alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
II-OlOl2

From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

Laura Ruede <l.ruede@tcu.edu>

Thursday, December 2, 2010 9:09 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.

Laura Ruede

3500 Wren Avenue

Fort Worth, TX 76133
II-01194

From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

Giovanna Lepore <gl@fairpoint.net>

Wednesday, December 1, 2010 5:16 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.

Giovanna Lepore

14004 State Route 22

Canaan, NY 12029-1909
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>	6

<CIK>	0000744822

<NAME>	Fidelity Investment Trust

<SERIES>

	<NUMBER>	161

	<NAME>	Fidelity Europe Capital Appreciation Fund

<MULTIPLIER>	1,000



<S>

<C>

<PERIOD-TYPE>
year
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>
oct-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>
oct-31-1999
<INVESTMENTS-AT-COST>
405,465
<INVESTMENTS-AT-VALUE>
482,700
<RECEIVABLES>
31,727
<ASSETS-OTHER>
0
<OTHER-ITEMS-ASSETS>
0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>
514,427
<PAYABLE-FOR-SECURITIES>
34,867
<SENIOR-LONG-TERM-DEBT>
0
<OTHER-ITEMS-LIABILITIES>
4,805
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES>
39,672
<SENIOR-EQUITY>
0
<PAID-IN-CAPITAL-COMMON>
378,697
<SHARES-COMMON-STOCK>
25,476
<SHARES-COMMON-PRIOR>
39,969
<ACCUMULATED-NII-CURRENT>
4,567
<OVERDISTRIBUTION-NII>
0
<ACCUMULATED-NET-GAINS>
14,268
<OVERDISTRIBUTION-GAINS>
0
<ACCUM-APPREC-OR-DEPREC>
77,223
<NET-ASSETS>
474,755
<DIVIDEND-INCOME>
9,852
<INTEREST-INCOME>
551
<OTHER-INCOME>
7
<EXPENSES-NET>
5,536
<NET-INVESTMENT-INCOME>
4,874
<REALIZED-GAINS-CURRENT>
38,150
<APPREC-INCREASE-CURRENT>
35,596
<NET-CHANGE-FROM-OPS>
78,620
<EQUALIZATION>
0
<DISTRIBUTIONS-OF-INCOME>
0
<DISTRIBUTIONS-OF-GAINS>
0
<DISTRIBUTIONS-OTHER>
0
<NUMBER-OF-SHARES-SOLD>
7,567
<NUMBER-OF-SHARES-REDEEMED>
22,060
<SHARES-REINVESTED>
0
<NET-CHANGE-IN-ASSETS>
(176,053)
<ACCUMULATED-NII-PRIOR>
5,124
<ACCUMULATED-GAINS-PRIOR>
(23,810)
<OVERDISTRIB-NII-PRIOR>
0
<OVERDIST-NET-GAINS-PRIOR>
0
<GROSS-ADVISORY-FEES>
3,758
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>
67
<GROSS-EXPENSE>
6,093
<AVERAGE-NET-ASSETS>
568,865
<PER-SHARE-NAV-BEGIN>
16.280
<PER-SHARE-NII>
 .150
<PER-SHARE-GAIN-APPREC>
2.200
<PER-SHARE-DIVIDEND>
0
<PER-SHARE-DISTRIBUTIONS>
0
<RETURNS-OF-CAPITAL>
0
<PER-SHARE-NAV-END>
18.640
<EXPENSE-RATIO>
107





</TABLE>
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-6167

BILLY G. ASEMANI, Plaintiff - Appellant,

v. S. SMITH, Case Management Specialist; TYLER, Captain, Mailroom Supervisor; KATHLEEN S. GREEN, Warden, ECI-East; STATE OF MARYLAND, Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Richard D. Bennett, District Judge. (1:08-cv-02952-RDB)

Submitted: May 18, 2009 Decided: June 9, 2009

Before KING and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Billy G. Asemani, Appellant Pro Se. Stephanie Judith Lane Weber, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Billy G. Asemani appeals the district courts denial of
his motion for reconsideration of the dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) action alleging denial of access to courts. We
review the denial of a motion for reconsideration for abuse of
discretion. See Pacific Ins. Co. v. American Nat’l Fire Ins.

Co. , 148 F.3d 396, 402 (4th C ir. 1998). After reviewing the record, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Asemani’s motion for reconsideration. Accordingly, we affirm the order of the district court. We dispense with oral argument as the facts and legal contentions are adequately expressed in the materials before the court and further argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
EXHIBIT
23.1





Consent of Independent
Registered Public Accounting Firm





The Board
of Directors and Stockholders:


GenVec,
Inc.:





We
consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on Form
S-3 (No. 333-164862, No. 333-140373, No. 333-133366 and No. 333-76886), and on
Form S-8 (File No. 333-153694, No. 333-153693, No. 333-110446, No. 333-55590,
No. 333-55586 and No. 333-55584) of GenVec, Inc. of our reports dated March 12,
2009, with respect to (1) the balance sheets of GenVec, Inc., as of December 31,
2009 and 2008 and the related statements of operations, stockholders’ equity and
comprehensive loss and cash flows for each of the years in the three-year period
ended December 31, 2009, and (2) the effectiveness of internal control over
financial reporting as of December 31, 2009 which reports appear in the December
31, 2009 Annual Report on Form 10-K of GenVec, Inc.






/s/KPMG LLPMcLean,
      VirginiaMarch
      12, 2010
H. Res. 232 

In the House of Representatives, U. S., 

June 4, 2009. 

Whereas, for more than 60 years, Toys for Tots has been 

bringing smiles to the faces of less fortunate children 

through the gift of a new toy; 

Whereas, after supporting Toys for Tots since 2005 and raising $1.3 million to help brighten the lives of thousands 

of children nationwide, The UPS Store and Mail Boxes 

Etc. network launched the Toys for Tots Literacy Program in March 2008 to expand upon their existing partnership as an example of what small businesses can do 

to help their community; 

Whereas the mission of the Toys for Tots Literacy Program 

is to offer the Nation’s most economically disadvantaged 

children the ability to compete academically and to succeed in life by providing them direct access to resources 

that enhance their ability to read and to communicate effectively; 

Whereas this initiative maintains the Toys for Tots mission 

of delivering hope while extending its reach and impact 

in a meaningful way by providing less fortunate children 

with tools that can help them break the cycle of poverty; 

Whereas, in 2007, the National Center for Educational Statistics released its annual Reading Report, which asserts 
2 

•HRES 232 EH 

that 33 percent of all fourth graders in the United States 

still cannot read at even the basic level, highlighting the 

need for a program like the Toys for Tots Literacy Program; 

Whereas every $1 donation helps the Marine Toys for Tots 

Foundation buy a book for a deserving child within the 

community where it was donated; 

Whereas since March 2008 more than $630,000 has been 

raised for the Toys for Tots Literacy Program through 

a variety of activities, including donation card campaigns, 

coin box collections, special events, and sponsorships; 

Whereas March 2009 marks the one-year anniversary of the 

Toys for Tots Literacy Program; and 

Whereas the Toys for Tots Literacy Program has created a 

literacy award, in honor of Alferd Williams, a 71-year-old 

resident of St. Joseph, Missouri, who, to combat illiteracy, enrolled in Alesia Hamilton’s first-grade class at 

Edison Elementary School in St. Joseph; Now, therefore, 

be it 

Resolved, That the House of Representatives— 

(1) recognizes that the Toys for Tots Literacy Program has made significant contributions in raising 

awareness of illiteracy and promoting children’s literacy; 

and 
3 

•HRES 232 EH 

(2) recognizes and commends the Toys for Tots Literacy Program for its effort to battle poverty through 

the support of literacy. 

Attest: 

Clerk.
#### SYNCHROPILE INCORPORATED, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. TRAYLOR BROTHERS INCORPORATED; Massman Construction Company; Kiewit Louisiana Company, Massman Construction Company, and Traylor Brothers, Incorporated, A Joint Venture; Kiewit Louisiana Company, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 11-30796.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

May 2, 2012.

Christopher H. Riviere, Esq., Eric Louis Trosclair, Riviere Law Firm, Thibodaux, LA, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

David Sinnott Bland, Matthew C. Guy, James Dejean Prescott, III, Esq., Leblanc Bland, P.L.L.C., New Orleans, LA, for Defendants-Appellees.

Before KING, BARKSDALE, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

AFFIRMED. *See*5th Cir. R. 47.6.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. 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 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
DENY and Opinion File d March 28, 2023 

# S

In The 

### Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05-23-00055-CV IN RE ERNESTO CASTILLO, Relator Original Proceeding from the 302nd Judicial District Court Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. DF-17-17721 MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Reichek, Nowell, and Miskel Opinion by Justice Miskel In his January 19, 2023 petiti on for writ of mandamus, relator asks us to vacate the trial court’s contempt order in a suit affecting the parent-child relationship. Entitlement to mandamus relief generally requires relator to demonstrate that the trial court clearly abused its discretion and that he lacks an adequate remedy by appeal. In re Prudential Ins. Co

. of Am. , 148 S.W.3d 124, 135–36 (Tex. 2004) (orig. proceeding). After reviewing the petition and the record before us, we conc lude that relator has failed to show that the tria l court abused its discretion.–2– Accordingly, we deny the petition for writ of mandamus. See T EX . R. A PP . P. 52.8(a).

230055F.P05 /Emil y Miskel / EMILY MISKEL JUSTICE
Mukhabbat NURITDINOVA, petitioner, v. CHILDRENS HOSPITAL MEDICAL CENTER.

No. 16-6456.

Supreme Court of the United States

Dec. 5, 2016.

Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed *in forma pauperis* denied. Petitioner allowed until December 27, 2016, within which to pay the docketing fee required by Rule 38(a) and to submit a petition in compliance with Rule 33.1 of the Rules of this Court.
Vonzell WHITE, petitioner, v. CITY OF CHICAGO, ILLINOIS, et al.

No. 16-547.

Supreme Court of the United States

Nov. 28, 2016.

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

[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 121 (Friday, June 22, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Page 33553]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-15568]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT

[Docket No. FR-4644-N-25]

Federal Property Suitable as Facilities To Assist the Homeless

AGENCY: Office of the Assistant Secretary for Community Planning and 
Development, HUD.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This Notice identifies unutilized, underutilized, excess, and 
surplus Federal property reviewed by HUD for suitability for possible 
use to assist the homeless.

EFFECTIVE DATE: June 22, 2001.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Clifford Taffet, Department of Housing 
and Urban Development, Room 7262, 451 Seventh Street SW, Washington, DC 
20410; telephone (202) 708-1234; TTY number for the hearing- and 
speech-impaired (202) 708-2565, (these telephone numbers are not toll-
free), or call the toll-free Title V information line at 1-800-927-
7588.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In accordance with the December 12, 1988 
court order in National Coalition for the Homeless v. Veterans 
Administration, No. 88-2503-OG (D.D.C.), HUD publishes a Notice, on a 
weekly basis, identifying unutilized, underutilized, excess and surplus 
Federal buildings and real property that HUD has reviewed for 
suitability for use to assist the homeless. Today's Notice is for the 
purpose of announcing that no additional properties have been determine 
suitable or unsuitable this week.

    Dated: June 15, 2001.
John D. Garrity,
Director, Office of Special Needs Assistance Programs.
[FR Doc. 01-15568 Filed 6-21-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4210-29-M
```
No. —, original.

#### Ex parte Harry Clark.

December 7, 1936.

A rule is ordered to issue, returnable within thirty days from this date, requiring the respondent to show cause why leave to file the petition for writ of habeas corpus should not be granted.
Ray KALAK, petitioner, v. Tony TRIERWEILER, Warden.

No. 16-6837.

Supreme Court of the United States

Jan. 17, 2017.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit denied.
# C_2011089EN.01001602.xml

| 19.3.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 89/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.3.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 89/16

---

Judgment of the General Court of 9 February 2011 — Ineos Healthcare v OHIM — Teva Pharmaceutical Industries (ALPHAREN)

(Case T-222/09) (1)

1

(Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the Community word mark ALPHAREN - Earlier national word marks ALPHA D3 - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009) - Examination of the facts of its own motion - Article 74 of Regulation No 40/94 (now Article 76 of Regulation No 207/2009))

2011/C 89/37

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Ineos Healthcare Ltd (Warrington, Cheshire, United Kingdom) (represented by: S. Malynicz, Barrister, and A. Smith, Solicitor)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: A. Folliard-Monguiral, acting as Agent)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd (Jerusalem, Israel)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM:

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 24 March 2009 (Case R 1897/2007-2), concerning opposition proceedings between Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd and Ineos Healthcare Ltd

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 24 March 2009 (Case R 1897/2007-2) as regards the goods in the following categories: ‘Pharmaceutical and veterinary preparations containing magnesium iron hydroxy carbonate or hydrotalcite or derivatives of these compounds’, ‘Phosphate binders for use in the treatment of hyperphosphataemia’; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 24 March 2009 (Case R 1897/2007-2) as regards the goods in the following categories: ‘Pharmaceutical and veterinary preparations containing magnesium iron hydroxy carbonate or hydrotalcite or derivatives of these compounds’, ‘Phosphate binders for use in the treatment of hyperphosphataemia’;

| 2. | Dismisses the action as to the remainder; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

| 3. | Orders OHIM to bear its own costs and to pay half of the costs incurred by Ineos Healthcare Ltd; |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders OHIM to bear its own costs and to pay half of the costs incurred by Ineos Healthcare Ltd;

| 4. | Orders Ineos Healthcare to bear half of its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Orders Ineos Healthcare to bear half of its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 180, 1.8.2009.

1

---
II-00307

From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

Mark Reback <mark@consumerwatchdog.org>

Thursday, December 2, 2010 2:01 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.

Mark Reback

1606 N. Avenue 55

Highland Park, CA 90042
# C_2009220EN.01001901.xml

| 12.9.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 220/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.9.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 220/19

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundespatentgericht (Germany), lodged on 24 June 2009 — Rechtsanwaltssozietät Lovells v Bayer CropScience AG

(Case C-229/09)

2009/C 220/34

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Referring court

Bundespatentgericht

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Claimant: Rechtsanwaltssozietät Lovells

Claimant:

Defendant: Bayer CropScience AG

Defendant:

Question referred

Question referred

For the purpose of the application of Article 3(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 1610/96 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 July 1996 concerning the creation of a supplementary protection certificate for plant protection products, (1) must account be taken exclusively of a marketing authorisation under Article 4 of Directive 91/414/EEC, (2) or can a certificate also be issued pursuant to a marketing authorisation which has been granted on the basis of Article 8(1) of Directive 91/414/EEC?

1

2

---

(1)  OJ 1996 L 198, p. 30.

1

(2)  OJ 1991 L 230, p. 1.

2

---
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-6630

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

NORMAN LEE GROOMS,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Glen E. Conrad, Magistrate Judge.

(CR-91-5-C, CV-95-37-R)

Submitted: July 23, 1996 Decided: August 6, 1996

Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Norman Lee Grooms, Appellant Pro Se. Donald Ray Wolthuis, OFFICE

OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
* All parties have consented to the exercise of jurisdiction

by a magistrate judge with appeal to the United States Court of

Appeals for the Fourth Circuit pursuant to 28 U.S.C.A. § 636(c)

(West 1993).

2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant seeks to appeal the magistrate judge's order denying

relief on his motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (1988), as

amended by Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996,

Pub. L. No. 104-132, 110 Stat. 1217.* We have reviewed the record

and the magistrate judge's opinion and order and find no reversible

error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the magistrate

judge. Grooms v. United States, No. CR-91-5-C; CV-95-37-R (W.D. Va.

Jan. 23, 1996). 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.

AFFIRMED