alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
II-01156

From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

Blake Howe <howeb@brc-res.com>

Thursday, December 2, 2010 2:02 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.

Blake Howe

11 W Aloha St #533

Seattle, WA 98119
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                           9,644
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                             180
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                     0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                     74,731
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                               0
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                                 0
<LOANS>                                        254,711
<ALLOWANCE>                                      4,437
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 341,311
<DEPOSITS>                                     262,104
<SHORT-TERM>                                    29,636
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                              2,794
<LONG-TERM>                                      5,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        20,797
<OTHER-SE>                                      20,980
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                 341,311
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                 16,419
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                3,870
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                   164
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                20,453
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                               9,064
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               9,999
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                           10,454
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                      807
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                 (34)
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                  7,598
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  4,038
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                       4,038
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     2,483
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .68
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .67
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    4.56
<LOANS-NON>                                        745
<LOANS-PAST>                                         0
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                    546
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                 4,062
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                      528
<RECOVERIES>                                       432
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                4,437
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                             3,308
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                          1,129


</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE>           5
<LEGEND>
                    The Schedule contains summary financial
                    information extracted from the financial
                    statements for P-B Capital Return Futures
                    Fund 2, L.P. and is qualified in its entirety
                    by reference to such financial statements
</LEGEND>

<RESTATED>
<CIK>               0000851786
<NAME>              P-B Capital Return Futures Fund 2, L.P.
<MULTIPLIER>        1

<FISCAL-YEAR-END>               Dec-31-2000

<PERIOD-START>                  Jan-1-2000

<PERIOD-END>                    Mar-31-2000

<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-Mos

<CASH>                          4,104,230

<SECURITIES>                    14,187,105

<RECEIVABLES>                   0

<ALLOWANCES>                    0

<INVENTORY>                     0

<CURRENT-ASSETS>                0

<PP&E>                          0

<DEPRECIATION>                  0

<TOTAL-ASSETS>                  18,291,335

<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>           2,360,287

<BONDS>                         0

<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>           0

<PREFERRED>                     0

<COMMON>                        0

<OTHER-SE>                      15,931,048

<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>    18,291,335

<SALES>                         0

<TOTAL-REVENUES>                (312,979)

<CGS>                           0

<TOTAL-COSTS>                   0

<OTHER-EXPENSES>                503,467

<LOSS-PROVISION>                0

<INTEREST-EXPENSE>              0

<INCOME-PRETAX>                 0

<INCOME-TAX>                    0

<INCOME-CONTINUING>             0

<DISCONTINUED>                  0

<EXTRAORDINARY>                 0

<CHANGES>                       0

<NET-INCOME>                    (816,446)

<EPS-BASIC>                   (9.89)

<EPS-DILUTED>                   0

</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of PW Eagle, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2006 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), I, Jerry A. Dukes, Chief Executive Officer, of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



| | (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 Company.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dated: November 13, 2006



/s/ Jerry A. DukesJerry A. Dukes Chief Executive
Officer
Ever Lee HOLLEY, petitioner, v. CONNECTICUT.

No. 17-7178.

Supreme Court of the United States

Feb. 20, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Appellate Court of Connecticut denied.
1223.

#### Poulos *v.*City of Atlanta.

Petition for certiorari, from Fulton superior court — Judge Pendleton. April 13, 1908.

Submitted June 30,

Decided July 25, 1908.

*R. R. Shropshire,*for plaintiff in error.

J. *L. Mayson, W. P. Hill,*contra.

Hill, C. J.

Where one seeks a writ of certiorari to review and correct a judgment of a municipal court in this State, he must file with the clerk of the municipal court, or, if there he no clerk, with the judge thereof, a hond payable to the municipality under which the court exists, to be approved by the clerk or the judge, conditioned for the personal appearance of the defendant to abide the final order, judgment, or sentence of the municipal court, or of the superior court, in the case, unless such defendant be unable from his poverty to give the bond, in which case he shall file a proper affidavit in forma pauperis. The filing of the bond or the pauper affidavit is a condition precedent to obtaining the writ, of certiorari; and the filing of the bond with the approval of the clerk or the judge, or the making of the pauper affidavit, must. affirmatively appear in the application for the writ. Neither in the petition for the-writ of certiorari nor in the hill of exceptions does it appear that either the bond or the pauper affidavit as required was filed; and the judg-, ment of the superior court denying the writ must be affirmed. Acts, 1902, p. 105; *McDonald*v. *Ludowici,*3 *Ga. App.*654 (60 S. E. 337); Johns v. *Tifton,*122 *Ga.*734 (50 S. E. 941).

*Judgment affirmed.*
II-00624

From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

Harold Hodes <hth3 @cornell.edu>

Thursday, December 2, 2010 1:19 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.

Harold Hodes

202 First Street

Ithaca, NY 14850
II-00260

From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

Lisa Frizzell <widdydupree@yahoo.com>

Friday, December 3, 2010 7:12 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 Frizzell

747 Walnut Street

Madison, TN 37115
II-01055

From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

Robert Dreps <rdreps@gklaw.com>

Thursday, December 2, 2010 8:41 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.

Robert Dreps

6160 Sutzfey Cr.

Dane, WI 53529
Keith STEPHENS, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 17-7534.

Supreme Court of the United States

Feb. 26, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied.
Exhibit 31.1



CERTIFICATION



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: November 14, 2003 | 
|                        | 
|                        | 
|                        |
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                           1,837
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   17,385
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,725
<INVENTORY>                                     21,307
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                41,406
<PP&E>                                          17,763
<DEPRECIATION>                                  12,221
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  52,944
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           20,189
<BONDS>                                          1,756
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        50,500
<OTHER-SE>                                    (20,244)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    30,256
<SALES>                                         30,970
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                30,970
<CGS>                                           16,865
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   16,865
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                12,043
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  24
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  2,038
<INCOME-TAX>                                       327
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              1,711
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,637
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .13
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .13
        

</TABLE>
# C_2011179EN.01000402.xml

| 18.6.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 179/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.6.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 179/4

---

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 14 April 2011 — European Commission v Republic of Poland

(Case C-331/09) (1)

1

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - State aid - Aid granted by the Republic of Poland to Technologie Buczek Group - Commission decision declaring that aid to be incompatible with the common market and ordering its recovery - Failure to implement within the prescribed period)

2011/C 179/05

Language of the case: Polish

Parties

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: K. Gross and A. Stobiecka-Kuik, acting as Agents)

Applicant:

Defendant: Republic of Poland (represented by: M. Krasnodębska-Tomkiel, acting as Agent)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Failure to adopt or notify, within the period prescribed, the provisions necessary to ensure compliance with the Commission Decision of 23 October 2007 on State Aid C 23/06 (ex NN 35/06) which Poland has implemented for the steel producer Technologie Buczek Group (State aid C(2007) 5087) (OJ 2008 L 116, p. 26) — No immediate and effective implementation of that decision — Implementation not absolutely impossible

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Declares that, by failing to take, within the period prescribed, all the measures necessary to implement Commission Decision 2008/344/EC of 23 October 2007 on State Aid C 23/06 (ex NN 35/06) which Poland has implemented for steel producer Technologie Buczek Group, the Republic of Poland has failed to comply with the provisions of the fourth subparagraph of Article 249 EC and Articles 3 and 4 of that decision; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Declares that, by failing to take, within the period prescribed, all the measures necessary to implement Commission Decision 2008/344/EC of 23 October 2007 on State Aid C 23/06 (ex NN 35/06) which Poland has implemented for steel producer Technologie Buczek Group, the Republic of Poland has failed to comply with the provisions of the fourth subparagraph of Article 249 EC and Articles 3 and 4 of that decision;

| 2. | Orders the Republic of Poland to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the Republic of Poland to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 312, 19.12.2009.

1

---