alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
II-00173

From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

Steven Standard <swstandard@yahoo.com>

Saturday, December 4, 2010 1:59 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.

Steven Standard

13640 Bellflower Blvd.

Bellflower, CA 90706
# C_2011269EN.01000302.xml

| 10.9.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 269/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.9.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 269/3

---

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 14 July 2011 — European Commission v Italian Republic

(Case C-303/09) (1)

1

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - State aid - Aid to firms investing in the municipalities seriously affected by natural disasters in 2002 - Recovery)

2011/C 269/04

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: L. Flynn, V. Di Bucci and E. Righini, acting as Agents)

Applicant:

Defendant: Italian Republic (represented by: G. Palmieri, Agent, and D. Del Gaizo and P. Gentili, avvocati)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Failure to adopt, within the prescribed time limits, the measures necessary to comply with Articles 2, 5 and 6 of Commission Decision 2005/315/EC of 20 October 2004 on the aid scheme implemented by Italy for firms investing in municipalities seriously affected by natural disasters in 2002 (notified under document No C(2004) 3893) (OJ 2005 L 100, p. 46).

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Declares that, by failing to adopt, within the period prescribed, the measures necessary to recover from the beneficiaries all the aid granted under the aid scheme declared incompatible with the common market by Commission Decision 2005/315/EC of 20 October 2004 on the aid scheme implemented by Italy for firms investing in municipalities seriously affected by natural disasters in 2002, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 5 of that decision; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Declares that, by failing to adopt, within the period prescribed, the measures necessary to recover from the beneficiaries all the aid granted under the aid scheme declared incompatible with the common market by Commission Decision 2005/315/EC of 20 October 2004 on the aid scheme implemented by Italy for firms investing in municipalities seriously affected by natural disasters in 2002, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 5 of that decision;

| 2. | Orders the Italian Republic to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the Italian Republic to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 256, 24.10.2009.

1

---
# C_2009141EN.01004701.xml

| 20.6.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 141/47 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.6.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 141/47

---

Action brought on 2 April 2009 — Bongrain v OHIM — Apetito (APETITO)

(Case T-129/09)

2009/C 141/98

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Parties

Applicants: Bongrain SA (Viroflay, France) (represented by: C. Hertz-Eichenrode, lawyer)

Applicants:

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

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Apetito AG (Rheine, Germany)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | Set aside the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 2 February 2009 in case R 720/2008-4; and |
| --- | --- |

—

Set aside the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 2 February 2009 in case R 720/2008-4; and

| — | Order OHIM to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order OHIM to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for the Community trade mark: The applicant

Applicant for the Community trade mark:

Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘APETITO’, for goods in class 29 — application No 3 470 598

Community trade mark concerned:

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

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

Mark or sign cited: Community trade mark registration of the word mark ‘apetito’ for goods in classes 5, 11, 21 29, 30, 37, 39, 41 and 42

Mark or sign cited:

Decision of the Opposition Division: Upheld the opposition

Decision of the Opposition Division:

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

Decision of the Board of Appeal:

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation 40/94 (1) (which became Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation 207/2009) as the Board of Appeal erred in its finding that there is similarity of goods and hence likelihood of confusion between the trade marks concerned.

Pleas in law:

1

---

(1)  Replaced by Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark, OJ L 78, p. 1

1

---
FILED

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

DECEMBER 11, 2009

THOMAS K. KAHN

CLERK

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 09-11233

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D. C. Docket No. 00-00594-CR-1-JTC-1

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

GARRETTE RAGLAND,

a.k.a. P-Rag,

Defendant-Appellant.

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Georgia

_________________________

(December 11, 2009)

Before CARNES, BARKETT and HULL, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Thomas C. Wooldridge, appointed counsel for Garrette Ragland in this
appeal from the district court’s order granting the government’s Rule 35(b) motion,

has moved to withdraw from further representation of the appellant and filed a

brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d

493 (1967). Our independent review of the entire record reveals that counsel’s

assessment of the relative merit of the appeal is correct. Because independent

examination of the entire record reveals no arguable issues of merit, counsel’s

motion to withdraw is GRANTED, and Ragland’s amended sentence is

AFFIRMED.

2
Seth Harvey SPEED, petitioner, v. OKLAHOMA.

No. 16-5806.

Supreme Court of the United States

Nov. 7, 2016.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma denied.
Mychael SAUNDERS, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 16-6864.

Supreme Court of the United States

Jan. 9, 2017.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit denied.
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA
F OURTH D ISTRICT

ALEXANDRE LEMA

- KENZO , Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA , Appellee

.

No. 4D 23

- 612

[ July 13, 2023 ]

Appeal of order denying rule 3.850 motion from the Circuit Court for the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit, St. Lucie County ; Steven J. Levin , Judge; L.T. Case No. 2016CF001259A

.

Alexandre Lema

- Kenzo, Doral, pro se.

No appearance required for appellee.

P ER C URIAM

.
Affirmed.

W ARNER , D AMOORGIAN and A RTAU , JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
In the Matter of DISBARMENT OF William James MEACHAM.

No. D-3009.

Supreme Court of the United States

Feb. 20, 2018.

Disbarment order entered.
Arsenio BRUNDIDGE, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 17-7516.

Supreme Court of the United States

Feb. 26, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals of the Eleventh Circuit denied.
Marytza GOLDEN, petitioner, v. INDIANAPOLIS HOUSING AGENCY.

No. 17-1113.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 2, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit denied.
Dary Gail RIEDLINGER, petitioner, v. CITY OF EVERETT, WASHINGTON.

No. 17-6378.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 2, 2018.

Petition for rehearing denied.
1218.

#### Cordele Grocery Company *v.*Thigpen *et al.*

Complaint, from city court of Abbeville — Judge Nicholson. May 14, 1908.

Submitted July 16,

Decided July 31, 1908.

*Hal Lawson,*for plaintiff. M. *B. Cannon,*for defendants.

Powell, J.

This case is controlled by *Cloud*v. *Scarborough,*3 *Ga. App.*7 (59 S. E. 202). Where a mortgage on the property oí the principal debtor is taken simultaneously with the creation of the suretyship, the creditor owes to the surety the duty of having it properly probated and recorded within a reasonable time, and a failure to do this relieves the surety. *Judgment affirmed.*
Gregory MOSS, petitioner, v. FLORIDA.

No. 16-6772.

Supreme Court of the United States

Jan. 9, 2017.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District denied.
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA

F OURTH D ISTRICT

TYVONN M. SCOTT

, Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA

, Appellee

.

No. 4D 18

- 2687

[ February 14, 2019 ]

Appeal of order denying rule 3.800 motion from the Circuit Court for

the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County ; Dennis D. Bailey

, Judge; L.T. Case No. 99

- 17848CF10A

.

Tyvonn M. Scott, Arcadia, pro se

.

No appearance required for appellee.

P ER C URIAM

.

Affirmed.

G ERBER

, C.J., M AY and C ONNER

, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
<PAGE>   1
EXHIBIT 10.2

                   FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT

     This First Amendment to the Employment Agreement is made on this 25th day
of February 1998, by and between Electronic Designs, Inc., a Delaware
corporation with its principal place of business in Westborough, Massachusetts
(the "Company"), and Donald F. McGuinness of 82 Baldwin Lane, Boxboro,
Massachusetts (the "Employee").

     The Company and Employee are parties to an Employment Agreement, dated
October 10, 1995 (the "Employment Agreement"). The parties wish to amend the
Employment Agreement in accordance with the provisions hereof. The purposes of
this First Amendment are the same as the purposes set forth in the Employment
Agreement.

     NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing and the mutual agreements
hereinafter set forth, it is agreed:

     1.   The first two sentences of Section 4(e) of the Employment Agreement
shall be and hereby are deleted in their entirety and are replaced by the
following two sentences:

          "Upon the termination of Employee's employment hereunder on, or at any
          time after, the Initial Termination Date, whether such termination is
          at the election of the Company or the Employee, the Company shall
          continue to pay and provide to Employee for a period of eighteen (18)
          months (the "Extended Payment Period") Employee's Base Salary and
          Employee's fringe benefits. During the Extended Payment Period,
          Employee shall serve as a consultant to the Company."

     2.   Except for the foregoing amendment, the Employment Agreement shall
continue in full force and effect as originally executed and the Employment
Agreement as amended hereby is hereby ratified and affirmed.

     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this First Amendment to the Employment Agreement has
been executed by the Company by its duly authorized officer and by the Employee
as of the date first above written.

WITNESS:                           ELECTRONIC DESIGNS, INC.

                                   By:
------------------------              ---------------------------
                                   Name:
                                   Title:

                                   By:
------------------------              ---------------------------
                                   Name: Donald F. McGuinness
                                   Title:  Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
Bernard JACKSON, petitioner, v. Cynthia LINK, Superintendent, State Correctional Institution at Graterford, et al.

No. 16-5950.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 31, 2016.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit denied.
# C_2011030EN.01006101.xml

| 29.1.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 30/61 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.1.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 30/61

---

Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 23 November 2010 — Wenig v Commission

(Case F-75/09) (1)

1

(Public service - Officials - Request for assistance - Damage to reputation and breach of the principle of the presumption of innocence)

2011/C 30/116

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Fritz Harald Wenig (Woluwé-Saint-Pierre, Belgium) (represented initially by: G.-A Dal and D. Voillemot, lawyers, then by G.-A Dal, D. Voillemot, T. Bontinck and S. Woog, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: J. Currall and D. Martin, Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

First, an application for annulment of the implied decision rejecting the applicant’s request of 23 September 2008 for assistance from the European Commission and, second, an application for annulment of the European Commission’s rejection decision of 14 November 2008.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Tribunal:

| 1. | Dismisses Mr Wenig’s action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses Mr Wenig’s action;

| 2. | Orders Mr Wenig to pay all the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Mr Wenig to pay all the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 267, 7/11/2009, p. 85.

1

---
# C_2010134EN.01003601.xml

| 22.5.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 134/36 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.5.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 134/36

---

Order of the General Court of 8 March 2010 — Maxcom v OHIM — Maxdata Computer (maxcom)

(Case T-155/09) (1)

1

(Community trade mark - Opposition - Withdrawal of opposition - No need to adjudicate)

2010/C 134/61

Language of the case: Polish

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Maxcom Sp. z o.o. (Tychy, Poland) (represented by: P. Kral, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (represented by: D. Schimanek-Walicka, Agent)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Maxdata Computer GmbH & Co. KG (Marl, Germany)

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

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 30 January 2009 (Case R 1019/2008-2) concerning opposition proceedings between Maxdata Computer GmbH & Co. KG and Maxcom Sp. z o.o.

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

The General Court:

| 1. | Rules that there is no need to adjudicate; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Rules that there is no need to adjudicate;

| 2. | Orders Maxcom Sp. z o.o. to bear its own costs and pay those incurred by OHIM. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Maxcom Sp. z o.o. to bear its own costs and pay those incurred by OHIM.

---

(1)  OJ C 153, 4.7.2009.

1

---
# C_2011211EN.01002402.xml

| 16.7.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 211/24 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.7.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 211/24

---

Order of the General Court of 23 May 2011 — Y v Commission

(Case T-493/09 P) (1)

1

(Appeal - Staff case - Contract agents - Dismissal - Appeal in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly unfounded)

2011/C 211/53

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Appellant: Y (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by J. Van Rossum, lawyer)

Appellant:

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented originally by J.-P. Keppenne and L. Lozano Palacios, and then by J.-P. Keppenne and D. Martin, Agents)

Other party to the proceedings:

Re:

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 7 October 2009 in Case F-29/08 Y v Commission, not yet published in the ECR, seeking to have that judgment set aside.

Y

Commission

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The appeal is dismissed. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The appeal is dismissed.

| 2. | Mr Y is ordered to bear his own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission in these proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Mr Y is ordered to bear his own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission in these proceedings.

---

(1)  OJ C 221, 14.8.2010.

1

---
**Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 22 September 2009 – Commission v Belgium**

**(Case C‐9/09)**

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Public health – Directive 2004/23/EC – Setting standards of quality and safety for the donation, procurement, testing, processing, preservation, storage and distribution
of human tissues and cells – Failure to transpose within the prescribed period

Actions for failure to fulfil obligations – Examination of the merits by the Court – Situation to be taken into consideration – Situation on expiry of the period laid down in the reasoned opinion (Art. 226 EC) (see para. 9)

**Re:**

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Failure to adopt or to communicate, within the prescribed period, the measures necessary to comply with Directive 2004/23/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 on setting standards of quality and safety for the donation, procurement, testing, processing, preservation, storage and distribution of human tissues and cells (OJ 2004 L 102, p. 48). |

**Operative part**

The Court:

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 1. | | Declares that, by not adopting, within the prescribed period, all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2004/23/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 on setting standards of quality and safety for the donation, procurement, testing, processing, preservation, storage and distribution of human tissues and cells, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive; |

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 2. | | Orders the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs. |
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE> 5

<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
REGISTRANT'S FORM 10-Q FOR THE NINE MONTHS ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 1997 AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
INCLUDED IN SUCH REPORT.
</LEGEND>

       
<S>                   <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>         9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>     DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>          SEP-30-1997

<CASH>                       1,291,453 
<SECURITIES>                      0    
<RECEIVABLES>                     0    
<ALLOWANCES>                      0    
<INVENTORY>                     26,589 
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                  0    
<PP&E>                            0    
<DEPRECIATION>                    0    
<TOTAL-ASSETS>               1,515,554 
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>             0    
<BONDS>                           0    
<COMMON>                          0    
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>             0    
<PREFERRED>                       0    
<OTHER-SE>                 (87,432,677)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY> 1,515,554 
<SALES>                     36,862,046 
<TOTAL-REVENUES>            36,862,046 
<CGS>                        2,119,623 
<TOTAL-COSTS>                2,119,623 
<OTHER-EXPENSES>             3,668,015 
<LOSS-PROVISION>                  0    
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>           6,085,900 
<INCOME-PRETAX>             24,988,508 
<INCOME-TAX>                      0    
<INCOME-CONTINUING>         24,988,508 
<DISCONTINUED>                    0    
<EXTRAORDINARY>                   0    
<CHANGES>                         0    
<NET-INCOME>                24,988,508 
<EPS-PRIMARY>                    99.86 
<EPS-DILUTED>                    99.86 

          

</TABLE>
# C_2009180EN.01003501.xml

| 1.8.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 180/35 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.8.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 180/35

---

Action brought on 5 June 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic

(Case C-206/09)

2009/C 180/60

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: L. Pignataro, Agent)

Applicant:

Defendant: Italian Republic

Defendant:

Forms of order sought

Forms of order sought

| — | Declare that the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under the first subparagraph of Article 2(1) of Commission Directive 2007/68/EC (1) of 27 November 2007 amending Annex IIIa to Directive 2000/13/EC (2) of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards certain food ingredients, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2007/68/EC or, in any event, by failing to communicate them to the Commission; |
| --- | --- |

—

Declare that the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under the first subparagraph of Article 2(1) of Commission Directive 2007/68/EC (1) of 27 November 2007 amending Annex IIIa to Directive 2000/13/EC (2) of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards certain food ingredients, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2007/68/EC or, in any event, by failing to communicate them to the Commission;

1

2

| — | Order the Italian Republic to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the Italian Republic to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

The period within which Directive 2007/68/EC had to be transposed expired on 31 May 2008.

---

(1)  OJ 2007 L 310, p. 11.

1

(2)  OJ 2000 L 109, p. 29.

2

---
Omar CARTAGENA, petitioner, v. NEW YORK.

No. 16-9443.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 2, 2017.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Appellate Division, Supreme Court of New York, Second Judicial Department denied.
Derrick Trevor GRIFFIN, petitioner, v. MINNESOTA.

No. 17-7109.

Supreme Court of the United States

Feb. 20, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Minnesota denied.
Roberto VILLASENOR-ORTIZ, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 16-9422.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 2, 2017.

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