alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
II-00576

From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

Shannon Hillary <jazzfresh@yahoo.com>

Thursday, December 2, 2010 2:22 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.

Shannon Hillary

255 S. Normandie Ave.

Los Angeles, CA 90004
Eric Leon CHRISTIAN, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 16-6211.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 31, 2016.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.
Rachel BASURTO, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 16-6936.

Supreme Court of the United States

Jan. 9, 2017.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit denied.
# C_2011103EN.01000401.xml

| 2.4.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 103/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.4.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 103/4

---

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 17 February 2011 — European Commission v Republic of Cyprus

(Case C-251/09) (1)

1

(Public works contracts and supply contracts - Water, energy, transport and telecommunications sectors - Directive 93/38/EEC - Contract notice - Award criteria - Equal treatment of tenderers - Principle of transparency - Directive 92/13/EEC - Review procedure - Requirement to state reasons for a decision to eliminate a tenderer)

2011/C 103/04

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: C. Zadra, I. Chatzigiannis and M. Patakia, agents, agents)

Applicant:

Defendant: Republic of Cyprus (represented by: K. Likourgos and A. Patanzi-Lamprou, agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Infringement of Articles 4(2) and 31(1) of Council Directive 93/38/EEC of 14 June 1993 coordinating the procurement procedures of entities operating in the water, energy, transport and telecommunications sectors (OJ 1993 L 199, p. 84) — Infringement of Article 1(1) of Council Directive 92/13/EEC of 25 February 1992 coordinating the laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to the application of Community rules on the procurement procedures of entities operating in the water, energy, transport and telecommunications sectors (OJ 1992 L 76, p. 14) — Requirement to state reasons for a decision to eliminate a tenderer — Requirement to ensure that decisions taken by the contracting authorities may be reviewed effectively and as rapidly as possible — Principles of equal treatment and transparency

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

dismisses the action;

| 2. | orders the European Commission to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

orders the European Commission to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 233, 26.9.2009.

1

---
DASZKAL, BOLTON, MANELA, DEVLIN & CO.
                          CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS
                   A PARTNERSHIP OF PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATIONS

       2401 N.W. BOCA RATON BOULEVARD, SUITE 100 BOCA RATON, FLORIDA 33431
                   TELEPHONE (561) 367-1040 FAX (561) 750-3236



JEFFREY A. BOLTON, CPA, P.A.                    MEMBER OF THE AMERICAN INSTITUTE
MICHAEL I. DASZKAL, CPA, P.A.                    OF CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS
ROBERT A. MANELA, CPA, P.A.
TIMOTHY R. DEVLIN. CPA, P.A.
MICHAEL S. KRIDEL, CPA, P.A.






               CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANT

We hereby consent to the use of our audit report dated February 18, 2000, except
for Note 13, as to which the date is March 16, 2000, in the form 10-KSB of
Intraco Systems, Inc., for the years ended December 31, 1999 and 1998.




                             /s/ Daszkal, Bolton, Manela, Devlin & co., CPA's


Boca Raton, Florida
March 31, 2000
Michael D. KING, petitioner, v. MICHIGAN.

No. 16-6332.

Supreme Court of the United States

Dec. 12, 2016.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals of Michigan denied.
# C_2009090EN.01001201.xml

| 18.4.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 90/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.4.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 90/12

---

Action brought on 30 January 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Estonia

(Case C-46/09)

2009/C 90/18

Language of the case: Estonian

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: E. Randvere and K. Simonsson)

Applicant:

Defendant: Republic of Estonia

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | declare that, since it has not correctly transposed into national law the provisions of Directive 2000/59/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 November 2000 on port reception facilities for ship-generated waste and cargo residues, the Republic of Estonia has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 11 of Directive 2000/59/EC; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare that, since it has not correctly transposed into national law the provisions of Directive 2000/59/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 November 2000 on port reception facilities for ship-generated waste and cargo residues, the Republic of Estonia has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 11 of Directive 2000/59/EC;

1

| — | order the Republic of Estonia to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Republic of Estonia to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

It follows from Article 11(2)(a) of Directive 2000/59 that the Republic of Estonia is under an obligation to establish criteria in order to select ships, other than fishing vessels and recreational craft authorised to carry no more than 12 passengers, for inspection.

Article 11(2)(c) of Directive 2000/59 provides that, if the relevant authority is not satisfied with the results of this inspection, it must ensure that the ship does not leave the port until it has delivered its ship-generated waste and cargo residues to a port reception facility in accordance with Articles 7 and 10.

The Republic of Estonia has stated its intention to supplement the Estonian legislation in order to correctly transpose those provisions of the directive. The Commission does not have any information on the adoption of such amendments.

---

(1)  OJ 2000 L 332, p. 81

1

---
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                   SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                         423915
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  138036
<ALLOWANCES>                                   (35000)
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               547969
<PP&E>                                         416602
<DEPRECIATION>                                 353780
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 624847
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          1395426
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       486
<OTHER-SE>                                     (771065)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   624847
<SALES>                                        816876
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               1654197
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  1063857
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               186520
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                403821
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            403821
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   403821
<EPS-BASIC>                                    0.10
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  0.10


</TABLE>
SHAKA, aka Timothy L. Malumphy, petitioner, v. Charles L. RYAN, Director, Arizona Department of Corrections, et al.

No. 17-7160.

Supreme Court of the United States

Feb. 20, 2018.

*1011Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.
II-O0410

From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

Millie Anderson <gardenerl @ymail.com>

Thursday, December 2, 2010 8:40 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.

Millie Anderson

549 Yahara St.

De Forest, WI 53532
II-00199

From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

JOHN BIHARY <jbihary01 @yahoo.com>

Friday, December 3, 2010 7:04 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.

JOHN BIHARY

422 SKYVIEW DR.

ATHENS, AL 35611
1088.

#### Adams *v.*Nashville, Chattanooga & St. Louis Railway Co.

Action for damages, from city court of Floyd county — Judge Hamilton. March 16, 1908.

Submitted May 6,

Decided June 18, 1908.

*M. B. Eubanks, W. B.*Mebane, for plaintiff.

*Dean &*Dean, for defendant.

Hill, C. J.

The facts of this ease are identical with those in *Nix*v. *Southern Railway Company,*ante, 331 (61 S. E. 292), and this case is therefore controlled by the decision in that ease.

*Judgment affirmed.*
# C_2011219EN.01001401.xml

| 23.7.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 219/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.7.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 219/14

---

Judgment of the General Court of 8 June 2011 — Commission v Marcuccio

(Case T-20/09) (1)

1

(Appeal - Civil service - Officials - Invalidity pension - Action declared founded in part at first instance on the grounds of failure to state the reasons for the contested decision - Article 78 of the Staff Regulations - Retirement on grounds of invalidity - Invalidity Committee)

2011/C 219/17

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Parties

Appellant: European Commmission (represented by: J. Currall and C. Berardis-Kayser, agents, and A. Dal Ferro, lawyer)

Appellant:

Other party to the proceedings: Luigi Marcuccio (Tricase, Italy) (represented by: G. Cipressa, lawyer)

Other party to the proceedings:

Re:

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union (First Chamber) of 4 November 2008 in Case F-41/06 Marcuccio v Commission, not published in the ECR, seeking to have that judgment set aside.

Marcuccio

Commission

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Sets aside the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union (First Chamber) of 4 November 2008 in Case F-41/06 Marcuccio v Commission in so far as the Civil Service Tribunal annulled the decision of the European Commission of 30 May 2005 by which Mr Marcuccio was retired on grounds of invalidity and granted an invalidity allowance, in so far as it ordered the Commission to pay to Mr Marcuccio the sum of EUR 3 000 and in so far as it divided the costs on the basis of the annulment and order for payment (paragraphs 1, 2, 4 and 5 of the operative part of the judgment). |
| --- | --- |

1.

Sets aside the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union (First Chamber) of 4 November 2008 in Case F-41/06 Marcuccio v Commission in so far as the Civil Service Tribunal annulled the decision of the European Commission of 30 May 2005 by which Mr Marcuccio was retired on grounds of invalidity and granted an invalidity allowance, in so far as it ordered the Commission to pay to Mr Marcuccio the sum of EUR 3 000 and in so far as it divided the costs on the basis of the annulment and order for payment (paragraphs 1, 2, 4 and 5 of the operative part of the judgment).

| 2. | Refers the case back to the Civil Service Tribunal. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Refers the case back to the Civil Service Tribunal.

| 3. | Costs reserved. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Costs reserved.

---

(1)  OJ C 55, 7.3.2009.

1

---
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM SMITH
CORONA CORPORATION CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND NOTES THERETO OF 
THIS FORM 10-Q AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH 
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                           29257
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    19426
<ALLOWANCES>                                       751
<INVENTORY>                                      13905
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 65354
<PP&E>                                           31567
<DEPRECIATION>                                   20499
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   78873
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            15189
<BONDS>                                              0
<COMMON>                                           303
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                        6274
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     78873
<SALES>                                          43449
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 43449
<CGS>                                            33408
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    33408
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   150
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  (9)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  (2525)
<INCOME-TAX>                                        26
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0 
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     (2551)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     (.08)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 00-7605

EARL SYLVESTER STEWART,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

EVELYN SEIFERT,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Wheeling. Frederick P. Stamp, Jr., Chief

District Judge. (CA-99-110-5)

Submitted: January 18, 2001 Decided: January 25, 2001

Before WIDENER and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Earl Sylvester Stewart, Appellant Pro Se. Darrell V. McGraw, Jr.,

Dawn Ellen Warfield, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF WEST VIRGINIA, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Earl Sylvester Stewart seeks to appeal the district court’s

order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254

(West 1994 & Supp. 2000). We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because Stewart’s notice of appeal was not timely filed.

Parties are accorded thirty days after entry of the district

court’s final judgment or order to note an appeal, see Fed. R. App.

P. 4(a)(1), unless the district court extends the appeal period

under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5) or reopens the appeal period under

Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6). This appeal period is “mandatory and

jurisdictional.” Browder v. Director, Dep’t of Corrections, 434

U.S. 257, 264 (1978) (quoting United States v. Robinson, 361 U.S.

220, 229 (1960)).

The district court’s order was entered on the docket on September 20, 2000. Stewart’s notice of appeal was filed on November

1, 2000. Because he failed to file a timely notice of appeal or to

obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we deny a

certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. 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.

DISMISSED
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<RESTATED>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                         519,422
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  379,727
<ALLOWANCES>                                     8,789
<INVENTORY>                                    308,799
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,885,810
<PP&E>                                         538,368
<DEPRECIATION>                                  79,872
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               6,544,348
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,721,226
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        57,105
<OTHER-SE>                                   4,660,151
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 6,544,348
<SALES>                                        175,797
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               474,759
<CGS>                                          544,472
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,810,524
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             2,719,870
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                28,659
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              33,487
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (4,127,947)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     3,200
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (4,127,947)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (4,131,147)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (.08)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.08)


</TABLE>
Brandon KELLER, petitioner, v. Chad PRINGLE, Warden.

No. 17-7219.

Supreme Court of the United States

Feb. 20, 2018.

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