alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
II-00951

From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

MARY HOUSEL <mary.housel.nj@gmail.com>

Thursday, December 2, 2010 9:44 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.

MARY HOUSEL

59 HIGH STREET

NEW PROVIDENCE, NJ 7974
Exhibit 31.1

Certifications of the Chief Executive Officer

Pursuant to Securities Exchange Act Rules 13a-1 and
15d-14

As adopted pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

I, Donald R. Walsh, certify that:

1. I
have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Avatech Solutions, 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 (the Registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an
annual report) 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
Registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent function):

(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: February 14, 2007 |  | /s/ Donald R. Walsh    
|                        |  | Donald R. Walsh        
|                        |  | Chief Executive Officer
[(m)] Additional Representation [will][will not]* apply. [For the purpose of Section 3 of this Agreement, the 

following will constitute an Additional Representation:-

[[(i)] Relationship Between Parties. Each party will be deemed to represent to the other party on the date 

on which it enters into a Transaction that (absent a written agreement between the parties that expressly 

imposes affirmative obligations to the c0ntrary for that Transaction):-

[(1)] Non-Reliance. It is acting for its own account, and it has made its own independent 

decisions to enter into that Transaction and as to whether that Transaction is appropriate or 

proper for it based upon its own judgment and upon advice from such advisers as it has 

deemed necessary. It is not relying on any communication (written or oral) of the other 

party as investment advice or as a recommendation to enter into that Transaction, it being 

understood that information and explanations related to the terms and conditions of a 

Transaction will not be .considered investment advice or a recommendation to enter into that 

Transaction. No communication (written or oral) received from the other party will be 

deemed to be an assurance or guarantee as to the expected results of that Transaction. 

[(2)] Assessment and Understanding. It is capable of assessing the merits of and understanding 

(on its own behalf or through independent professional advice), and understands and 

accepts, the terms, conditions and risks of that Transaction. It is also capable of assuming. 

and assumes, the risks of that Transaction. 

[(3)] Status of Parties. The other party is not acting as a fiduciary for or an adviser to it in 

respect of that Transaction.]]*
Chester HARDY, petitioner, v. Debra L. SCUTT, Warden, et al.

No. 16-6187.

Supreme Court of the United States

Dec. 5, 2016.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth circuit denied.
DaRen Kereem GADSDEN, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 16-6538.

Supreme Court of the United States

Nov. 28, 2016.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied.
Abelardo Arboleda ORTIZ, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 14-7506 (R46-006).

Supreme Court of the United States

Jan. 27, 2017.

The petition for writ of certiorari was dismissed today pursuant to Rule 46 of the Rules of this Court.
Timothy REEVES, petitioner, v. Leo E. GREEN, Jr.

No. 17-7019.

Supreme Court of the United States

Feb. 20, 2018.

Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed *in forma pauperis* denied. Petitioner allowed until March 13, 2018, 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 Rule of this Court.
---

Exhibit 10.7

SECOND AMENDMENT to the 
Employment Agreement executed September 16, 1999 between Neil Chinn and Eagle Pacific Industries, Inc.

THIS AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT is entered into effective as of August 20, 2001, by and between Neil Chinn (the Employee) and PW Eagle,
Inc., f/k/a Eagle Pacific Industries, Inc. (Eagle).

WITNESSETH:

WHEREAS, Employee and Eagle are parties to that certain Employment Agreement executed September 16, 1999, as amended December 15, 1999 (the
Agreement).

WHEREAS, the parties mutually desire to amend the Agreement effective August 20,
2001 to take into account the resolutions adopted by Eagles Board of Directors at its meeting on such date.

NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises and mutual agreements hereinafter contained, and for other good and valuable consideration, the parties
agree as follows:

1.         The term of the Agreement as referenced
in Section 1 shall be through December 31, 2004.

2.         Except as amended herein, the Agreement shall remain in full force and effect.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Amendment to the Employment Agreement effective as of the date first
written above.

|PW EAGLE, INC.         |                 
|---------------------- | ----------------
|(the Company)        |                 
|                       |                 
|                       |                 
|By:  /s/ Larry Fleming | Neil Chinn      
|Its:  President        | (the Employee)

|                             
|-----------------------------
|[RETURN TO TABLE OF CONTENTS]
|
##### 



Exhibit 32.2
 CERTIFICATION BY CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  (1)
    
    The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15 (d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and(2)
    
    The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the Registrant for the dates and periods
covered by the Report.
   March 15, 2006/s/ Jeffrey W. ChurchJeffrey W. ChurchChief Financial Officer, Treasurer& Corporate Secretary
Antonio FRANKLIN, petitioner, v. Charlotte JENKINS, Warden.

No. 17-5808.

Supreme Court of the United States

Feb. 20, 2018.

Petition for rehearing denied.
Randy H. GRIFFIN, petitioner, v. FLORIDA.

No. 17-7376.

Supreme Court of the United States

March 5, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District denied.
Basil DONEY, Jr., petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 16-6385.

Supreme Court of the United States

Nov. 28, 2016.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.
* Pursuant to Local Rule 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 Local Rule 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 95-31299 Summary Calendar

JOHN GARNER; JOAN GARNER; MARGARET GARNER, Plaintiffs-Appellants,

versus EDWARD ENGOLIO, Judge, 18th JDC, ET AL., Defendants, JAY C. PENNINGTON, Director of Greenwell Springs Hospital, ET AL., Defendants-Appellees.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana

USDC No. 91-CV-883

- - - - - - - - - - July 15, 1996 Before SMITH, BENAVIDES and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * The Garners assert that the district court erred in granting summary judgment in favor of defendants Pennington, Mendoza, and Patin. The Garners do not challenge the district court’s judgment with respect to defendant Landry. This court reviewsNo. 95-31299 - 2 - the district court’s grant of summary judgment de novo. Weyant v. Acceptance Ins. Co. , 917 F.2d 209, 209-12 (5th Cir. 1990). The district court did not err in considering the discovery depositions in granting summary judgment because all inferences were drawn in the light most favorable to the Garners. Newell v. Oxford Management, Inc. , 912 F.2d 793, 795 (5th Cir. 1990). The Garners have not produced any evidence to create a genuine issue of fact that either Pennington, Mendoza, or Patin is not entitled to qualified immunity. The Garners did not show that any of the defendants violated a clearly established constitutional right. Siegert v. Gilley , 500 U.S. 226, 232 (1991). With respect to Patin, the Garners did not allege a constitutional violation, rather they simply asserted a state law
tort. Harper v. Harris County, Tex. , 21 F.3d 597, 600 (5th Cir. 1994). With respect to Pennington and Mendoza, the Garners have not rebutted the summary judgment evidence showing that both Pennington and Mendoza personally examined Joan before certifying her as gravely disabled. See Little v. Liquid Air Corp. , 37 F.3d 1069, 1075 (5th Cir. 1994) (en banc).
AFFIRMED.
Exhibit 31.2



CERTIFICATION



I, Catherine Dobson, certify that:



1. I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Avatech Solutions, 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 (the Registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) 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 Registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent function):



(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: November 15, 2004 |  |  |  | /s/ Catherine Dodson           
|                        |  |  |  | Catherine Dodson               
|                        |  |  |  | Interim Chief Financial Officer



25
II-01148

From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

Tom Wilkinson <wilkie453 @verizon.net>

Thursday, December 2, 2010 7:20 AM

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 $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 (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 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.

Tom Wilkinson

202 West 9th Street

Erie, PA 16501
This memorandum opinion was not selected for publication in the New Mexico Appellate Reports.

Please see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum

opinions. Please also note that this electronic memorandum opinion may contain

computer-generated errors or other deviations from the official paper version filed by the Court of

Appeals and does not include the filing date. 

1 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO

2 STATE OF NEW MEXICO, 

3 Plaintiff-Appellee,

4 v. No. 35,368

5 GILBERTO VICENTE, 

6 Defendant-Appellant.

7 APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF SAN JUAN COUNTY

8 John A. Dean, Jr., District Judge

9 Hector H. Balderas, Attorney General 

10 Santa Fe, NM

11 Charles J. Gutierrez, Assistant Attorney General 

12 Albuquerque, NM

13 for Appellee

14 Bennett J. Baur, Chief Public Defender

15 Sergio Viscoli, Director

16 Santa Fe, NM

17 for Appellant

18 MEMORANDUM OPINION

19 BUSTAMANTE, Judge.
2

1 {1} Defendant has appealed from a conviction for trafficking a controlled

2 substance, specifically and exclusively challenging the denial of a motion to suppress.

3 We previously issued a notice of proposed summary disposition, proposing to reverse.

4 The State has filed a response with this Court indicating that it does not oppose our

5 proposed summary disposition. 

6 {2} Accordingly, for the reasons previously stated, we reverse and remand for

7 further proceedings.

8 {3} IT IS SO ORDERED. 

9 _______________________________________

10 MICHAEL D. BUSTAMANTE, Judge

11 WE CONCUR:

12 

13 RODERICK T. KENNEDY, Judge

14 

15 M. MONICA ZAMORA, Judge
II-00658

From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

Mary Sienko <msienko@comcast.net>

Thursday, December 2, 2010 12:53 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.

Mary Sienko

5752 Longfellow Avenue

Minneapolis, MN 55417
II-00207

From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

Mr.& Mrs. Terry Cadwallader <buddapapa@aol.com>

Friday, December 3, 2010 5:36 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 $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 (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 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.

Mr.& Mrs. Terry Cadwallader

11587 Joslyn Ct.

St. Louis, MO 63138
Jan HAMILTON, petitioner, v. COLORADO.

No. 17-7310.

Supreme Court of the United States

March 5, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the District Court of Colorado, Pitkin County denied.
# C_2011152EN.01001902.xml

| 21.5.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 152/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.5.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 152/19

---

Judgment of the General Court of 7 April 2011 — Gruber v OHIM (Run the globe)

(Case T-12/09) (1)

1

(Community trade mark - Application for Community word mark Run the globe - Absolute ground for refusal - Lack of distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

2011/C 152/34

Language of the case: German

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Alexander Gruber (Ulm, Germany) (represented by: T. Kienle and M. Krinke, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: S. Schnäffner, Agent)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 6 November 2008 (Case R 1779/2007-1) concerning a request for registration of the word sign Run the globe as a Community trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Mr Alexander Gruber to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Mr Alexander Gruber to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 69, 21.3.2009.

1

---