alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2011139EN.01000402.xml

| 7.5.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 139/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.5.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 139/4

---

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 17 March 2011 — European Commission v Republic of Poland

(Case C-326/09) (1)

1

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 2004/113/EC - Social policy - Equal treatment between men and women - Access to and supply of goods and services - Failure to transpose within the prescribed period)

2011/C 139/06

Language of the case: Polish

Parties

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: M. van Beek and M. Kaduczak, acting as Agents)

Applicant:

Defendant: Republic of Poland (represented by: M. Dowgielewicz, Agent)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Failure to adopt or communicate, within the prescribed period, the provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive 2004/113/EC of 13 December 2004 implementing the principle of equal treatment between men and women in the access to and supply of goods and services (OJ 2004 L 373, p. 37)

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Declares that, by failing to adopt, within the prescribed period, the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive 2004/113/EC of 13 December 2004 implementing the principle of equal treatment between men and women in the access to and supply of goods and services, the Republic of Poland failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Declares that, by failing to adopt, within the prescribed period, the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive 2004/113/EC of 13 December 2004 implementing the principle of equal treatment between men and women in the access to and supply of goods and services, the Republic of Poland failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

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

2.

Orders the Republic of Poland to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 312, 19.12.2009.

1

---
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 15

- 41725

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee

v. ELEAZAR ACOSTA

- MOSQUEDA , Defendant

- Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 7:15

- CR

- 7

- 3

Before GRAVES, HIGGINSON, and COSTA, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Eleazar Acosta

- Mosqueda pleaded guilty, pursuant to a written plea agreement, to conspiracy to transport aliens within the United States, and he was sentenced to 60 months in prison and to three y ears of supervised release. The district court’s judgment was entered on October 7, 2015. Acosta

Mosqueda filed a pro se notice of appeal no earlier than December 8, 2015, and sought leave to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) on appeal. Because the notice of appeal was not filed within 14 days of the entry of judgment or within the

* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. 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 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED June 15, 2016 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 15-41725 Document: 00513549065 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/15/2016No. 15

- 41725

2 30

- day period for filing an extension of time to file a notice of appeal, the district court determined that the notice of appeal was untimely and denied the motion to proceed I FP on that basis

. See F ED

. R. A PP

. P. 4(b)(1)(A), (b)(4). This court can dismiss an appeal during consideration of an interlocutory motion if the appeal “is frivolous and entirely without merit.” 5 TH C IR

. R . 42.2. Acosta

- Mosqueda did not file a notice of appeal within 14 days after the entry of the criminal judgment, and his notice of appeal was filed beyond the time for extending the appeal period. See F ED

. R. A PP

. P . 4(b)(1)(A), (b)(4). Thus, the district court did not err in enforcing the time limitations set forth in Rule 4(b) , and denying the IFP motion , and this court may not reverse its decision to do so. See United States v. Leijano

- Cruz , 473 F.3d 571, 574 (5th Cir. 2006). Because the instant appeal is without a rguable merit, Acosta

- Mosqueda’s motions to proceed IFP and for the appointment of counsel are denied, and the appeal is dismissed as frivolous. See 5 TH C IR

. R . 42.2. APPEAL DISMISSED; MOTIONS DENIED. Case: 15-41725 Document: 00513549065 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/15/2016
Raymond ARMSTRONG, et al., petitioners, v. NATIONAL FOOTBALL LEAGUE, et al.

No. 16-413.

Supreme Court of the United States

Dec. 12, 2016.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit denied.
Amended & Restated Change-In-Control/Severance Plan



 Exhibit 10.4 

FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE 

PEPCO HOLDINGS, INC. 

AMENDED AND RESTATED CHANGE-IN-CONTROL / 

SEVERANCE PLAN FOR CERTAIN EXECUTIVE EMPLOYEES 

This First Amendment (this “Amendment”) to the Pepco Holdings, Inc. Amended and Restated Change-in-Control Severance Plan for
Certain Executive Employees (the “Severance Plan”) is made, effective as of March 23, 2016 (the “Effective Date”). Capitalized terms used and not otherwise defined herein shall have the meanings assigned to
them in the Severance Plan. 
 WHEREAS, Section 7.1 of the Severance Plan provides that PEPCO HOLDINGS, INC. (the
“Company”) may amend the Severance Plan at any time, subject to certain exceptions; and 
 WHEREAS, the
Compensation/Human Resources Committee of the Board of Directors of the Company (the “Committee” and the “Board”, respectively) has recommended, and the Board has determined, that it is in the best interests of the
Company to amend the Pepco Holdings, Inc. Retirement Plan to provide certain additional benefits in lieu of severance benefits and that the Severance Plan shall be amended to avoid a duplication of benefits; and 

WHEREAS, the Board has delegated to the Chief Executive Officer of the Company authority to amend the Severance Plan as provided below.

 NOW, THEREFORE, the Severance Plan is hereby amended pursuant to Section 7.1 thereof to add the following new paragraph
(d) to Section 4.3: 
 (d) Notwithstanding any other provision of the Plan, the amount of the payments provided for in
Section 4.1 and Section 4.2 shall be reduced (but not below zero) by the amount, if any, payable to or on behalf of such Participant under Section 3.7 of Sub-Plan Four of the Pepco Holdings, Inc. Retirement Plan (including as
incorporated by reference into other sub-plans of the Pepco Holdings, Inc. Retirement Plan), expressed in the form of a lump sum payable on the first annuity starting date after the Date of Termination. 







 IN WITNESS THEREOF, the Company has caused this Amendment to be signed this 23rd day of March, 2016. 
  

									
	ATTEST:	 		 	Pepco Holdings, Inc.
					
	By:	 	 /s/ Jane K. Storero
	 		 	By:	 	 /s/ Joseph M. Rigby

		 	      Jane K. Storero	 		 		 	      Joseph M. Rigby
		 	      Secretary	 		 		 	      Chairman of the Board, President
		 		 		 		 	         and Chief Executive Officer


  
 2
H. Res. 1509 

In the House of Representatives, U. S., 

July 14, 2010. 

Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it 

shall be in order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 

1722) to improve teleworking in executive agencies by developing a telework program that allows employees to telework 

at least 20 percent of the hours worked in every 2 administrative workweeks, and for other purposes. All points of order 

against consideration of the bill are waived except those arising under clause 9 or 10 of rule XXI. The amendment in the 

nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on 

Oversight and Government Reform now printed in the bill, 

modified by the amendment printed in the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution, shall be considered as adopted. The bill, as amended, shall be considered 

as read. All points of order against provisions of the bill, as 

amended, are waived. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill, as amended, to final passage 

without intervening motion except: (1) one hour of debate 

equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking mi-
2 

•HRES 1509 EH 

nority member of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform; and (2) one motion to recommit with or without instructions. 

SEC. 2. House Resolution 1496 is laid on the table. 

Attest: 

Clerk.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Before the
COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION

Proceedings Clerk
12:19 pm, J ul 31, 2015

DIRK L. WITTER, CFTC Docket No. 08-R045

Claimant,

OPINION AND ORDER

v.
ROBERT SEAN SKELTON, and
TRANSACT FUTURES f/k/a YORK
BUSINESS ASSOCIATES,

Respondents.

This matter comes to us after remand proceedings necessitated by our July 1, 2013
Opinion and Order for limited further discovery. Upon review of the Judgment Officer’s
September 10, 2014 Initial Decision on Remand in this matter, the record below, and the briefs
on appeal post-remand, we agree that the expanded evidentiary record on remand did not
establish any evidence of bad faith by Respondents or establish a basis to disturb the credibility
determinations of the Judgment Officer. Therefore, and for the reasons set forth in our July 1,
2013 Opinion and Order, we

AFFIRM the Judgment Officer’s judgment in favor of Respondents.

IT IS SO ORDERED.'

' Under Section 14(e) of the Commodity Exchange Act, 7 U.S.C. § 18(e), a party may appeal a
reparation order of the Commission in accordance with the procedures of 7 U.S.C. § 9. An
appeal must be filed within 15 days after notice of the Commission order. 7 U.S.C.

§ 9(11)(B) (ii).


By the Commission (Chairman MASSAD and Commissioners WETJEN, BOWEN, and

GIANCARLO).
Christopher J. do<Aeh

Secretary of the Commission

Commodity Futures Trading Commission
Dated: July 31, 2015 :
Lonnie SNELLING, petitioner, v. Patrick J. KENNY, et al.

No. 16-624.

Supreme Court of the United States

Jan. 9, 2017.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals of Missouri, Eastern District denied.
II-00405

From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

MURIEL DOYNE <mdoynel @nycap.rr.com>

Thursday, December 2, 2010 8:48 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.

MURIEL DOYNE

VAN HOESEN ROAD

CASTLETON, NY 12033-9695
# C_2011139EN.01000301.xml

| 7.5.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 139/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.5.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 139/3

---

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 10 March 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht München (Germany)) — Privater Rettungsdienst und Krankentransport Stadler v Zweckverband für Rettungsdienst und Feuerwehralarmierung Passau

(Case C-274/09) (1)

1

(Public procurement - Directive 2004/18/EC - Public service concession - Rescue service - Distinction between ‘public service contract’ and ‘service concession’)

2011/C 139/04

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Referring court

Oberlandesgericht München

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Privater Rettungsdienst und Krankentransport Stadler

Applicant:

Defendant: Zweckverband für Rettungsdienst und Feuerwehralarmierung Passau

Defendant:

Interveners: Malteser Hilfdienst eV, Bayerisches Rotes Kreuz

Interveners:

Re:

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Oberlandesgericht München — Interpretation of Article 1(2)(a) and (d) and Article 1(4) of Directive 2004/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 on the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts, public supply contracts and public service contracts (OJ 2004 L 134, p. 114) — Concepts of ‘public service contract’ and ‘service concession’ — Contract relating to the supply of emergency medical assistance services, concluded between the contracting authority and aid organisations, which provides that the payment for the services supplied depends on negotiations between those organisations and third parties such as social security institutions

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

Article 1(2)(d) and (4) of Directive 2004/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 on the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts, public supply contracts and public service contracts must be interpreted as meaning that, where the economic operator selected is fully remunerated by persons other than the contracting authority which awarded the contract concerning rescue services, where it runs an operating risk, albeit a very limited one, by reason inter alia of the fact that the amount of the usage fees in question depends on the result of annual negotiations with third parties, and where it is not assured full coverage of the costs incurred in managing its activities in compliance with the principles laid down by national law, that contract must be classified as a ‘service concession’ within the meaning of Article 1(4) of that directive.

---

(1)  OJ C 267, 7.11.2009.

1

---
# C_2009153EN.01005201.xml

| 4.7.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 153/52 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.7.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 153/52

---

Action brought on 7 May 2009 — Fries Guggenheim v CEDEFOP

(Case F-47/09)

2009/C 153/101

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Eric Mathias Fries Guggenheim (Liège, Belgium) (represented by: L. Lucas, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Centre for the Development of Vocational Training (CEDEFOP)

Defendant:

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Annulment of CEDEFOP’s decision not to renew the applicant’s contract as a member of the temporary staff and, should the applicant not be reinstated, an order that the defendant pay him damages to compensate for the non-material harm suffered.

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Tribunal should:

| — | Annul CEDEFOP’s decision of 7 July 2008 not to renew the applicant’s contract and confirming that his employment will end on 15 October 2008; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul CEDEFOP’s decision of 7 July 2008 not to renew the applicant’s contract and confirming that his employment will end on 15 October 2008;

| — | Annul, in so far as necessary, CEDEFOP’s decision of 18 July 2008 confirming the first decision, following the applicant’s letter of 9 July 2008 and his meeting on 17 July 2008 with the representatives of personnel; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul, in so far as necessary, CEDEFOP’s decision of 18 July 2008 confirming the first decision, following the applicant’s letter of 9 July 2008 and his meeting on 17 July 2008 with the representatives of personnel;

| — | Order CEDEFOP to pay the applicant, should he not be reinstated, damages of an amount to be assessed by the Tribunal to compensate for his non-material harm; |
| --- | --- |

—

Order CEDEFOP to pay the applicant, should he not be reinstated, damages of an amount to be assessed by the Tribunal to compensate for his non-material harm;

| — | Allow the applicant, should he consider it necessary, to value the detriment to his career and, if not, order CEDEFOP to pay him damages to compensate for that detriment, should he not be reinstated, of an amount to be assessed by the Tribunal; |
| --- | --- |

—

Allow the applicant, should he consider it necessary, to value the detriment to his career and, if not, order CEDEFOP to pay him damages to compensate for that detriment, should he not be reinstated, of an amount to be assessed by the Tribunal;

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

—

Order CEDEFOP to pay the costs.

---
MING TUNG, et al., petitioners, v. CHINA BUDDHIST ASSOCIATION, et al.

No. 16-450.

Supreme Court of the United States

Jan. 9, 2017.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals of New York denied.
II-00775

From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

Robert Canny <percussiveman@verizon.net>

Thursday, December 2, 2010 11:26 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.

Robert Canny

917 Marine St., #3

Santa Monica, CA 90405
# C_2011013EN.01000701.xml

| 15.1.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 13/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.1.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 13/7

---

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 18 November 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank van eerste aanleg te Dendermonde — Belgium) — Criminal proceedings against V. W. Lahousse, Lavichy BVBA

(Case C-142/09) (1)

1

(Directives 92/61/EEC and 2002/24/EC - Type-approval of two- or three-wheel motor vehicles - Vehicles intended for use in competition, on roads or in off-road conditions - National legislation prohibiting the manufacture, marketing and use of equipment designed to increase the engine power and/or speed of mopeds)

2011/C 13/10

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Referring court

Rechtbank van eerste aanleg te Dendermonde

Parties in the main proceedings

Parties in the main proceedings

V. W. Lahousse, Lavichy BVBA

Re:

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Rechtbank van eerste aanleg te Dendermonde (Belgium) — Interpretation of Articles 1(1), 12 and 15(2) of Directive 2002/24/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 March 2002 relating to the type-approval of two or three-wheel motor vehicles and repealing Council Directive 92/61/EEC (OJ 2002 L 124, p. 1) — Exception in respect of vehicles intended for use in competition, on roads or in off-road conditions — National legislation disregarding that exception

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

Council Directive 92/61/EEC of 30 June 1992 relating to the type-approval of two or three-wheel motor vehicles, and Directive 2002/24/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 March 2002 relating to the type-approval of two or three-wheel motor vehicles and repealing Directive 92/61 are to be construed as meaning that, where a vehicle or a component or separate technical unit thereof does not qualify for the type-approval procedure established by those directives, on the ground that it does not come within their scope, the provisions of those directives do not prevent a Member State from introducing, in its domestic law and in relation to such vehicle, component or separate technical unit, a similar mechanism for recognising the checks carried out by other Member States. In any event, such legislation must comply with EU law, in particular Articles 34 TFEU and 36 TFEU.

---

(1)  OJ C 153, 4.7.2009.

1

---
II-00847

From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

Jean Ouellette <sambucus@earthlink.net>

Thursday, December 2, 2010 10:48 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.

Jean Ouellette

202A Ftmston Avenue

San Francisco, CA 94118