alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Kenneth DURANT, petitioner, v. ILLINOIS.

No. 17-7209.

Supreme Court of the United States

Feb. 20, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Appellate Court of Illinois, First District denied.
_________________________________________ 

 

 

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, the 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 Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

March 26, 2007 

 Clerk
# C_2011030EN.01000402.xml

| 29.1.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 30/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.1.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 30/4

---

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 2 December 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Augstākās tiesas Senāts (Republic of Latvia)) — Schenker SIA v Valsts ieņēmumu dienests

(Case C-199/09) (1)

1

(Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 - Provisions for the implementation of the Community Customs Code - Article 6(2) - Application for binding tariff information - Meaning of ‘one type of goods’)

2011/C 30/06

Language of the case: Latvian

Referring court

Referring court

Augstākās tiesas Senāts

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Schenker SIA

Applicant:

Defendant: Valsts ieņēmumu dienests

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Augstākās tiesas Senāts — Interpretation of Article 6(2) of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 of 2 July 1993 laying down provisions for the implementation of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 establishing the Community Customs Code (OJ 1993 L 253, p. 1) — Meaning of ‘one type of goods’ — Goods differing as to quality or characteristics but capable of being classified under the same Combined Nomenclature code — Issue of a single set of binding tariff information for all those goods or specific tariff information for each one

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

Article 6(2) of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 of 2 July 1993 laying down provisions for the implementation of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 establishing the Community Customs Code, as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1602/2000 of 24 July 2000, must be interpreted as meaning that an application for binding tariff information may relate to different goods provided that these all belong to one and the same type of goods. Only goods which have similar characteristics and whose distinguishing features are completely irrelevant for the purposes of their tariff classification may be regarded as belonging to one type of goods for the purposes of that provision.

---

(1)  OJ C 193, 15.8.2009.

1

---
No. 99-10535 -1-

* 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.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 99-10535 Conference Calendar

ANTHONY T. THOMAS, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus J. SAWYER ET Al., Defendants, J. BALL, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 3:97-CV-2475

-------------------- February 17, 2000 Before EMILIO M. GARZA, BENAVIDES, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Justin Ball appeals the district court's denial of his motion for summary judgment in Thomas’s civil rights suit. Ballargues that the district court erred by denying his summaryjudgment motion and that this court has jurisdiction over theinterlocutory appeal. Because there is a significant factrelated dispute with regard to Thomas’s brutality claim, this court does not have jurisdiction to review the district court’s denial of the motion for summary judgment on this claim. SeeNo. 99-10535 -2- Johnson v. Jones , 515 U.S. 304, 313 (1995). Thus, Ball’s appeal is DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction.
# C_2010234EN.01002001.xml

| 28.8.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 234/20 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.8.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 234/20

---

Appeal brought on 11 December 2009 by Hubert Ségaud against the Order of the Court of First Instance (Sixth Chamber) of 29 October 2009 in Case T-249/09 Ségaud v European Commission

(Case C-514/09 P)

()

2010/C 234/30

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Appellant: Hubert Ségaud (represented by: J.-P Ekeu, avocat)

Appellant:

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Other party to the proceedings:

By order of 21May 2010, the Court of Justice (Eight Chamber) dismissed the appeal and ordered Mr Ségaud to bear his own costs.

---
Meeting with Goldman Sachs Bank USA

April 15, 2011, 11:30 a.m. – 12:30 p.m.

CFTC Staff: Goldman Sachs Bank USA Representatives:

OIA Thomas Riggs, Managing Director and General Counsel,

Jacqueline Mesa Goldman Sachs Bank USA

Aaron Miller Kenneth M. Connolly, Vice President, Government Affairs,

Anuradha Banerjee The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc.

OGC

Mark Fajfar

Carlene Kim

Bill Banwo

DCIO

Barbara Gold

Bob Wasserman

Chris Cummings

Elizabeth Miller

Goldman Sachs Bank USA (“GSBU”) requested a meeting with CFTC staff to discuss 

the extraterritorial application of CFTC regulations pursuant to the Dodd-Frank Act. They stated 

that GSBU would undoubtedly have to register as a swap dealer, but wondered what the 

ramifications of that registration would be for an entity with both U.S. and foreign clients. They

further stated that the difficulties GSBU, and potentially other banks, might have in 

redocumenting relationships and restructuring business are substantial. Additionally, they stated 

that clients might view the need for redocumentation as an opportunity to renegotiate other 

aspects of their terms unrelated to compliance with Dodd-Frank regulations.

GSBU also expressed concern about the implementation and timing of the Dodd-Frank 

regulations. In response, CFTC staff noted the upcoming roundtable on implementation, to be 

hosted on May 2-3, 2011 at the CFTC. 

The remainder of the discussion involved the extent of the CFTC’s cooperation and 

coordination with other international regulators in developing the proposed regulations. Mr. 

Connolly inquired whether regulatory arbitrage could become a significant issue, based on the 

difference in timing between the U.S. and the European Union in implementing new rules. 

Generally, he explained that GSBU’s concern about extraterritoriality is twofold: (1) that U.S. 

banks subject to more stringent regulations might have trouble competing with lesser-regulated 

foreign banks for business overseas; and (2) that U.S. banks conducting business internationally 

might be simultaneously subject to different and conflicting regulatory regimes.
[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 124 (Wednesday, June 27, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Page 34261]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-16150]


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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

[TA-W-38,897]


J.E. Morgan Knitting Mills, Inc. Tamaqua, Pennsylvania; Amended 
Certification Regarding Eligibility To Apply for Worker Adjustment 
Assistance

    In accordance with section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 USC 
2273) the Department of Labor issued a Notice of Certification 
Regarding Eligibility to Apply for Worker Adjustment Assistance on May 
3, 2001, applicable to workers of J.E. Morgan Knitting Mills, Inc., 
Tamaqua, Pennsylvania. The notice was published in the Federal Register 
on May 18, 2001 (FR 66 27691).
    At the request of the State agency, the Department reviewed the 
certification for workers of the subject firm. The workers are engaged 
in the production of thermal underwear for men, women and children and 
baby blankets. New findings show that there was a previous 
certification TA-W-35,209B, issued on February 22, 1999, for workers of 
J.E. Morgan Knitting Mills, Inc., Tamaqua, Pennsylvania who were 
engaged in employment related to the production of thermal underwear 
for men, women and children and baby blankets. That certification 
expired February 22, 2001. To avoid an overlap in worker group 
coverage, the certification is being amended to change the impact date 
from March 7, 2000 to February 23, 2001, for workers of the subject 
firm.
    The amended notice applicable to TA-W-38, 897 is hereby issued as 
follows:

    All workers of J.E. Morgan Knitting Mills, Inc., Tamaqua, 
Pennsylvania who became totally or partially separated from 
employment on or after February 23, 2001 through May 3, 2003 are 
eligible to apply for adjustment assistance under Section 223 of the 
Trade Act of 1974.

    Signed at Washington, DC this 12th day of June, 2001.
Edward A. Tomchick,
Director, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. 01-16150 Filed 6-26-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-30-M
Holli LUNDAHL, petitioner, v. Ellam HALABI, et al.

No. 15-1325.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 3, 2016.

*47Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit denied.
FILED

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

JUL 05, 2006

THOMAS K. KAHN

CLERK

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 05-16168

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D. C. Docket No. 02-00399-CV-DF-5

SCOTT LEWIS, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

versus 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, STATE OF GEORGIA, 

J. TOM COLEMAN, JR., individually and 

in his official capacity as Commissioner

of the Department of Transportation 

for the State of Georgia, et al., 

Defendants-Appellees. 

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Georgia

_________________________

(July 5, 2006)

Before TJOFLAT, BIRCH and BARKETT, Circuit Judges.
Lewis also argues that the defendants waived their right to challenge the admission of 1

the statements contained in the affidavits by not objecting to the affidavits in their reply brief on

summary judgment. It appears that Lewis’s brief was part of a draft response to the defendants’

motions in limine in district court, and the arguments were not tailored to take into account what

took place at the trial. Lewis’s waiver argument makes no sense on appeal as the district court

considered defendants’ objections to the testimony during the trial, and those rulings are the

subject of this appeal. Therefore, this argument, as well as any other arguments not tailored to

the trial, is not addressed in this opinion.

2

PER CURIAM:

Scott Lewis, an African-American male, appeals the district court’s

exclusion of testimony regarding alleged prior discrimination against Lewis and

other employees during the jury trial in his failure to promote action, brought under

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e, et seq.

and 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On appeal, Lewis argues that the district court abused its

discretion by excluding his testimony and the testimony of other Georgia

Department of Transportation (“DOT”) employees regarding prior discriminatory

conduct of the defendants. Lewis argues that such evidence was admissible under

Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b) as evidence of motive and intent. 

1

Upon review of the record and consideration of the parties’ briefs, we find

no reversible error. The district court did not abuse its discretion in excluding the

testimony of Lewis and other DOT employees regarding alleged prior instances of

discrimination and prior complaints of discrimination because the excluded

evidence did not involve the decisionmakers for the promotion, and as Lewis
3

raised neither a retaliation nor a hostile work environment claim, the evidence was

likely to confuse the issues for the jury and unfairly prejudice the defendants. 

Accordingly, we affirm.

AFFIRMED.
[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 124 (Wednesday, June 27, 2001)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 34140]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-16189]


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

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 25

[IB Docket 01-96; FCC 01-134]


Policies and Service Rules for the Non-Geostationary Satellite 
Orbit,Fixed Satellite Service in the Ku-Band; Correction

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Proposed rule; correction.

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

SUMMARY: This documents corrects one sentence in the preamble to a 
proposed rule published in the Federal Register of June 6, 2001, 
regarding Policies and Service Rules for the Non-Geostationary 
Satellite Orbit, Fixed Satellite Service in the Ku-Band. This 
correction includes the proper radio frequency bands cited in the 
sentence.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: J. Mark Young, 202-418-0762.

Correction

    In proposed rule FR Doc. 01-14141, beginning on page 30361 in the 
issue of June 6, 2001, make the following correction, in the 
``Summary'' section. On page 30361 in the 3rd column, the first 
sentence is corrected to read as follows: ``The Federal Communications 
Commission (FCC) proposes to decide the means for sharing among 
multiple satellite network licensees in spectrum recently designated 
for the non-geostationary satellite orbit, fixed-satellite service 
(NGSO FSS) in the 10.7-12.7 GHz, 12.75-13.25 GHz and 13.75-14.5 GHz 
frequency bands (the Ku-band).''

    Dated: June 21, 2001.
Federal Communications Commission.
Magalie Roman Salas,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 01-16189 Filed 6-26-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
SAINT PETER'S HEALTHCARE SYSTEM, et al., petitioners, v. Laurence KAPLAN.

No. 16-86.

Supreme Court of the United States

Dec. 2, 2016.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit granted. The case is consolidated *547and a total of one hour is allotted for oral argument.
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3638 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 3638

To revise postaward explanations for unsuccessful offerors for certain 
    contracts in the Federal Acquisition Regulation, and for other 
                               purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              July 9, 2019

 Ms. Houlahan introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                   Committee on Oversight and Reform

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To revise postaward explanations for unsuccessful offerors for certain 
    contracts in the Federal Acquisition Regulation, and for other 
                               purposes.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Small Business Acquisition 
Transparency Act of 2019''.

SEC. 2. POSTAWARD EXPLANATIONS FOR UNSUCCESSFUL OFFERORS FOR CERTAIN 
              CONTRACTS.

    Not later than 180 days after the date of the enactment of this 
Act, the Federal Acquisition Regulation shall be revised to require 
that with respect to an offer for a task order or delivery order in an 
amount greater than the simplified acquisition threshold (as defined in 
section 134 of title 41, United States Code) and less than or equal to 
$5,500,000 issued under an indefinite delivery-indefinite quantity 
contract, the contracting officer for such contract shall, upon written 
request from an unsuccessful offeror, provide a brief explanation as to 
why such offeror was unsuccessful that includes a summary of the 
rationale for the award and an evaluation of the significant weak or 
deficient factors in the offeror's offer.
                                 <all>
```
II-OlO09

From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

Sandra Lynn <cresorchid@gmail.com>

Thursday, December 2, 2010 9:11 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.

Sandra Lynn

100 Commons Road, Suite 7-185

Dripping Springs, TX 78620
# C_2009055EN.01005303.xml

| 7.3.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 55/53 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.3.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 55/53

---

Action brought on 16 January 2009 — Ridolfi v Commission

(Case F-3/09)

(2009/C 55/98)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Roberto Ridolfi (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: N. Lhoëst, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Defendant:

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Annulment of the Appointing Authority's decision to refuse the applicant entitlement to reuse and retain the education allowance together with interest in respect of his two eldest children.

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Tribunal should:

| — | annul the decision of the Appointing Authority of 5 March 2008 refusing the applicant entitlement to reuse and retain the education allowances together with interest in respect of his two eldest children; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of the Appointing Authority of 5 March 2008 refusing the applicant entitlement to reuse and retain the education allowances together with interest in respect of his two eldest children;

| — | annul all of the Commission's decisions taken to implement the aforementioned decision of the Appointing Authority of 5 March 2008, in particular the note of the Head of Unit of the External Service Directorate of DG RELEX, of 12 December 2008‘Rights and Obligations of Officials and Members of the Contract Staff’, recovering the sum of EUR 1 295,38; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul all of the Commission's decisions taken to implement the aforementioned decision of the Appointing Authority of 5 March 2008, in particular the note of the Head of Unit of the External Service Directorate of DG RELEX, of 12 December 2008‘Rights and Obligations of Officials and Members of the Contract Staff’, recovering the sum of EUR 1 295,38;

| — | so far as necessary, annul the Commission's express decision of 6 October 2008 rejecting the complaint brought by the applicant under Article 90(2) on 5 June 2008; |
| --- | --- |

—

so far as necessary, annul the Commission's express decision of 6 October 2008 rejecting the complaint brought by the applicant under Article 90(2) on 5 June 2008;

| — | order the Commission of the European Communities to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission of the European Communities to pay the costs.

---
Sonja BLAKE, petitioner, v. Debra JOSSART, et al.

No. 16-615.

Supreme Court of the United States

Jan. 9, 2017.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Wisconsin denied.
II-00675

From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

Stephen and Robin Newberg <crashnewberg@netscape.net>

Thursday, December 2, 2010 12:39 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.

Stephen and Robin Newberg

146 Granville Rd

North Granby, CT 6060
Jeffrey ARMOLT, petitioner, v. Theresa DELBALSO, Superintendent, State Correctional Institution at Mahanoy, et al.

No. 15-9576.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 3, 2016.

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