alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
II-00436

From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

Carroll Arkema <arkemac@verizon.net>

Thursday, December 2, 2010 7:21 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.

Carroll Arkema

152 Waterfall Ct

Bloomingdale, NJ 7403
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED AUGUST 19, 2021

NO. 03-21-00050-CV

The State of Texas, Appellant

v.

R. B. R., Appellee

APPEAL FROM THE 390TH DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY

BEFORE JUSTICES GOODWIN, BAKER, AND SMITH

DISMISSED ON APPELLANT’S MOTION -- OPINION BY JUSTICE SMITH

This is an appeal from the judgment signed by the trial court on January 5, 2021. The parties 

have filed a motion to dismiss the appeal, and having considered the motion, the Court agrees 

that the motion should be granted. Therefore, the Court grants the motion and dismisses the 

appeal. The appellant shall pay all costs relating to this appeal, both in this Court and in the 

court below.
Independent Auditors' Consent

The Board of Directors
Oswego County Bancorp, Inc.:

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement No.
333-39696 on Form S-8 of Oswego County Bancorp, Inc. of our report dated January
15, 2002, with respect to the consolidated statements of financial condition of
Oswego County Bancorp, Inc. and subsidiary as of December 31, 2001 and 2000, and
the related consolidated statements of income, changes in shareholders' equity,
and cash flows for the years then ended, which report has been included in the
December 31, 2001 Annual Report on Form 10-KSB of Oswego County Bancorp, Inc.


                                                          /s/ KPMG LLP

March 26, 2002
Syracuse, New York
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE CONSOLI-
DATED BALANCE SHEETS OF THE REGISTRANT AT MAY 31, 1998 AND FEBRUARY 28, 1998 
AND CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS OF THE REGISTRANT FOR THE THREE MONTH
PERIOD ENDED MAY 31, 1998 AND 1997 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE
TO SUCH STATEMENT IN THE FORM 10-Q FOR THE QUARTERLY PERIOD ENDED MAY 31, 1998.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          FEB-28-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             MAR-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAY-31-1998
<CASH>                                       1,099,000
<SECURITIES>                                 3,655,000
<RECEIVABLES>                               11,311,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            27,865,000
<PP&E>                                       5,504,000
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              34,293,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       10,033,000
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        41,000
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                34,293,000
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            13,504,000
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               12,847,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                787,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                   315,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            472,000
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   472,000
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .13
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .13
        

</TABLE>
<PAGE>

                                                                    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 Quarterly Report of K&F Industries, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2005 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Dirkson
R. Charles, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to 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 Exchange Act of 1934; and

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

/s/ DIRKSON R. CHARLES
-------------------------------
Dirkson R. Charles
Executive Vice President and
Chief Financial Officer
May 13, 2005
_______________________________________ __ 

# Order Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan



### March 26, 2007 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice


### 132813 Michael F. Cavanagh Elizabeth A. Weaver Marilyn Kelly 

### FLOSSIE MCMURRAY, Plaintiff, Maura D. Corrigan Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman,



### v SC: 132813 Justices



### ATTORNEY GRIEVANCE COMMISSION, Defendant. AGC: 2417/06

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, th e complaint for superintending control is considered, and relief is DENIED, because the Court is not persuaded that it should grant the requested relief.

s0319 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

March 26, 2007

Clerk
# Table of Contents

# 1

# 2

# 3

# 4

# 5

# 6

# 7

# 8

# 9a

# 9b

# 9c

# 9d

# 10a

# 10b

# 10c

# 10d

# 11a

# 11b

# 11c

# 11d

# 12a

# 12b

# 12c

# 12d

# 13a

# 13b

# 14a

# 14b

# 15a

# 15b

# 16a

# 16b

# 17

# 18

# 19

# 20

# 21

# 22

# 23

# 24
II-Ol041

From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

Donald Laguarta <laguarta@sbcglobal.net>

Thursday, December 2, 2010 8:51 AM

dfadefinitions <dfadefinitions@CFTC.gov>

Re: No loopholes in Dodd-Frank

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

3235-AK65, SEC File Number $7-12-10)

Dear Commissioners Shapiro and Gensler: Don’t let the American Bankers Association (ABA) redefine important terms like

"commercial risk" to keep banks that engage in risky derivatives trading from complying with transparency and business

conduct requirements. Commercial risk should not be expanded to include financial risk. Accepting the ABA argument

would open the door for exemptions for risky hedge funds and insurance companies.

2) Commodities Futures Trading Commission, Re: Position Limits (RIN 3038-AD 17 )

Dear Commissioner Gensler: The CFTC needs to set strong position limits to crack down on the energy and food commodity

speculation that serves no productive purpose. I urge the Commission to define limits that will address not only manipulation,

but also excessive speculation, which will require a stricter approach.

3) U.S. Department of the Treasury, Re: FX Swaps (75 FR 66426 Document Number 2010-27274)

Dear Secretary Geithner: Just say "no" to foreign exchange traders who want to exempt foreign currency derivatives from the

clearing and transparency requirements of the

Dodd-Frank Act. $4 trillion dollars a day is traded in these highly-leveraged swaps and this number may increase to over $10

trillion in a decade. As the head of the Financial

Stability Oversight Board your job is to decrease risk in the system, not encourage off-book trading and opaque markets.

Donald Laguarta

2830 Jarrard

Houston, TX 77005
Exhibit 12.2
 Certification
Pursuant to Section 302
The Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
  1.
    
    I have reviewed this Annual Report on Form 20-F (Annual Report) of Novogen Limited
(theCompany);
 2.
    
    Based on my knowledge, this Annual 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 Annual Report;
 3.
    
    Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in
this Annual Report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results
of operations and cash flows of the Company as of, and for, the periods presented in this
Annual Report;
 4.
    
    The companys other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing and
maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and
15d-15(e) ) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in the Exchange Act
Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f) for the Company 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 company, 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)
    
    Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or
caused such internal control over financial reporting to be designed under our
supervision, to provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of
financial reporting and the preparation of financial statements for external
purposes in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles;(c)
    
    Evaluated the effectiveness of the Company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(d)
    
    Disclosed in this report any change in the Companys internal
control over financial reporting that occurred during the period covered by
the annual report that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to
materially affect the Companys internal control over financial reporting; and
  (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 Company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 Companys internal
control over financial reporting.
 /s/ David R. SeatonDavid R. SeatonChief Financial Officer
EMI FEIST CATALOG, INC., petitioner, v. Gloria Coots BALDWIN, et al.

No. 15-1335.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 3, 2016.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit denied.
# C_2010328EN.01000501.xml

| 4.12.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 328/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.12.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 328/5

---

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 7 October 2010 — European Commission v Portuguese Republic

(Case C-154/09) (1)

1

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 2002/22/EC - Electronic communications - Networks and services - Articles 3(2) and 8(2) - Designation of undertakings responsible for universal service obligations - Incorrect transposition)

2010/C 328/07

Language of the case: Portuguese

Parties

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: P. Guerra e Andrade and A. Nijenhuis, acting as Agents)

Applicant:

Defendant: Portuguese Republic (represented by: L. Inez Fernandes, Agent and L. Morais, lawyer)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Infringement of Articles 3(2) and 8(2) of Directive 2002/22/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on universal service and users’ rights relating to electronic communications networks and services (Universal Service Directive) (OJ 2002 L 108, p. 51) — Designation of undertakings responsible for universal service obligations

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Declares that, by failing to correctly transpose into national law the provisions of European Union law governing the designation of universal service provider(s) and, in any event, by failing to ensure in practice that those provisions are applied, the Portuguese Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 3(2) and 8(2) of Directive 2002/22/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on universal service and users’ rights relating to electronic communications networks and services (Universal Service Directive). |
| --- | --- |

1.

Declares that, by failing to correctly transpose into national law the provisions of European Union law governing the designation of universal service provider(s) and, in any event, by failing to ensure in practice that those provisions are applied, the Portuguese Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 3(2) and 8(2) of Directive 2002/22/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on universal service and users’ rights relating to electronic communications networks and services (Universal Service Directive).

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

2.

Orders the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 153, 4.7.2009.

1

---
# C_2012217EN.01001602.xml

| 21.7.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 217/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.7.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 217/16

---

Judgment of the General Court of 13 June 2012 — Insula v Commission

(Case T-246/09) (1)

1

(Arbitration clause - Financing contracts for research and development projects - MEDIS and Dias.Net contracts - Lack of supporting documents and non-compliance with the contractual requirements in respect of some of the declared expenses - Retention of a sum intended for another co-contractor - Reimbursement of sums advanced - Partial inadmissibility of the action - Counterclaim by the Commission - Partial removal of need to adjudicate in relation to the counterclaim)

2012/C 217/33

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Conseil scientifique international pour le développement des îles (Insula) (Paris, France) (represented by: J.-D. Simonet and P. Marsal, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission (represented initially by A.-M. Rouchaud-Joët and F. Mirza, and subsequently by A.-M. Rouchaud-Joët and D. Calciu, Agents, and by L. Defalque and S. Woog, lawyers)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Application, first, for a declaration that a claim of the Commission of EUR 189 241,64 is unfounded, second, that the Commission be ordered to issue a ‘credit note’ in that amount and, lastly, that the Commission be ordered to pay damages of EUR 212 597, principally, and EUR 230 025, in the alternative.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action brought by the Conseil scientifique international pour le développement des îles (Insula); |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action brought by the Conseil scientifique international pour le développement des îles (Insula);

| 2. | Declares that there is no need to adjudicate on the counterclaims submitted by the Commission in so far as they seek a declaration that Insula be ordered to pay the principal sum due and the interest thereon under the Dias.Net contract; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Declares that there is no need to adjudicate on the counterclaims submitted by the Commission in so far as they seek a declaration that Insula be ordered to pay the principal sum due and the interest thereon under the Dias.Net contract;

| 3. | Orders Insula to pay the Commission the principal sum of EUR 157 983,11, increased by default interest at the rate of 2,75 % per annum, from 16 May 2009 until full payment of that principal sum; |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders Insula to pay the Commission the principal sum of EUR 157 983,11, increased by default interest at the rate of 2,75 % per annum, from 16 May 2009 until full payment of that principal sum;

| 4. | Orders Insula to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the Commission, including those relating to the procedure for interim relief. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Orders Insula to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the Commission, including those relating to the procedure for interim relief.

---

(1)  OJ C 193, 15.8.2009.

1

---
Exhibit 99.2

            CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER 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 on Form 10-K of Niku Corporation (the
"Company") for the period ended January 31, 2003 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), Michael Shahbazian,
as Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, to the best of his knowledge, that:

(1)      The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a)
         of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and

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

     Signature                               Title                   Date
     ---------                               -----                   ----

     /s/ Michael Shahbazian         Chief Financial Officer      June 2, 2003
       Michael Shahbazian


This certification accompanies this Report pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of
Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.

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

111TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. RES. 1505 

Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that the Secretary 

of the Navy should name the next appropriate naval ship in honor 

of World War II Medal of Honor recipient John William Finn. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JULY 1, 2010 

Mr. HUNTER (for himself, Mr. FILNER, Mr. DJOU, Mr. ISSA, Mr. BARTLETT, 

Mr. CONAWAY, and Mr. BILBRAY) submitted the following resolution; 

which was referred to the Committee on Armed Services 

RESOLUTION 

Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that 

the Secretary of the Navy should name the next appropriate naval ship in honor of World War II Medal of 

Honor recipient John William Finn. 

Whereas John Finn served in the Navy from 1926 to 1956; 

Whereas during the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941, John Finn, for more than two hours at 

an exposed position, directed fire from a .50 caliber machine gun at Japanese planes strafing Kaneohe Bay even 

after being severely wounded; 

Whereas John was hit 21 times by bullet and bomb fragments, and despite his wounds, he returned to the hangVerDate Mar 15 2010 06:05 Jul 02, 2010 Jkt 089200 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6300 E:\BILLS\HR1505.IH HR1505

tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HRES 1505 IH 

ars later that day, after receiving medical treatment, and 

helped arm the remaining American planes; 

Whereas for his actions on that unforgettable day, John Finn 

was awarded the Medal of Honor; 

Whereas the Medal of Honor is considered an important part 

of military history and tradition; 

Whereas today there are only 90 living Medal of Honor recipients, with the last person receiving the award for 

service during Vietnam; 

Whereas John Finn, at the time of his death, was the oldest 

living Medal of Honor recipient and the last living recipient from the attack on Pearl Harbor; 

Whereas his legacy will continue inspiring us all while reminding countless Americans about the sacrifices and 

contributions of the Nation’s greatest generation; 

Whereas the stories of Medal of Honor recipients inspire the 

country and individuals, while honoring those men and 

women who have dedicated themselves to the defense of 

the country; and 

Whereas the Medal of Honor provides the Armed Forces with 

a tremendous heritage and tradition that motivates generations to greater achievements: Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That it is the sense of the House of Rep2 resentatives that the Secretary of the Navy should name 

3 the next appropriate naval ship in honor of John William 

4 Finn for his service and dedication to the United States 

5 and to the Navy. 

Æ 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with BILLS