alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
II-O0161

From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

Gordon MacDonald <gmacdon232@aol.com>

Saturday, December 4, 2010 12:37 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.

Gordon MacDonald

14451 Stahelin

Detroit, MI 48223
Gavin YEPA, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 17-6542.

Supreme Court of the United States

March 5, 2018.

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

Justice GORSUCH took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.
# C_2010317EN.01003101.xml

| 20.11.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 317/31 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.11.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 317/31

---

Judgment of the General Court of 30 September 2010 — PVS v OHIM — MeDiTA Medizinische Kurierdienst (medidata)

(Case T-270/09) (1)

1

(Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community figurative mark medidata - Earlier national word mark MeDiTA - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Similarity of the signs - Similarity of the services - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

2010/C 317/56

Language of the case: German

Parties

Parties

Applicant: PVS — Privatärztliche Verrechnungsstelle Rhein-Ruhr GmbH (Mülheim an der Ruhr, Germany) (represented by: F. Lindberg, lawyer)

Applicant:

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

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervening before the General Court: MeDiTA Medizinische Kurierdienst- und Handelsgesellschaft mbH (Düsseldorf, Germany) (represented by: T. Schulte-Beckmann, lawyer)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervening before the General Court:

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 14 May 2009 (Case R 1724/2007-4) relating to opposition proceedings between MeDiTA Medizinische Kurierdienst- und Handelsgesellschaft mbH and PVS — Privatärztliche Verrechnungsstelle Rhein-Ruhr GmbH.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Privatärztliche Verrechnungsstelle Rhein-Ruhr GmbH to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Privatärztliche Verrechnungsstelle Rhein-Ruhr GmbH to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 220 of 12.9.2009.

1

---
Exhibit 32.1



Certification Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350

(Section 906 of Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002)



Burlington Northern Santa Fe Corporation



In connection with the Annual Report of Burlington Northern Santa Fe Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2004 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the undersigned, Matthew K. Rose, Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and Thomas N. Hund, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial
Officer of the Company, each hereby certifies that, to his knowledge on the date hereof:



| | 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: February 15, 2005



|                                                |  |                                                     
|----------------------------------------------- |  | ----------------------------------------------------
|/s/ Matthew K. Rose                             |  | /s/ Thomas N. Hund                                  
|Matthew K. Rose                                 |  | Thomas N. Hund                                      
|Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer |  | Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer



A signed original of this written
statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Burlington Northern Santa Fe Corporation and will be retained by Burlington Northern Santa Fe Corporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.



E-13
II-00416

From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

Lillian Laskin <luluinla@yahoo.com>

Thursday, December 2, 2010 8:31 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.

Lillian Laskin

3145 Coolidge Avenue

Los Angeles, CA 90066
[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 123 (Tuesday, June 26, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Page 33979]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-16099]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH REVIEW COMMISSION


Sunshine Act Meetings

Time and Date: 10 a.m., Wednesday, June 27, 2001.

Place: Room 6005, 6th Floor, 1730 K Street, NW., Washington, DC.

Status: Open.

Matters to be Considered: The Commission will consider and act upon the 
following:

1. Secretary of Labor on behalf of McGill v. U.S. Steel Mining, Docket 
No. SE 2000-39-DM (Issues include whether the judge erred in finding 
that the operator established an affirmative defense to the miner's 
prima facie case of discrimination).

Time and Date: 2 p.m., Wednesday, June 27, 2001.

Place: Room 6005, 6th Floor, 1730 K Street, NW., Washington, DC.

Status: Open.

Matters to be Considered: The Commission will consider and act upon the 
following:

1. Proposed Settlement Judge Rule (Notice of proposed rulemaking was 
published at 64 Fed. Reg. 61236 (Nov. 10, 1999)).

    Any person attending an open meeting who requires special 
accessibility features and/or auxiliary aids, such as sign language 
interpreters, must inform the Commission in advance of those needs. 
Subject to 29 CFR 2706.150(a)(3) and Sec. 2706.160(d).

Contact Person for More Info: Jean Ellen, (202) 653-5629/(202) 708-9300 
for TDD Relay/1-800-877-8339 for toll free.

Jean H. Ellen,
Chief Docket Clerk.
[FR Doc. 01-16099 Filed 6-22-01; 11:50 am]
BILLING CODE 6735-01-M
# C_2012331EN.01000202.xml

| 27.10.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 331/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.10.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 331/2

---

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 6 September 2012 — European Parliament v Council of the European Union

(Case C-490/10) (1)

(Action for annulment - Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 617/2010 - Notification to the Commission of investment projects in energy infrastructure within the European Union - Choice of legal basis - Article 337 TFEU and Article 187 EA - Article 194 TFEU)

(2012/C 331/03)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: European Parliament (represented by: M. Gómez-Leal, J. Rodrigues and L. Visaggio, Agents)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Simm and A. Lo Monaco, Agents)

Intervening parties in support of the defendant: French Republic (represented by: G. de Bergues and A. Adam, Agents); European Commission (represented by: P. Oliver and O. Beynet, Agents)

Re:

Action for annulment — Council Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 617/2010 of 24 June 2010 concerning the notification to the Commission of investment projects in energy infrastructure within the European Union and repealing Regulation (EC) No 736/96 (OJ 2010 L 180, p. 7) — Choice of the dual legal basis of Articles 337 TFEU and 187 EA — Measures falling within the specific responsibilities of the Union in relation to energy and requiring the legal basis of Article 194 TFEU only

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls Council Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 617/2010 of 24 June 2010 concerning the notification to the Commission of investment projects in energy infrastructure within the European Union and repealing Regulation (EC) No 736/96; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls Council Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 617/2010 of 24 June 2010 concerning the notification to the Commission of investment projects in energy infrastructure within the European Union and repealing Regulation (EC) No 736/96;

| 2. | Maintains the effects of Regulation No 617/2010 until the entry into force, within a reasonable period, of a new regulation adopted on the appropriate legal basis, namely Article 194(2) TFEU; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Maintains the effects of Regulation No 617/2010 until the entry into force, within a reasonable period, of a new regulation adopted on the appropriate legal basis, namely Article 194(2) TFEU;

| 3. | Orders the Council of the European Union to pay the costs except those of the French Republic and the European Commission; |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the Council of the European Union to pay the costs except those of the French Republic and the European Commission;

| 4. | Orders the French Republic and the European Commission to bear their own costs. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Orders the French Republic and the European Commission to bear their own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 13, 15.1.2011.

---
Erwin W. JEFFERSON, III, petitioner, v. NEBRASKA UNICAMERAL LEGISLATURE, et al.

No. 16-576.

Supreme Court of the United States

Dec. 5, 2016.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit denied.
# C_2009090EN.01003001.xml

| 18.4.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 90/30 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.4.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 90/30

---

Action brought on 11 February 2009 — Cafea v OHIM — Christian (BEST FARM)

(Case T-53/09)

2009/C 90/47

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Cafea GmbH (Hamburg, Germany) (represented by: C. Schumann and M. Hartmann, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Dieter Christian (Frankfurt, Germany)

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

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of 27 November 2008 in Case R 420/2008-1; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of 27 November 2008 in Case R 420/2008-1;

| — | order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings;

| — | order the applicant for a Community trade mark to pay the costs of the opposition proceedings and the appeal proceedings before the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market |
| --- | --- |

—

order the applicant for a Community trade mark to pay the costs of the opposition proceedings and the appeal proceedings before the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: Dieter Christian

Applicant for a Community trade mark:

Community trade mark concerned: Word mark ‘BEST FARM’ for goods in Classes 29, 30, 31 and 32 (Registration No 3 089 281)

Community trade mark concerned:

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: the applicant acting under its previous corporate name KORD Beiteiligungsgesellschaft mbH & Co. KG

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings:

Mark or sign cited in opposition: German word mark ‘BESTFORM’ for goods and services in Classes 1, 29, 30, 32, 33 and 42 (No 300 563 34)

Mark or sign cited in opposition:

Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejection of the opposition

Decision of the Opposition Division:

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Rejection of the appeal

Decision of the Board of Appeal:

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (1), because there exists a likelihood of confusion, or at least a likelihood of association, between the conflicting marks

Pleas in law:

1

---

(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 40/941 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark (OJ 1994 L 11, p. 1)

1

---
II-00555

From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

roger schmanke <rogerxl 1 @gmail. com>

Thursday, December 2, 2010 2:53 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.

roger schmanke

6621 marion rd.

OSKALOOSA, KS 66066
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

 Respondent

 v.

MARCELO RIVERA,

 Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 317 MAL 2014

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the

Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 23rd day of September, 2014, the Petition for Allowance of

Appeal is DENIED.
# C_2012032EN.01002001.xml

| 4.2.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 32/20 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.2.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 32/20

---

Judgment of the General Court of 16 December 2011 — Rintisch v OHIM — Bariatrix Europe (PROTI SNACK)

(Case T-62/09) (1)

1

(Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community word mark PROTI SNACK - Earlier national word and figurative marks PROTIPLUS, PROTI and PROTIPOWER - Late submission of documents - Discretion granted by Article 74(2) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 76(2) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009) - Concept of a provision to the contrary - Rule 20(1) of Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 - Rule 50(1) of Regulation No 2868/95)

2012/C 32/37

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Bernhard Rintisch (Bottrop, Germany) (represented by: A. Dreyer, lawyer)

Applicant:

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

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Bariatrix Europe Inc. SAS (Guilherand Granges, France)

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

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 15 December 2008 (Case R 740/2008-4) relating to opposition proceedings between Bernhard Rintisch and Bariatrix Europe Inc. SAS.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Mr Bernhard Rintisch to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Mr Bernhard Rintisch to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 102, 1.5.2009

1

---
Karen EMMEL, petitioner, v. AMTRUST-NP SFR, VENTURE, LLC.

No. 17-6686.

Supreme Court of the United States

March 26, 2018.

Petition for rehearing denied.
Joint CFTC‐SEC Staff Roundtable 

Proposed Dealer and Major

Participant Definitions

June 16, 2011, 9:00 a.m. 

Panel A – Core Aspects of Dealer Definitions 

Steve Walton

for Bank of Oklahoma

Richard Ostrander

Morgan Stanley

Michael Masters

Better Markets

John Nicholas

Newedge

Eric Chern

Chicago Trading Company

Russ Wasson

NRECA

Sean Cota

Cota & Cota Oil

Ron Filler

NY Law School

Ed Prosser

Gavilon

Ron Oppenheimer

Working Group of Commercial Energy Firms

John McCarthy

GETCO

Panel B – Special Issues in Applying the Dealer Definitions 

Greg Todd

Bank of America

John Janney

Large Public Power Council

Michael Masters

Better Markets

Bella Sanevich

NISA Investment Advisors, L.L.C.

Jon Hixson

Cargill

Ron Filler

NY Law School

Brenda Boultwood

Constellation

Camille Rudge

The PrivateBank and Trust Company

James Cawley

Javelin Capital Markets

Mary‐Margaret Collier

Tennessee Comptroller of the Treasury

Panel C – Major Participant Definitions 

Marcus Stanley

Americans for Financial Reform

Pete Kyle

University of Maryland

Michael Masters

Better Markets

William Thum

Vanguard

Matt Nevins

Fidelity

Ron Oppenheimer

Working Group of Commercial Energy Firms
Travis SEATON, petitioner, v. Judy P. SMITH, Warden.

No. 16-9410.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 2, 2017.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit denied.
Maricela RAMIREZ, petitioner, v. ADVENTIST MEDICAL CENTER, et al.

No. 15-9393.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 3, 2016.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals of Oregon denied.
# C_2010195EN.01001701.xml

| 17.7.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 195/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.7.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 195/17

---

Judgment of the General Court of 2 June 2010 — Procaps v OHIM — Biofarma (PROCAPS)

(Case T-35/09) (1)

1

(Community trade mark - Opposition procedure - Application for the Community word mark PROCAPS - Earlier national and international word marks PROCAPTAN - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Similarity of the signs - Similarity of the goods and services - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

2010/C 195/26

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Procaps, SA (Barranquilla, Colombia) (represented by: M. Vidal-Quadras Trias de Bes, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (represented by: Ó. Mondéjar Ortuño, acting as Agent)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: Biofarma SAS (Neuilly-sur-Seine, France) (represented by: A. Ruiz López and V. Gil Vega, lawyers

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court:

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 24 November 2008 (Case R 867/2007-4), concerning opposition proceedings between Biofarma SAS and Procaps, SA

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Procaps, SA to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Procaps, SA to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 69, 21.3.2009.

1

---
Rafael Humberto Celaya VALENZUELA, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 16-9352.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 2, 2017.

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