alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
II-00846

From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

Emily West <emiwest@gmail.com>

Thursday, December 2, 2010 10:50 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.

Emily West

51 cottage

amherst, MA 1002
David MIXON, petitioner, v. MISSISSIPPI PAROLE BOARD, et al.

No. 16-6037.

Supreme Court of the United States

Nov. 28, 2016.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Michigan denied.
II-00434

From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

Gene Ulmer <gulmer@mcn.org>

Thursday, December 2, 2010 7:38 PM

dfadefinitions <dfadefinitions@CFTC.gov>

Re: No loopholes in Dodd-Frank

1) Securities and Exchange Commission/Commodities Futures Trading Commission, Re: Commercial Risk (CFTC PIN

3235-AK65, SEC File Number S7-12-10)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 (PIN 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 theDodd-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 FinancialStability Oversight Board your job is to decrease risk in the system, not encourage off-book trading and

opaque markets.

Gene Ulmer

1408 E 5935 S

Salt Lake City, UT 84121
Dalia GALEANA-SALMERON, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 16-6602.

Supreme Court of the United States

Dec. 12, 2016.

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UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-2428

IRIS G. JACKSON,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

PALMETTO BAPTIST HOSPITAL,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Columbia. Cameron McGowan Currie, District

Judge. (CA-05-1901-CMC)

Submitted: June 21, 2006 Decided: July 26, 2006

Before MICHAEL, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Iris G. Jackson, Appellant Pro Se. James E. Parham, Jr., Irmo,

South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Iris G. Jackson appeals the district court’s order

accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying

relief on her 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint. We have reviewed

the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm

the district court’s order. Jackson v. Palmetto Baptist Hosp., No.

CA-05-1901-CMC (D.S.C. Nov. 18, 2005). We also deny all pending

motions. 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
I 

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 3643 

To amend the Revised Statutes to grant State attorneys general the ability 

to issue subpoenas to investigate suspected violations of State laws that 

are applicable to national banks, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JULY 9, 2019 

Ms. PORTER introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Financial Services 

A BILL 

To amend the Revised Statutes to grant State attorneys 

general the ability to issue subpoenas to investigate suspected violations of State laws that are applicable to 

national banks, and for other purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Accountability for Wall 

5 Street Executives Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. VISITORIAL POWERS. 

7 The fifth undesignated paragraph of section 5240 of 

8 the Revised Statutes of the United States (12 U.S.C. 484) 


pamtmann on DSKBFK8HB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 3643 IH

1 is amended by striking subparagraph (B) and inserting 

2 the following: 

3 ‘‘(B) Notwithstanding subparagraph (A)— 

4 ‘‘(i) lawfully authorized State auditors and 

5 examiners may, at reasonable times and upon 

6 reasonable notice to a bank, review the bank’s 

7 records solely to ensure compliance with appli8 cable State unclaimed property or escheat laws 

9 upon reasonable cause to believe that the bank 

10 has failed to comply with such laws; 

11 ‘‘(ii) an attorney general (or other chief 

12 law enforcement officer) of a State may issue 

13 subpoenas to national banks or officers of na14 tional banks based upon reasonable cause to be15 lieve that the national bank or an officer of a 

16 national bank has failed to comply with applica17 ble State laws; and 

18 ‘‘(iii) an attorney general (or other chief 

19 law enforcement officer) of a State may require 

20 a national bank to provide aggregate data on 

21 loans and other financial products and services 

22 provided by the national bank in such State.’’. 

Æ 


pamtmann on DSKBFK8HB2PROD with BILLS
Shawndra Star BOODE, petitioner, v. Derral ADAMS, Acting Warden.

No. 16-7159.

Supreme Court of the United States

Jan. 17, 2017.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.
* Local Rule 47.5.1 provides: "The publication of

opinions that merely decide particular cases on the basis of

well-settled principles of law imposes needless expense on the

public and burdens on the legal profession." Pursuant to that

Rule, the court has determined that this opinion should not be

published.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

__________________

No. 95-10684 

Conference Calendar

__________________

DALE ALAN CURTIS,

 Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

DALE S. HANNA ET AL.,

 Defendants-Appellees.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 3:95-CV-945-X

- - - - - - - - - -

December 20, 1995

Before DAVIS, STEWART, and PARKER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Dale Alan Curtis appeals from the district court's order

dismissing his civil rights complaint as frivolous under 28

U.S.C. § 1915(d). We have reviewed the record and Curtis's brief

on appeal. We conclude that the district court did not abuse its

discretion in dismissing Curtis's claims of unlawful arrest,

illegal search and seizure, and wrongful deprivation of property. 

AFFIRMED.
# C_2010288EN.01007002.xml

| 23.10.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 288/70 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.10.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 288/70

---

Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 29 June 2010 — Goddijn v European Police Office (Europol)

(Case F-39/09) (1)

(Public service - Europol staff - Non-renewal of a contract - Contract for an indefinite period - Article 6 of Europol Staff Regulations - Principle of respect for the rights of the defence)

(2010/C 288/131)

Language of the case: Dutch

Parties

Applicant: Jacqueline Goddijn (Breda, Netherlands) (represented initially by P. de Casparis, lawyer and subsequently by W.J. Dammingh and N.D. Dane, lawyers)

Defendant: European Police Office (Europol) (represented by: D. Neumann and D. El Khoury, Agents and B. Wägenbaur and R. Van der Hout, lawyers)

Re:

Annulment of the decision of 12 June 2008 informing the applicant that it was impossible to offer her a permanent post and the decision of 7 January 2009 dismissing the complaint against the first decision.

Operative part of the judgment

The Tribunal:

| 1. | Annuls the decision of 12 June 2008 by which the European Police Office (Europol) refused to award a contract for an indefinite period to Ms Goddijn; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decision of 12 June 2008 by which the European Police Office (Europol) refused to award a contract for an indefinite period to Ms Goddijn;

| 2. | Orders Europol to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Europol to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 167, 18.7.09, p. 27.

---
Exhibit 23.1

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement Nos.
333-69616, 333-49027, 333-69618, 333-89496, 333-114965, and 333-114969 on Forms S-8 of our reports dated March 14, 2007, relating to the financial statements of Speedway Motorsports, Inc. (which report expresses an unqualified opinion and
includes an explanatory paragraph relating to adoption of Statement of Financial Accounting Standard No. 123(R), Share-Based Payment), and managements report on the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting, appearing in
this Annual Report on Form 10-K of Speedway Motorsports, Inc. for the year ended December 31, 2006.



|                            
|----------------------------
|/s/    Deloitte & Touche LLP
|                            
|DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP       
|Charlotte, North Carolina   

March 14, 2007
Opinion filed October 3 , 201 9



### In The 

# Eleventh Court of Appeals

____ ___ _____ No. 11
- 1 9
- 00 2 77
- CR

_____ __ _____ HAROLD WAYNE MITCHELL , Appellant V. THE S TATE OF TEXAS , Appellee

On Appeal from the 238 th District Court Midland County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. CR43869

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N Appellant, Harold Wayne Mitchell , filed a pro se notice of appeal related to his request f or a judgment n unc p ro t unc
. A ppellant sought to have the trial court enter a judgment nunc pro tunc with respect to the attorney’s fees associated with this cause

. We dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction , but we note that the trial court has now entered an order in which it granted Appellant’s motio n for judgment2 nunc pro tunc and that the trial court has amended the bill of costs to delete the $1,100 .00 in attorney’s fees and $22.50 of the $25.00 time payment fee

. When the appeal w as filed in this court, we notified Appellant by letter that the or der from which he attempted to appeal did not appear to be a final, appealable order

. We requested that Appellant respond and show grounds to continue , and we informed him that th is appeal may be dismissed

. Appellant filed a response but has not shown grounds upon which this appeal may continue

. An intermediate appellate court has no jurisdiction over an appeal from an order denying a request for judgment nunc pro tunc because such an order is not an appea lable order

. Gonzalez v. State , No. 11

- 17

- 00056

- CR, 2017 WL 1275540, at *1 (Tex. App.

— Eastland Mar. 31, 2017, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication); Sims v. State , No. 05

- 14

- 01438

- CR, 2014 WL 6453607, at *1 (Tex. App.

— Dallas Nov. 18, 2014, n o pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication); Sanchez v. State , 112 S.W.3d 311, 312 (Tex. App.

— Corpus Christi 2003, no pet.) ; Everett v. State , 82 S.W.3d 735 (Tex. App.

— Waco 2002, pet. dism’ d )

. Thus, we h ave no jurisdiction to entertain this appeal. We dismiss th is appeal for want of jurisdiction.

PER CURIAM

October 3 , 201 9 Do not publish. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 47.2(b). Panel consists of: Bailey, C. J., Stretcher , J., and Wright, S.C.J. 1 Willson, J., not participating.

1 Jim R. Wright, Senior Chief Justice (Retired), Court of Appeals, 11th District of Texas at Eastland, sitting by assignment.
In re Michael Antwan ZONE, petitioner.

No. 16-6681.

Supreme Court of the United States

Nov. 28, 2016.

Petition for writ of habeas corpus denied.
[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 3 (Thursday, January 4, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Page 799]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-160]


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

FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM


Notice of Proposals to Engage in Permissible Nonbanking 
Activities or to Acquire Companies that are Engaged in Permissible 
Nonbanking Activities

    The companies listed in this notice have given notice under section 
4 of the Bank Holding Company Act (12 U.S.C. 1843) (BHC Act) and 
Regulation Y (12 CFR Part 225) to engage de novo, or to acquire or 
control voting securities or assets of a company, including the 
companies listed below, that engages either directly or through a 
subsidiary or other company, in a nonbanking activity that is listed in 
Sec.  225.28 of Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.28) or that the Board has 
determined by Order to be closely related to banking and permissible 
for bank holding companies. Unless otherwise noted, these activities 
will be conducted throughout the United States.
    Each notice is available for inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank 
indicated. The notice also will be available for inspection at the 
offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their 
views in writing on the question whether the proposal complies with the 
standards of section 4 of the BHC Act. Additional information on all 
bank holding companies may be obtained from the National Information 
Center website at www.ffiec.gov/nic/.
    Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding the applications must be 
received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of 
Governors not later than January 29, 2001.
    A. Federal Reserve Bank of New York (Betsy Buttrill White, Senior 
Vice President) 33 Liberty Street, New York, New York 10045-0001:
    1. Westdeutsche Landesbank Girozentrale, Dusseldorf, Germany; to 
acquire voting shares of Boullioun Aviation Services, Inc., Bellevue, 
Washington, and thereby engage in leasing personal property or acting 
as agent, broker, or adviser in leasing such property, pursuant to 
Sec.  225.28(b)(3) of Regulation Y; providing financial and investment 
advice pursuant to Sec.  225.28(b)(6) of Regulation Y; making, 
acquiring, brokering or servicing loans or other extensions of credit, 
pursuant to Sec.  225.28(b)(1) of Regulation Y; and engaging under 
contract with a third party in asset management, servicing and 
collection of assets of a type that an insured depository institution 
may originate and own, pursuant to Sec.  225.28(b)(2)(vi) of Regulation 
Y.

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, December 28, 
2000.
Jennifer J. Johnson
Secretary of the Board.
[FR Doc. 01-160 Filed 1-3-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6210-01-S
EXHIBIT 31.2

                  CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER

I, Martin P. Moore, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this report on Form 10-Q of Cost-U-Less, Inc.;

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a
material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements
made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not
misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the
financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as
of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4. The registrant's other certifying officer and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

      (a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such
disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to
ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its
consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities,
particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;

      (b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls
and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the
effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the
period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

      (c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's internal
control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's most
recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to
materially affect, the registrant's internal control over financial reporting;
and

5. The registrant's other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our
most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the
registrant's auditors and the audit committee of the registrant's board of
directors:

      (a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or
operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably
likely to adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process,
summarize and report financial information; and

      (b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal control over
financial reporting.

Date: August 8, 2003


/s/ Martin P. Moore
-----------------------------
Martin P. Moore
Chief Financial Officer
[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 122 (Monday, June 25, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Pages 33673-33674]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-15863]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket Nos. RT01-88-003, ER99-3144-011 and EC99-80-011]


Notice of Filing

June 19, 2001.
    In the matter of: Ameren Corporation on behalf of: Union 
Electric Company, Central Illinois Public Service Company; American 
Electric Power Service Corporation on behalf of: Appalachian Power 
Company, Columbus Southern Power Company, Indiana Michigan Power 
Company, Kentucky Power Company, Kingsport Power Company, Ohio Power 
Company, Wheeling Power Company; Consumers Energy and Michigan 
Electric Transmission Company; Detroit Edison Company and 
International Transmission Company; Exelon Corporation on behalf of: 
Commonwealth Edison Company, Commonwealth Edison Company of Indiana, 
Inc.; FirstEnergy Corp. on behalf of: American Transmission Systems, 
Inc., The Cleveland Electric Illuminating Company, Ohio Edison 
Company, Pennsylvania Power Company, The Toledo Edison Company, 
Illinois Power Company; Northern Indiana Public Service Company; The 
Dayton Power and Light Company; Virginia Electric and Power Company.

    Take notice that on June 15, 2001, Alliance Companies tendered for 
filing with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) an 
amendment to its May 15, 2001 supplemental compliance filing in the 
above-referenced proceedings.
    Any person desiring to be heard or to protest such filing should 
file a motion to intervene or protest with the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, in 
accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice 
and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). All such motions and 
protests should be filed on or before June 26, 2001. Protests will be 
considered by the

[[Page 33674]]

Commission to determine the appropriate action to be taken, but will 
not serve to make protestants parties to the proceedings. Any person 
wishing to become a party must file a motion to intervene. Copies of 
this filing are on file with the Commission and are available for 
public inspection. This filing may also be viewed on the Internet at 
http://www.ferc.fed.us/online/rims.htm (call 202-208-2222 for 
assistance). Comments, protest and interventions may be filed 
electronically via the internet in lieu of paper. See, 18 CFR 
385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's web site 
at http://www.ferc.fed.us/efi/doorbell.htm.

Linwood A. Watson, Jr.,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. 01-15863 Filed 6-22-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
1318.

#### EDWARDS *v.*THE STATE.

One who shoots with a pistol in the direction of another, situated within the range of the pistol, not intending to hit him, but intending to frighten him, is guilty of an assault.

Indictment for assault, from Bartow superior court — Judge Pite. July 16, 1908.

Submitted October 6,

Decided October 12, 1908.

*G. H. Aubrey, T. J. Lyon,*for plaintiff in error.

*Samuel P. Maddox, solicitor-general,*contra.

Powell, J.

This case has been to this court previously, and the facts are reported, with the former opinion, ante, 167 (60 S. E. 1033). The court in the trial now under review instructed the jury -as follows: “I further charge you that if you find the defendant, without justification, shot a pistol in the direction of *850the witness, within carrying distance of the pistol, not intending to hit him, but intending to scare Mm, he would be guilty of an assault.” In the former decision of the case Chief Judge Hill, speaking for the majority of the court, said: “We do not doubt that the firing of a pistol in the direction of another,. within a distance in which it might do execution, although with the intention of frightening only, might amount to an assault. And if one should recklessly fire a pistol in the direction of another, it might •constitute an assault; for the offense may consist in putting another in fear of violence.” The writer, specially concurring said: “I think that fright is such bodily harm that to shoot in the general direction of a person, with intent to 'bluff or scare’ him, is an assault.” It seems, therefore, that the instruction sub judice is directly in accord with the views of the entire court, as expressed in the former decision. . *Judgment affirmed.*