alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2011160EN.01001903.xml

| 28.5.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 160/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.5.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 160/19

---

Judgment of the General Court of 12 April 2011 — Fuller & Thaler Asset Management v OHIM (BEHAVIOURAL INDEXING and BEHAVIOURAL INDEX)

(Cases T-310/09 and T-383/09) (1)

1

(Community trade mark - Applications for Community word marks BEHAVIOURAL INDEXING and BEHAVIOURAL INDEX - Absolute ground for refusal - Descriptive character - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

2011/C 160/28

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Fuller & Thaler Asset Management, Inc. (San Mateo, United States) (represented by: S. Malynicz, Barrister)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: D. Botis, acting as Agent)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

ACTIONS brought, in Case T-310/09, against the decision of the Grand Board of Appeal of OHIM of 28 April 2009 (Case R 323/2008-G) concerning an application for registration of the word sign BEHAVIOURAL INDEXING as a Community trade mark and, in Case T-383/09, against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 11 June 2009 (Case R 138/2009-1) concerning an application for registration of the word sign BEHAVIOURAL INDEX as a Community trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Orders that Cases T-310/09 and T-383/09 be joined for the purposes of the present judgment; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Orders that Cases T-310/09 and T-383/09 be joined for the purposes of the present judgment;

| 2. | Dismisses the applications; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Dismisses the applications;

| 3. | Orders Fuller & Thaler Asset Management, Inc., in Cases T-310/09 and T-383/09, to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM). |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders Fuller & Thaler Asset Management, Inc., in Cases T-310/09 and T-383/09, to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM).

---

(1)  OJ C 244, 10.10.2009.

1

---
In Re Jerry M. BREWER, petitioner.

No. 17-6356.

Supreme Court of the United States

Feb. 20, 2018.

Petition for rehearing denied.
1027.

#### Clarke Brothers *v.*Deal.

Motion to dismiss the writ of error.

Submitted April 21,

Decided May 7, 1908.

*W. deB. Barclay,*for plaintiffs in error. *G. L. Morgan,*contra.

Powell, J.

1. In order for this court to review a refusal to sanction a certiorari, the petition must be incorporated in the bill of exceptions or otherwise verified as a part thereof by the trial judge; an unsanctioned, petition can not be specified as a part of the record. *Hall*v. *State, 2 Ga. App.*437 (58 S. E. 558), and cit.

2. While, by the Civil Code, §§5570, 5573, bills of exceptions may be amended by the record or so as to conform thereto, it is not permissible to add to a bill of exceptions, after its filing, service, and transmission, a paper not a part of the record, though it is certified by the trial judge to be a true copy of an instrument pertinent to the case.

3. Where the bill of exceptions complains of the refusal to sanction an application for certiorari, and the petition is neither incorporated in the. bill of exceptions nor attached as an exhibit thereto, the bill of exceptions can not be amended in this court by adding a copy of the petition, though it is verified by the judge of the superior court.

*Writ of error dismissed.*
Robert STRECKER, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 16-6643.

Supreme Court of the United States

Jan. 23, 2017.

Petition for rehearing denied.
# C_2011030EN.01000902.xml

| 29.1.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 30/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.1.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 30/9

---

Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 2 December 2010 — European Commission v Hellenic Republic

(Case C-534/09) (1)

1

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 2008/1/EC - Pollution prevention and control - Requirements for the granting of permits for existing installations)

2011/C 30/14

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: M. Patakia and A. Alcover San Pedro, acting as Agents)

Applicant:

Defendant: Hellenic Republic (represented by: E. Skandalou, acting as Agent)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Infringement of Article 5(1) of Directive 2008/1/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 January 2008 concerning integrated pollution prevention and control (OJ 2008 L 24, p. 8) — Requirements for the granting of permits for existing installations — Obligation to ensure that such installations operate in accordance with the requirements of the directive

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Declares that, by failing to take the necessary measures to ensure that the competent national authorities see to it, by means of permits in accordance with Articles 6 and 8 of Directive 2008/1/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 January 2008 concerning integrated pollution prevention and control (Codified version) or, as appropriate, by reconsidering and, where necessary, by updating the conditions, that existing installations operate in accordance with the requirements of Articles 3, 7, 9, 10 and 13, Article 14(a) and (b) and Article 15(2) of that directive, not later than 30 October 2007, without prejudice to specific Community legislation, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 5(1) of that directive; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Declares that, by failing to take the necessary measures to ensure that the competent national authorities see to it, by means of permits in accordance with Articles 6 and 8 of Directive 2008/1/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 January 2008 concerning integrated pollution prevention and control (Codified version) or, as appropriate, by reconsidering and, where necessary, by updating the conditions, that existing installations operate in accordance with the requirements of Articles 3, 7, 9, 10 and 13, Article 14(a) and (b) and Article 15(2) of that directive, not later than 30 October 2007, without prejudice to specific Community legislation, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 5(1) of that directive;

| 2. | Orders the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 37, 13.2.2010.

1

---
Troy HARRIS, aka Gunny, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 16-7249.

Supreme Court of the United States

Jan. 23, 2017.

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

Justice SOTOMAYOR took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.
H. Res. 215 

In the House of Representatives, U. S., 

September 15, 2009. 

Whereas the success of minority businesses is a critical component of a robust economy in the United States; 

Whereas minority businesses employ 4,700,000 people, benefit minority communities, and contribute to local, State, 

and national economies; 

Whereas minority businesses are twice as likely to generate 

revenues through exports compared to nonminority businesses due to their language capabilities, cultural competencies, ancestral ties, and business agility; 

Whereas in 1969, there were only 322,000 minority businesses with $11,000,000,000 in gross receipts and the 

number of minority businesses continues to grow, currently estimated at more than 4,000,000 with 

$661,000,000,000 in gross receipts; 

Whereas minority groups represent 26.1 percent of the population, but own only 11.6 percent of the Nation’s businesses and receive only 6.2 percent of total sales; 

Whereas the Minority Business Development Agency was established by Executive Order No. 11458 on March 5, 

1969; 
2 

•HRES 215 EH 

Whereas the Minority Business Development Agency has operated for the last 40 years as the only Federal agency 

created specifically to serve minority entrepreneurs; 

Whereas the Minority Business Development Agency operates 

a network of business development centers throughout 

the United States to assist with the start-up, expansion, 

and development of minority businesses; 

Whereas the Minority Business Development Agency supports 

the Gulf Coast Recovery through its five centers located 

in Louisiana, Alabama, and Mississippi; 

Whereas in fiscal year 2008, the Minority Business Development Agency assisted more than 25,000 minority businesses producing over $1,000,000,000 in contracts and 

over $1,100,000,000 in financial packages, which contributed in excess of 5,300 new jobs created for its clients; 

Whereas since 1969, the Minority Business Development 

Agency has served more than 625,000 minority businesses and assisted in securing more than 

$25,000,000,000 in loans and bonding; and 

Whereas the Minority Business Development Agency’s longterm strategic direction is achieving entrepreneurial parity so that minority business enterprises are in proportion 

to the minority population: Now, therefore, be it 

Resolved, That the House of Representatives— 

(1) congratulates the Minority Business Development Agency on its 40th anniversary; 

(2) commends the Minority Business Development 

Agency for its achievements in fostering the establishment and growth of minority businesses; and 
3 

•HRES 215 EH 

(3) encourages the Minority Business Development 

Agency to continue its efforts to assist minority businesses as such enterprises continue to strengthen communities, create jobs, and contribute to the health of the 

economy in the United States. 

Attest: 

Clerk.
<PAGE>


                                                                    EXHIBIT 21.1

                                  SUBSIDIARIES

The Registrant has the following subsidiaries:


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
          NAME                                                    JURISDICTION
          ----                                                    ------------
<S>                                                               <C>
          Breakaway Capital I LLC                                 Delaware
          Breakaway Capital Inc.                                  Delaware
          Breakaway Securities Corporation                        Massachusetts
          Breakaway Solutions Asia Pacific Limited                Bermuda
          Breakaway Solutions KK                                  Japan
          Breakaway Solutions Ltd.                                England
          Breakaway Solutions Europe Limited                      Ireland
          Celtic Acquisition Corp. (WPL Laboratories)             Pennsylvania
          DataCyr Corporation                                     Delaware
          Eggrock Partners, Inc.                                  Delaware
          Norsec, Inc.                                            Massachusetts
          Web Yes, Inc.                                           Massachusetts
</TABLE>
II-00834

From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

Helene Green <heleniegreenie@gmail.com>

Thursday, December 2, 2010 11:01 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.

Helene Green

3032 N halleck

Portland, OR 97217
Commodity Futures Trading Commission 

 Office of Public Affairs 

 Three Lafayette Centre 

 1155 21st Street, NW 

 Washington, DC 20581 

 www.cftc.gov

Q & A – Process for Review of Swaps for Mandatory Clearing 

What is the goal of the final rulemaking? 

The Dodd-Frank Act requires any person that engages in a swap to submit the swap for clearing to a derivatives 

clearing organization (DCO) if the Commission has determined that the swap is required to be cleared. The goal of 

the final rulemaking is to implement a process by which the Commission will review swaps to determine whether 

they are required to be cleared. 

Will the Commission review swaps that were being cleared by a DCO before the enactment of the 

Dodd-Frank Act? 

Yes. Section 723(a)(3) of the Dodd-Frank Act provides that swaps listed for clearing by a DCO as of the date of 

enactment of the Dodd-Frank Act (referred to hereinafter as “pre-enactment swaps”) shall be considered submitted 

to the Commission. Once a swap is submitted to the Commission, the Commission must review it within 90 days 

to determine whether it is required to be cleared. After the final rule takes effect, the Commission will begin 

reviewing the pre-enactment swaps in accordance with the process set out in the final rule. A DCO that is clearing 

pre-enactment swaps may continue to clear them and does not have to wait for a determination from the 

Commission as to whether the swaps are required to be cleared. 

Will the public have the opportunity to comment on the Commission’s mandatory clearing 

determinations? 

Yes. The Commission will publish swap submissions on CFTC.gov and in the Federal Register, and the public will 

be invited to submit comments on the submission. The comment period will be open for 30 days and may be 

extended on a case-by-case basis. 

Does a DCO have to wait for a mandatory clearing determination from the Commission before it 

can accept new swaps for clearing? 

No. The rule specifies that if a DCO’s swap submission is received by the Commission by the open of business on 

the business day preceding the first day of clearing for the new swap, the DCO may begin clearing the swap as 

scheduled. 

Commodity Futures Trading Commission ♦ Office of Public Affairs ♦ 202-418-5080
TO: The Comment File

FROM: Jordan O’Regan

RE: Comment on Proposed Conflicts of Interest Rule

DATE: February 8, 2011

On Tuesday, February 8, 2011, Neal Wolkoff and Dan McElduff of ELX, and Nancy 

Schnabel, Jordan O’Regan, and Alicia Lewis, all CFTC staff members, had a telephone 

conversation regarding the proposed requirements to mitigate conflicts of interest in Derivatives 

Clearing Organizations (“DCOs”), Designated Contracts Markets, and Swap Execution

Facilities. The discussion focused on the effects the proposed requirements may have on the 

Options Clearing Corporation (“OCC”), the DCO clearing for ELX.

First, Mr. Wolkoff and Mr. McElduff discussed the manner in which the proposed 

structural governance requirements (e.g., board and committee composition requirements) were 

incompatible with current OCC governance arrangements. Specifically, they noted that the 

former requirements concentrate on maintaining an independent perspective, whereas the latter 

requirements concentrate on maintaining fair representation. Further, Mr. Wolkoff and Mr. 

McElduff noted that OCC developed its governance arrangements in consultation with the 

Securities Exchange Commission (“SEC”), and that the SEC did not extend its proposals 

regarding mitigation of conflicts of interest to OCC. 

Second, Mr. Wolkoff and Mr. McElduff stated that OCC may decide to discontinue 

clearing futures in order to avoid altering its governance arrangements to conform to the 

proposed rules. They noted that 99% of OCC clearing operations pertain to options, with only 

1% pertaining to futures. Mr. Wolkoff and Mr. McElduff observed that, if OCC decides to 

discontinue clearing futures, ELX would be forced to find a new horizontally-structured DCO, 
which presents ELX with limited alternatives. Even if ELX were to find such DCO, moving 

from OCC to such DCO would impose costs on ELX members, including costs for purchasing

new software.

Finally, Mr. Wolkoff and Mr. McElduff questioned whether the proposed rules would 

need to be applied uniformly, or whether certain exceptions might be granted for entities like 

OCC, which are dually-registered with the CFTC and the SEC.

ELX plans to submit a comment letter detailing the aforementioned issues.
II-O0900

From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

sHARON Gillespie <pretend@austin.rr.com>

Thursday, December 2, 2010 10:14 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.

sHARON Gillespie

1103 Enfield

Austin, TX 78703
# C_2009193EN.01001301.xml

| 15.8.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 193/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.8.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 193/13

---

Action brought on 11 June 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Hellenic Republic

(Case C-211/09)

2009/C 193/17

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: M. Karanasou-Apostolopoulou and L. Balta, acting as Agents)

Applicant:

Defendant: Hellenic Republic

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The Court is asked to:

| — | declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2006/24/EC (1) 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, or in any event by failing to communicate those provisions to the Commission, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2006/24/EC (1) 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, or in any event by failing to communicate those provisions to the Commission, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

1

| — | order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

The period prescribed for transposing Directive 2006/24/EC into national law expired on 15 September 2007.

---

(1)  OJ L 105 of 13.4.2006, p. 54

1

---
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 97-7574
ANDREW WINDSOR, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus NASH W. SCHOTT, A.U.S.A.; DREWRY B. HUTCHESON, JR., Esquire, Defendants - Appellees.Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert R. Merhige, Jr., Senior District Judge. (CA-97-516-3) Submitted: January 22, 1998 Decided: February 4, 1998 Before WIDENER, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Andrew Windsor, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).* Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics , 403 U.S. 388 (1971). 2 PER CURIAM:Appellant seeks to appeal the district court's order dismissing without prejudice his Bivens* complaint. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Windsor v. Schott , No. CA-97-516-3 (E.D. Va. Sept. 29, 1997). 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
**EXHIBIT
      32.2**





CERTIFICATION
      PURSUANT TO


18
      U.S.C.
      SECTION 1350,


AS
      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION
      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In
      connection with the Annual Report of ROO Group, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form
      10-KSB for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities
      and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Robin Smyth,
      Chief
      Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 906
      of
      the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:





(1)
      The
      Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
      Securities and Exchange Act of 1934; and





(2)
      The
      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
      the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.





A
      signed
      original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided
      to
      the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities
      and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.




April
                1, 2008
            /s/
                Robin SmythRobin
                SmythChief
                Financial Officer