, we affirm essentially

for the reasons set forth in the memorandum and recommendation of

the magistrate judge which was approved and adopted by the district

court. The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
II-00512

From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

Wm Schultz <snuhwolf5150@hotmail.com>

Thursday, December 2, 2010 3:53 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.

Wm Schultz

339 w 4th

whitefish, MT 59937
Exhibit 10.3


 





AMENDMENT TO THE


EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT


 


 


This Amendment (“Amendment”)
is entered into as of the 23rd day of May 2016, by and between Home Bank, N.A. (the “Bank”) and Jason P.
Freyou (the “Executive”).


 


WITNESSETH


 


WHEREAS, the
Bank and the Executive previously entered into an Employment Agreement, dated as of April 27th, 2015 (the “Agreement”);
and


 


WHEREAS, the
parties desire to amend the Agreement in order to extend its term, as provided in Section 2(b) thereof.


 


NOW, THEREFORE,
the parties hereto, intending to be legally bound hereby, agree as follows:


 


1.The
last sentence in Section 2(a) of the Agreement is amended and restated to read as follows: “The terms and conditions of
this Agreement shall be and remain in effect during the period beginning on the Effective Date of this Agreement and ending on
June 22, 2018, plus such extensions, if any, as are provided pursuant to Section 2(b) hereof (the “Employment Period”).”


 


2.Except
to the extent expressly amended hereby, the Agreement shall continue unmodified and shall remain in full force and effect.


 


IN WITNESS WHEREOF,
this Amendment has been duly executed by the parties hereto as of the day and year first written above.


 





	 	HOME BANK, N.A.
	 	 	 
	 	 	 
	 	By:	/s/ John W. Bordelon
	 	 	John W. Bordelon
	 	 	President and Chief Executive Officer
	 	 	 
	 	 	 
	 	EXECUTIVE
	 	 	 
	 	 	 
	 	/s/ Jason P. Freyou
	 	Jason P. Freyou
Charles Gene ROGERS, petitioner, v. NORTH CAROLINA.

No. 16-5219.

Supreme Court of the United States

Jan. 9, 2017.

Petition for rehearing denied.
Exhibit 31.2

CERTIFICATION

I, Rafael Torres,certify that:

1.	I have reviewed this quarterlyreport on Form
10-Q of PLX Technology, 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 officers 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)) for the registrant
and have:

a)	Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or
caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our
supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant,
including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within
those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being
prepared;

b)	Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's
disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions
about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end
of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

c)	Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's
internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's
most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant's fourth fiscal quarter in the case
of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to
materially affect, the registrant's internal control over financial reporting;
and

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):

a)	all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in
the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are
reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant's ability to record,
process, summarize and report financial information; and

b)	any fraud, whether or not material, that involves
management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant's
internal control over financial reporting.

Date:  August 5, 2003



/s/ Rafael Torres	  Rafael Torres
   Chief Financial Officer(Principal Financial Officer)

---
II-00432

From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

Steve Mo <smoll @verizon.net>

Thursday, December 2, 2010 7:49 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.

Steve Mo

7572 Danton Cir

Huntington Beach, CA 92648