alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
II-Olll4

From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

lynda mink <wyzwomyn@hotmail.com>

Thursday, December 2, 2010 8:10 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.

lynda mink

1505 santa anna dr

Dunedin, FL 34698
**Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 24 November 2011 – Italy v Commission**

**(Case C-458/09 P)**

Appeal – Aid granted by the Italian authorities in favour of newly listed companies – Legislation granting fiscal advantages

1.                     *Procedure – Time-limit for instituting proceedings – Appeals – Copy of the original appeal sent in ‘Word’ format together
with a document in ‘PDF’ format bearing the lawyer’s signature – Original sent later within the prescribed period – Admissibility
(Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 56; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 37(6)) (see paras 25-26)*

2.                     *State aid – Examination by the Commission – Opening of a formal examination procedure – Duty first to raise the subject of
the aid measure with the Member State concerned and examine the situation in the light of the information provided by that
State (Art. 88(2) EC) (see paras 47-48)*

3.                     *State aid – Definition – Selective nature of the measure – Selectivity of a tax relief measure applicable to companies newly
listed on the stock exchange arising from its short duration (Art. 87(1) EC) (see paras 56, 60)*

4.                     *Appeals – Pleas in law – Plea directed against a superfluous ground – Ineffective ground – Challenging of the Commission’s
appraisal with regard to the selectivity of State aid – Acknowledgement that one of the criteria of selectivity was met being
proved to be free of any error in law – Plea directed against other criteria of selectivity – Ineffective ground (see paras
57-58)*

5.                     *State aid – Prohibition – Derogations – Aid eligible for the derogation provided for by Article 87(3)(c) EC – Operating aid
– Excluded (Art. 87(3)(c) EC) (see paras 63-64)*

**Re:**

| | | | | |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber) of 4 September 2009 in Case T-211/05 | Italy | v | Commission | , by which that court dismissed the application for annulment of Commission Decision 2006/261/EC of 16 March 2005 on aid scheme C 8/2004 (ex NN 164/2003) implemented by Italy in favour of newly listed companies (OJ 2006 L 94, p. 42). |

**Operative part**

The Court:

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 1. | | Dismisses the appeal; |

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 2. | | Orders the Italian Republic to pay the costs; |

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 3. | | Orders the Republic of Finland to bear its own costs. |
Exhibit 32.1

                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
                                 ALPHATRADE.COM
                FORM 10-K FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 2008
                 PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED
            PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Penny Perfect, am the Chief Executive Officer of AlphaTrade.com, a Nevada
corporation (the "Company"). I am delivering this certificate in connection with
the Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the year ended December 31,
2008 and filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission ("Annual Report").

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, I hereby certify that, to the best of my knowledge,
the Annual Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information
contained in the Annual Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

Date: April 2, 2009



                              By: /s/ Penny Perfect
                                  ---------------------------------------------
                                  Penny Perfect
                                  Chief Executive Officer, President, Chairman,
                                  and Director




























                                Exhibit 32.1 - 1
H. Res. 1491 

In the House of Representatives, U. S., 

July 20, 2010. 

Whereas, on June 29, 2010, the University of South Carolina 

Gamecocks won the 2010 NCAA Division I College 

World Series in Rosenblatt Stadium in Omaha, Nebraska; 

Whereas a base hit to right field drove in the final run for 

the University of South Carolina Gamecocks to win 2–1 

against the UCLA Bruins in the bottom of the 11th inning; 

Whereas the University of South Carolina Gamecocks showed 

great skill, patience, and will by withstanding a firstround loss and then winning 6 consecutive games for the 

national title; 

Whereas the University of South Carolina Gamecocks won 

their first NCAA baseball title; and 

Whereas head coach Ray Tanner and the University of South 

Carolina Gamecocks bring great pride and honor to the 

fans and residents of South Carolina with this victory: 

Now, therefore, be it 

Resolved, That the House of Representatives congratulates the University of South Carolina Gamecocks on the out-
2 

•HRES 1491 EH 

standing accomplishment of winning the 2010 NCAA Division I College World Series. 

Attest: 

Clerk.
SUPREME COURT

OF NEVADA were based on an erroneous interpretation of the controlling law and did

not reach the other issues colorably asserted.Accordingly, we

VACATE the order denying preliminary injunctive relief, REVERSE the order granting the motion to dismiss, AND REMAND this matter for proceedings consistent with this order.


### 'PA Pickering , J. Saitta PARRAGUIRRE, J., concurring:

For the reasons stated in the SFR Investments Pool 1, LLC v. U.S. Bank, N.A., 130 Nev. , 334 P.3d 408 (2014), dissent, I disagree that respondent lost its lien priority by virtue of the homeowners association's nonjudicial foreclosure sale. I recognize, however, that SFR Investments is now the controlling law and, thusly, concur in the disposition of this appeal. ).0.„.31, r ecant= 9 ,J . Parraguirre
cc: Hon. David B. Barker, District Judge Howard Kim & Associates Wright, Finlay & Zak, LLP/Las Vegas Eighth District Court Clerk 2
(0) 1947A
Quentin Rashad WYCHE, petitioner, v. FLORIDA.

No. 16-6415.

Supreme Court of the United States

Jan. 9, 2017.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District denied.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

WESTERN DISTRICT

DORMONT MANUFACTURING COMPANY,

Petitioner

v.

ERIE INSURANCE COMPANY A/S/O 

DAVID AND SUSAN LOMBARDO, AND 

DAVID AND SUSAN LOMBARDO,

Respondents

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 2 WM 2020

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 8th day of May, 2020, the “Application for Leave to File Reply 

Brief” is GRANTED, and the Petition for Allowance of Appeal, treated as a Petition for 

Review, is DENIED.
Willie TRIPLETT, petitioner, v. James M. LeBLANC, Secretary, Louisiana Department of Public Safety and Corrections, et al.

No. 16-5167.

Supreme Court of the United States

Jan. 9, 2017.

Petition for rehearing denied.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
Consolidated Balance Sheets and Consolidated Statement of Operations as reported
on the second quarter Form 10-Q and is qualified in its entirety by reference to
such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                         0000850436
<NAME>                        MEDICAL MANAGER CORPORATION
<MULTIPLIER>                                        1,000
<CURRENCY>                                   U.S. DOLLARS

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                         100,564
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   62,401
<ALLOWANCES>                                     3,467
<INVENTORY>                                     17,527
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               258,077
<PP&E>                                         107,679
<DEPRECIATION>                                  42,618
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 849,388
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           75,626
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           405
<OTHER-SE>                                     502,456
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   849,388
<SALES>                                        156,137
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               159,295
<CGS>                                           78,948
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   81,047
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                43,001
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               4,610
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 16,106
<INCOME-TAX>                                     8,895
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              7,211
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     7,211
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.21
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.18



</TABLE>
# C_2009256EN.01001602.xml

| 24.10.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 256/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.10.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 256/16

---

Action brought on 11 September 2009 — Commission v Italian Republic

(Case C-366/09)

2009/C 256/31

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: G. Braun and E. Vesco, Agents)

Applicant:

Defendant: Italian Republic

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | Declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2006/43/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 May 2006 on statutory audits of annul accounts and consolidated accounts, amending Council Directives 78/660/EEC and 83/349/EEC and repealing Council Directive 84/253/EEC, or in any event failing to communicate such provisions to the Commission, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Directive 2006/43/EC; |
| --- | --- |

—

Declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2006/43/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 May 2006 on statutory audits of annul accounts and consolidated accounts, amending Council Directives 78/660/EEC and 83/349/EEC and repealing Council Directive 84/253/EEC, or in any event failing to communicate such provisions to the Commission, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Directive 2006/43/EC;

1

| — | Order the Italian Republic to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the Italian Republic to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

The period for implementing the directive expired on 28 June 2008.

---

(1)  OJ 2006 L 157, p. 87.

1

---
Jesus C. HERNANDEZ, et al., petitioners, v. Jesus MESA, Jr.

No. 15-118.

Supreme Court of the United States

Nov. 28, 2016.

Motion of petitioner to dispense with printing the joint appendix granted.
1 The Honorable John A. Jarvey, United Stat es District Judge for the Southern District of Iowa. 

## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 09-1838

___________ Carlos F. Calhoun, also known as * William Anderson, * * Appellant, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * Southern District of Iowa. John Baldwin, Director, Iowa * Department of Corrections; Elizabeth * [UNPUBLISHED] Robinson, and all members, Iowa * Board of Parole, * * Appellees. *

___________ Submitted: December 16, 2009 Filed: December 17, 2009

___________ Before BYE, BOWMAN, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. Carlos Calhoun, currently incarcerated in federal prison after escaping from an Iowa work release program, appeals the district court’s 1 adverse grant of summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. After careful de novo review, see Johnson v. Blaukat , 453 F.3d 1108, 1112 (8th Cir. 2006), we affirm for the reasons stated by-2- the district court, see Moody v. Daggett , 429 U.S. 78, 86 n.7, 88 n.9 (inmate not entitled to revocation hearing while in prison on separate offense; no due process violation where “pending warrant and detainer adversely a ffect[ed] [inmate’s] prison classification and qualification for institutional programs”). See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

______________________________
# C_2009069EN.01002901.xml

| 21.3.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 69/29 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.3.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 69/29

---

Appeal brought on 29 January 2009 by the Hellenic Republic against the judgment delivered by the Court of First Instance (Eighth Chamber) on 19 November 2008 in Case T-404/05 Hellenic Republic v Commission of the European Communities

(Case C-43/09 P)

(2009/C 69/53)

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Appellant: Hellenic Republic (represented by: Kharalampos Meidanis and M. Tassopoulou)

Appellant:

Other party to the proceedings: Commission of the European Communities

Other party to the proceedings:

Form of order sought

| — | hold the present appeal admissible and well founded; |
| --- | --- |

—

hold the present appeal admissible and well founded;

| — | set aside in its entirety the judgment of the Court of First Instance of 19 November 2008 in Case T-404/05 Hellenic Republic v Commission of the European Communities which constitutes the subject of the present appeal; |
| --- | --- |

—

set aside in its entirety the judgment of the Court of First Instance of 19 November 2008 in Case T-404/05 Hellenic Republic v Commission of the European Communities which constitutes the subject of the present appeal;

Hellenic Republic

Commission of the European Communities

| — | order the opposing party to pay all the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the opposing party to pay all the costs.

Grounds of appeal and main arguments

By the judgment of 19 November 2008, the setting aside of which is sought in the present appeal, the Court of First Instance dismissed the action in its entirety.

The Hellenic Republic puts forward three grounds in support of its appeal against that judgment.

It submits in its first ground of appeal that the Court of First Instance misinterpreted and misapplied Community law with regard to the Commission's power ratione temporis to impose the particular financial correction, and that its judgment contains contradictory reasoning.

ratione temporis

The second ground is based on the submission that the Court of First Instance misinterpreted and misapplied Community law as regards infringement of the principle of non-retroactivity in connection with failure to comply with publicity measures, and that its judgment contains contradictory reasoning in this regard.

The third ground is based on the submission that the Court of First Instance infringed the Community law principle of proportionality.

---
Michael T. BROOKS, petitioner, v. EMPLOYMENT DEPARTMENT, et al.

No. 16-6236.

Supreme Court of the United States

Jan. 17, 2017.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals of Oregon denied.
Larry CHARLES, petitioner, v. Larry HARRY, Superintendent, State Correctional Institution at Camp Hill, et al.

No. 16-6768.

Supreme Court of the United States

Jan. 9, 2017.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit denied.
# C_2009129EN.01000702.xml

| 6.6.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 129/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.6.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 129/7

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Firenze, lodged on 13 March 2009 — Camar Srl v Presidente del Consiglio dei Ministri

(Case C-102/09)

2009/C 129/12

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Referring court

Tribunale di Firenze

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Claimant: Camar Srl

Claimant:

Defendant: Presidente del Consiglio dei Ministri

Defendant:

Questions referred

Questions referred

| 1. | Did Article 14 of the First Yaoundé Convention preclude the introduction by a Member State of an internal tax on bananas originating in Somalia, which was not in practice applied to domestically produced bananas (the production of which was totally non-existent or insignificant) and was not applicable to any other type of domestically produced fruit?
  In the event of an affirmative answer to the foregoing question: |
| --- | --- |

1.

Did Article 14 of the First Yaoundé Convention preclude the introduction by a Member State of an internal tax on bananas originating in Somalia, which was not in practice applied to domestically produced bananas (the production of which was totally non-existent or insignificant) and was not applicable to any other type of domestically produced fruit?

In the event of an affirmative answer to the foregoing question:

| 2. | Did the Protocol on Bananas annexed to the Lomé Convention then in force preclude collection of a tax that was incompatible with Article 14 of the First Yaoundé Convention in respect of imports into Italy of Somali bananas effected in 1990, having regard to the combined provisions of that protocol and of the like protocols annexed to the earlier Lomé Conventions, and also Article 5 of the Second Yaoundé Convention?
  In the event of a negative answer: |
| --- | --- |

2.

Did the Protocol on Bananas annexed to the Lomé Convention then in force preclude collection of a tax that was incompatible with Article 14 of the First Yaoundé Convention in respect of imports into Italy of Somali bananas effected in 1990, having regard to the combined provisions of that protocol and of the like protocols annexed to the earlier Lomé Conventions, and also Article 5 of the Second Yaoundé Convention?

In the event of a negative answer:

| 3. | Must it be concluded that the Protocols on Bananas annexed to the Lomé Conventions precluded increases of a tax such as the Italian consumption tax on bananas originating in Somalia after 1 April 1976 regardless of the specific effect of such increases on the export of such bananas? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Must it be concluded that the Protocols on Bananas annexed to the Lomé Conventions precluded increases of a tax such as the Italian consumption tax on bananas originating in Somalia after 1 April 1976 regardless of the specific effect of such increases on the export of such bananas?

---
II-00843

From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

Lisa Gosnell <eotas@mchsi.com>

Thursday, December 2, 2010 10:54 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.

Lisa Gosnell

24536 Marsh Hawk Lane

Georgetown, DE 19947