alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
TAC Meeting Statement

Jan 8, 2024

Hilary J. Allen

I apologize that I could not be there today – unfortunately, the meeting conflicted with longstanding travel plans. I am grateful to the Committee leadership for sharing my statement today. 

First of all, I would like to applaud the Subcommittee for their hard work on this report. I think 

the technical descriptions are both accurate and accessible, and I believe that the report offers 

perhaps the best identifications and explanations of DeFi risks that I have seen. In particular, I 

applaud the authors of the report for resisting the urge to demarcate a level of decentralization that 

would count as “sufficiently decentralized” for regulatory purposes – any such demarcation would 

inevitably be tied to the state of technology and business models at this moment in time, and would 

thus provide many fertile avenues for regulatory arbitrage.

The report also does an excellent job of distinguishing DeFi’s present reality from its hyped 

potential. Ultimately, however, I cannot support this report’s recommendations. I am concerned 

that the report stops short of engaging with why much of DeFi’s hyped potential is, in fact,

impossible – often because of the realities of economic incentives. At least, it isimpossible without

DeFi becoming so much like the existing financial system that all the added technological 

complexity is pointless (as well as inviting all the new risks that the report articulates so well). 

Given these realities, I question the report’s recommendations that the CFTC and other regulators 

expend scarce resources in learning more about, and developing bespoke regulatory approaches 

for, something that is unlikely to deliver any new benefits (to be clear, there are lots of structural

problems in the existing financial system – but permissionless blockchain technology is ill-suited 

to addressing them for many reasons that I have articulated in my new work, Fintech and TechnoSolutionism).

1

 The report also does not consider where regulatory resources will be diverted from 

in order to discharge these recommendations. I think it should be acknowledged that interest rate 

changes have made venture funding harder to come by, and much of the venture capital interest 

that had been driving DeFi experimentation has now pivoted to AI – this reality of decreased

commercial interest in DeFi underscores the concerns I have about expending scarce regulatory 

resources on DeFi. 

In short, while the report recognizes that DeFi has not yet progressed very far down the spectrum 

of decentralization, the report should also reckon with the implausibility of it ever progressing far 

enough to justify large investments by regulators in mapping existing regulatory regimes to DeFi, 

let alone justify developing accommodative, bespoke regulatory treatment like waivers and 

sandboxes that would effectively roll back regulations designed to protect the public from harm. 

 1 Hilary J. Allen, Fintech and Techno-Solutionism, available at 

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4686469.
Leon G. CARTER, petitioner, v. WISCONSIN.

No. 16-6275.

Supreme Court of the United States

Nov. 28, 2016.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals of Wisconsin, District I denied.
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





Pursuant to the requirement set forth in Rule 13a-14(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”) and Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code (18 U.S.C. § 1350), William J. Welch, Chief Executive Officer of Sequenom, Inc. (the “Company”), hereby certifies that, to the best of his knowledge:





1. The Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K/A (Amendment No. 1) for the period ended December 31, 2014 (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act, and





2. The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.





A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) or its staff upon request.





This certification accompanies the Report to which it relates, is not deemed filed with the SEC and is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (whether made before or after the date of the Report), irrespective of any general incorporation language contained in such filing.





IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has set his hand hereto as of the 9th day of July, 2015.








/s/ William J. WelchWilliam J. WelchChief Executive Officer(Principal Executive Officer)
EXHIBIT 21
 Subsidiaries of the Company
 Central Co-operative Bank
    
    100% owned by the Company, incorporated
under the laws of the Commonwealth of
Massachusetts.Central Securities Corporation
    
    100% owned by the Bank, incorporated
under the laws of the Commonwealth of
Massachusetts.Central Securities Corporation II
    
    100% owned by the Bank, incorporated
under the laws of the Commonwealth of
Massachusetts.Central Bancorp Capital Trust I
    
    100% owned by the Company, incorporated
under the laws of the State of DelawareCentral Bancorp Statutory Trust II
    
    100% owned by the Company, incorporated
under the laws of the State of
ConnecticutMetro Real Estate Holdings, LLC
    
    100% owned by the Bank, organized
under the laws of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts
Juan Daniel ACOSTA, petitioner, v. M. Eliot SPEARMAN, Warden.

No. 17-7330.

Supreme Court of the United States

March 19, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.
[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 125 (Thursday, June 28, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Page 34428]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-16271]


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

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Department of the Air Force


Federal Advisory Committee for the End-to-End Review of the U.S. 
Nuclear Command and Control System

AGENCY: Department of the Air Force, DoD.

ACTION: Notice of meeting.

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

SUMMARY: Pursuant to Public Law 92-463, notice is hereby given of 
forthcoming meetings of the Federal Advisory Committee for the End-to-
End Review of the U.S. Nuclear Command and Control System (NCSS). The 
purpose of these meetings is to conduct a comprehensive and independent 
review of the NCCS positive measures to assure authorized use of 
nuclear weapons when directed by the President while assuring against 
unauthorized or inadvertent use. This meeting will be closed to the 
public.

DATES: July 25-26, 2001.

ADDRESSES: Defense Threat Reduction Agency Headquarters, 8725 John 
Kingman Rd., Fort Belvoir, VA 22060-6201.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. William L. Jones, U.S. Nuclear 
Command and Control System Support Staff (NSS), Skyline 3, 5201 
Leesburg Pike, Suite 500, Falls Church, Virginia 22041, (703) 681-8681.

Janet A. Long,
Air Force Federal Register Liaison Officer.
[FR Doc. 01-16271 Filed 6-27-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 5001-05-P
II-00052

From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

Michelle Egan <artmme@aol.com>

Wednesday, December 8, 2010 1:41 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.

Michelle Egan

1745 Laurel Ave.

St. Paul, MN 55104
# C_2012217EN.01001701.xml

| 21.7.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 217/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.7.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 217/17

---

Judgment of the General Court of 13 June 2012 Insula v Commission

(Case T-366/09) (1)

1

(Arbitration clause - Financing contracts for research and development projects - Ecres, El Hierro, Islands 2010, Opet I, Opet II, Opet Ola, Respire, Sustainable Communities and Virtual Campus contracts - Lack of supporting documents and non-compliance with the contractual requirements in respect of some of the declared expenses - Reimbursement of sums advanced - Partial inadmissibility of the action - Counterclaim by the Commission)

2012/C 217/34

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Conseil scientifique international pour le développement des îles (Insula) (Paris, France) (represented by: J.-D. Simonet and P. Marsal, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission (represented initially by A.-M. Rouchaud-Joët and F. Mirza, and subsequently by A.-M. Rouchaud-Joët and D. Calciu, Agents, and by L. Defalque and S. Woog, lawyers)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Application, on the basis of Article 238 EC, for a declaration, first, that a claim of the Commission of EUR 114 996,82 is unfounded and, second, that a claim of the Commission of EUR 253 617,08 is well founded in part, and that the Commission be ordered to pay the applicant damages of EUR 146 261,06, principally, and of EUR 573 273,42, in the alternative.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action brought by the Conseil scientifique international pour le développement des îles (Insula); |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action brought by the Conseil scientifique international pour le développement des îles (Insula);

| 2. | Orders Insula to pay the European Commission the principal sum of EUR 114 996,82, increased by default interest at the rate of 2,5 % per annum, from 16 August 2009 until full payment of that principal sum; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Insula to pay the European Commission the principal sum of EUR 114 996,82, increased by default interest at the rate of 2,5 % per annum, from 16 August 2009 until full payment of that principal sum;

| 3. | Orders Insula to pay the Commission the principal sum of EUR 253 617,08, increased by default interest at the rate of 2,5 % per annum, from 8 September 2009 until full payment of that principal sum; |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders Insula to pay the Commission the principal sum of EUR 253 617,08, increased by default interest at the rate of 2,5 % per annum, from 8 September 2009 until full payment of that principal sum;

| 4. | Dismisses the remainder of the Commission’s counterclaim; |
| --- | --- |

4.

Dismisses the remainder of the Commission’s counterclaim;

| 5. | Orders Insula to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the Commission. |
| --- | --- |

5.

Orders Insula to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the Commission.

---

(1)  OJ C 282, 21.11.2009.

1

---
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Health and Human Services

###### National Institutes of Health

Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.

The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

*Name of Committee:*                         National Institute of Mental Health Special Emphasis Panel.                    

*Date:*                         July 19, 2001.                    

*Time:*                         1:00 pm to 3:00 pm.                    

*Agenda:*                         To review and evaluate grant applications.                    

*Place:*                         Neuroscience Center, National Institute of Health, 6001 Executive Blvd., Bethesda, MD 20892, (Telephone Conference Call).                    

*Contact Person:*                         Peter J. Sheridan, Scientific Review Administrator, Division of Extramural Activities, National Institute of Mental Health, NIH, Neuroscience Center, 6001 Executive Blvd., Room 6142, MSC 9606, Bethesda, MD 20892-9606, 301-443-1513, psherida@mail.nih.gov.                    

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.242, Mental Health Research Grants; 93.281, Scientist Development Award, Scientist Development Award for Clinicians, and Research Scientist Award; 93.282, Mental Health National Research Service Awards for Research Training, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

Dated: June 20, 2001.

LaVerne Y. Stringfield,

Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. 01-16349  Filed 6-28-01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-M
|   | (1) | the      Annual Report on Form 10-K of Oconee Financial Corporation (the “Company”)      for the annual period ended December 31, 2008 (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 result of operations of the      Company. |
|--------|-----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | /s/      B. Amrey      Harden                          B.      Amrey Harden President      and Chief ExecutiveOfficer |
|--------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
Joseph LOMBARDO, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 17-998.

Supreme Court of the United States

Feb. 20, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit denied.
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR
. R. 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 5 TH C IR
. R. 47.5.4. 

### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-40198 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee.

v. GUSTAVO BUSTOS, Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas No. 7:06-CR-594-3

Before REAVLEY, SMITH, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: *

Gustavo Bustos appeals the sentence imposed following his guilty plea to conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute marihuana. He argues that his United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D February 11, 2008 Charles R. Fulbruge III ClerkNo. 07-40198

2 sentence is unreasonable. Bustos was sentenced within the applicable gu ideline sentencing range, and his sentence is presumptively reasonable. See United States v. Alonzo, 435 F.3d 551, 554 (5th Cir. 2006). He presented no argument in the district court in mitigation ofsentence. Moreover, that court adequately explained its reasoning for the sentence. See Rita v. United States, 127 S. Ct. 2456, 2468 (2007). Bustos has not rebutted the presumption of reasonableness applicable to his withinguidelines sentence, and the district court did not abuse its discretion. See Gall v. United States, 128 S. Ct. 586, 597 (2007). AFFIRMED.
Richard S. MILBAUER, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 16-236.

Supreme Court of the United States

Jan. 9, 2017.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit denied.
MONTANA, plaintiff, v. WYOMING and North Dakota.

No. 137, Original.

Supreme Court of the United States

March 26, 2018.

Final Motion of Special Master for Allowance of Fees and Disbursements granted and the Special Master is awarded a total of $51,984.57 for the period January 1, 2017 through January 10, 2018, to be paid equally by Montana and Wyoming. Barton H. Thompson, of Stanford, California, the Special Master in this case, is hereby discharged with the thanks of the Court.

Justice KAGAN took no part in the consideration or decision of this motion.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                                        <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                    3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                          19,550
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   74,037
<ALLOWANCES>                                     8,213
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               109,796
<PP&E>                                         103,083
<DEPRECIATION>                                  50,582
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 477,739
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           92,696
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           190
<OTHER-SE>                                      95,709
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   477,739
<SALES>                                        175,144
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               175,144
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  167,994
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               4,321
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  3,556
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,591
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              1,965
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,965
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (1.60)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (1.60)
        

</TABLE>
If this opinion indicates that it is “FOR PUBLICATION,” it is subject to 

revision until final publication in the Michigan Appeals Reports.

-1-

S T A T E O F M I C H I G A N

C O U R T O F A P P E A L S

UNPUBLISHED

In re SHAW, Minors. June 15, 2023

Nos. 362752; 362753

Macomb Circuit Court

Family Division

LC Nos. 2022-000118-NA; 

2022-000119-NA

Before: RICK, P.J., and SHAPIRO and O’BRIEN, JJ.

O’BRIEN, J. (dissenting).

It is undisputed that TS suffered severe, unexplained, nonaccidentental trauma while in 

respondents’ care. The only people called to testify about how TS’s trauma happened were 

respondents, and the referee credited Dr. Bradley Norat’s testimony that respondents’ explanation 

for TS’s injuries was implausible. This finding necessarily means that respondents—the persons 

responsible for TS’s care at the time that TS suffered severe, nonaccidental trauma—either do not 

know how the trauma occurred or are refusing to say. Either way, based on that conduct, TS’s 

well-being cannot be assured in their care, i.e., it is reasonably likely that TS will be harmed if 

returned to respondents’ care. Further, although there is no evidence that AS suffered from 

physical injuries, she is of a similar age to TS and is similarly situated, and thus, the doctrine of 

anticipatory neglect allows the inference that AS is also in danger of being harmed or neglected if 

left in respondents’ care. See In re Kellogg, 331 Mich App 249, 259; 952 NW2d 544 (2020). 

Accordingly, I would conclude that the trial court clearly erred when it refused to find a statutory 

ground for termination under, at the very least, MCL 712a.19b(3)(j). I therefore respectfully 

dissent.

/s/ Colleen A. O’Brien
Sam Kan & Company

1151 Harbor Bay Pkwy., Suite 101

Alameda, CA 94502  Phone: 510.517.7874 Fax: 866.848.1224

http://www.skancpa.com

[ex23001.jpg]

We consent to the inclusion in the Annual Report (Form 10-K) of China Holdings Group, Inc. (hereinafter the Company) of our report dated May 20, 2011, with respect to the balance sheets as of December 31, 2010 and 2009, and the related statements of operations, stockholders (deficit) equity, and cash flows for the years then ended, and for the period from inception on April 28, 1994 to December 31, 2010 to be included in this Annual Report (Form 10-K).

[ex23002.jpg]

Firms Manual Signature Alameda, CA City, State June 30, 2011 Date