alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
II-00035

From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

Dana Allen <rebelfarms@peak.org>

Friday, December 10, 2010 1:53 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.

Dana Allen

1865 NE Seavy Ave.

Corvallis, OR 97330
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

October 31, 2005 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh Elizabeth A. Weaver 128246 Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman, PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Justices Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 128246 COA: 258490 Gratiot CC: 04-004721-FC KIMBERLY LYNN MOFFETT, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the February 1, 2005 order of the Court of Appeals is consid ered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.

K ELLY , J., would hold this case in abeyance for People v Drohan , lv gtd 472 Mich 881 (2005).

l1024 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

October 31, 2005

Clerk
John David LEPRE, petitioner, v. NEW YORK STATE INSURANCE FUND, et al.

No. 16-6333.

Supreme Court of the United States

Nov. 28, 2016.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit denied.
LOUISIANA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, et al., petitioners, v. Christopher Jerome WARE.

No. 17-930.

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.
Israel RUIZ, petitioner, v. Kimberly BUTLER, Warden.

No. 16-6959.

Supreme Court of the United States

Jan. 9, 2017.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit denied.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information from the balance sheet as
of May 31, 1997, and statement of operations for the year ended May 31, 1997,
and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0000934798
<NAME> ICON HEALTH AND FITNESS, INC.
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAY-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAY-31-1997
<CASH>                                           5,560
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  201,778
<ALLOWANCES>                                     8,953
<INVENTORY>                                    121,838
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               365,633
<PP&E>                                          79,080
<DEPRECIATION>                                  27,342
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 456,943
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          145,561
<BONDS>                                        321,625
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                    (10,744)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   456,943
<SALES>                                        836,162
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               836,162
<CGS>                                          583,747
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  597,756
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               217,657
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              36,685
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (15,936)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (3,988)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (11,948)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (11,948)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
# C_2009180EN.01006302.xml

| 1.8.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 180/63 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.8.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 180/63

---

Action brought on 9 April 2009 — Esneau-Kappé v Europol

(Case F-42/09)

2009/C 180/116

Language of the case: Dutch

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Anne Esneau-Kappé (The Hague, Netherlands) (represented by: P. de Casparis and D. Dane, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Police Office (Europol)

Defendant:

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Annulment of the decision of 12 June 2008 informing the applicant that it was not possible to offer her a permanent post, and also the decision of 7 January 2009 rejecting the complaint brought against the former decision.

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | Annul the decision of 12 June 2008 whereby the defendant informed the applicant that it could not offer her permanent employment and also the decision made on her complaint on 7 January 2009 that the grounds of complaint brought by the applicant against the decision of 12 June 2008 were unfounded; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of 12 June 2008 whereby the defendant informed the applicant that it could not offer her permanent employment and also the decision made on her complaint on 7 January 2009 that the grounds of complaint brought by the applicant against the decision of 12 June 2008 were unfounded;

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

—

Order Europol to pay the costs.

---
Todd N. ZAPPONE, et al., petitioners, v. UNITED STATES, et al.

No. 17-1121.

Supreme Court of the United States

March 19, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit denied.
Blanca RUIZ and Alina Fonts, petitioners, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 17-920.

Supreme Court of the United States

Feb. 20, 2018.

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



EXHIBIT 10.1





THIRD AMENDMENT
This Third Amendment dated May 23, 2016 (this “Amendment”), between Quantum Fuel Systems Technologies Worldwide, Inc., as “Borrower,” and Douglas Acquisitions LLC, as “Lender,” amends the Superpriority Debtor-in-Possession Credit Agreement dated March 22, 2016 (as amended, the “Credit Agreement”), between the Borrower and the Lender. Capitalized terms used but not otherwise defined in this Amendment have the meanings assigned to those terms in the Credit Agreement.
A.    The Borrower has requested the Lender to increase the Commitment from $6,000,000 to $7,636,000.
B.    The Borrower and the Lender have accordingly agreed to make the following changes to the terms of the Credit Agreement.
The parties hereto, for valuable consideration, agree as follows:
1.    The definition of “Commitment” is amended to read: “‘Commitment’: the obligation of the Lender to make Loans to the Borrower in an aggregate outstanding principal amount not to exceed $7,636,000 at any time.”
2.    In accordance with Section 5.4(a) of the Credit Agreement, the Lender approves an updated Budget in the form attached to this Amendment as Exhibit A.  
3.    This Amendment takes effect upon the entry of an order (in form and substance satisfactory to the Lender in its sole and absolute discretion) authorizing the Borrower’s entry into the Credit Agreement, as amended hereby.
4.    This Amendment may be executed by one or more of the parties to this Amendment on any number of separate counterparts, and all of said counterparts taken together shall be deemed to constitute one and the same instrument. Delivery of an executed signature page of this Amendment by fax or other electronic-imaging means shall be effective as delivery of a manually executed counterpart hereof.
(Signature pages follow.)


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Amendment to be duly executed and delivered by their proper and duly authorized officers as of the day and year first above written.
QUANTUM FUEL SYSTEMS TECHNOLOGIES WORLDWIDE, INC.
By    /s/ W. Brian Olson             
    W. Brian Olson 
    President and CEO


LENDER:
DOUGLAS ACQUISITIONS LLC
By    /s/ Tim McGaw             
    Tim McGaw 
    President


1
# C_2010113EN.01004602.xml

| 1.5.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 113/46 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.5.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 113/46

---

Order of the General Court of 4 March 2010 — Henkel v OHIM — JLO Holding (LIVE)

(Case T-414/09) (1)

1

(Community trade marks - Application for revocation - Withdrawal of the application for revocation - No need to adjudicate)

2010/C 113/75

Language of the case: German

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Henkel AG & Co. KGaA (Düsseldorf, Germany) (represented by: C. Milbradt, subsequently by C. Milbradt and H. Van Volxem, lawyers)

Applicant:

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

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM intervening before the General Court: JLO Holding Company LLC (Santa Monica, United States) (represented by: A. Klett, 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 First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 30 July 2009 (Case R 609/2008-1) relating to an application for revocation involving Henkel AG & Co. KGaA and JLO Holding Company, LLC.

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

| 1. | There is no further need to adjudicate on the action. |
| --- | --- |

1.

There is no further need to adjudicate on the action.

| 2. | The parties shall each bear their own costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The parties shall each bear their own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 312, 19.12.2009.

1

---
Vamsidhar VURIMINDI, petitioner, v. Eric FEDER, Clerk, Court of Common Pleas of Pennsylvania, 1st Judicial District.

No. 15-9475.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 3, 2016.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, Eastern District denied.
II-O0119

From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

Nancy peske <nakape@aol.com>

Sunday, December 5, 2010 8:12 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.

Nancy peske

2024 E. Beverly Rd.

Shorewood, WI 53211
Jason DEAN, petitioner, v. OHIO.

No. 15-9411.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 3, 2016.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Ohio denied.
II-00077

From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

Alan Colgrove <spazmobusch@sbcglobal.net>

Monday, December 6, 2010 5:20 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.

Alan Colgrove

126 Furber Ln.

Cloverdale, CA 95425
# C_2011103EN.01000901.xml

| 2.4.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 103/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.4.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 103/9

---

Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 10 February 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Linköpings tingsrätt — Sweden) — Lotta Andersson v Staten genom Kronofogdemyndigheten i Jönköping, Tillsynsmyndigheten

(Case C-30/10) (1)

1

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directive 80/987/EEC - Article 10(c) - National provision - Guarantee of payment of employees’ outstanding claims - Exclusion of persons who, more recently than six months before the lodgement of the application for the declaration of insolvency of the company which employed them, were owners of an essential part of that company and had considerable influence on it)

2011/C 103/13

Language of the case: Swedish

Referring court

Referring court

Linköpings tingsrätt

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Lotta Andersson

Applicant:

Defendant: Staten genom Kronofogdemyndigheten i Jönköping, Tillsynsmyndigheten

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Linköpings tingsrätt — Interpretation of Article 10(c) of Council Directive 80/987/EEC of 20 October 1980 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the protection of employees in the event of the insolvency of their employer, as amended by Directive 2002/74/EC — National legislation excluding from the guarantee of payment of employees’ outstanding claims persons who, more recently than six months before the lodgement of the application for the declaration of insolvency of the company which employed them, were owners of an essential part of that company and had considerable influence on it

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

Article 12(c) of Directive 2008/94/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2008 relating to the protection of employees in the event of the insolvency of their employer (Codified version) must be interpreted as not precluding a provision of national law which excludes an employee from entitlement under the guarantee of payment of employees’ outstanding claims on the ground that the employee, alone or together with close relatives, within the six months preceding the application for a declaration of insolvency, was the owner of an essential part of the undertaking or business concerned and had a considerable influence on its activities.

---

(1)  OJ C 100, 17.4.2010.

1

---
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 11**  **- 7665** 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,
v. STERLING VERNARD GREEN , Defendant

- Appellant
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina , at Florence
. Terry L. Wooten , District Judge. ( 4:06

- cr - 01322

- TLW

- 4 ; 4:11

- cv - 70078

- TLW )

Submitted : February 16, 2012 Decided: February 23, 2012

Before SHEDD, KEENAN, and WYNN , Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion
. Sterling Vernard Green , Appellant Pro Se. Alfred William Walker Bethea, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Florence, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Sterling Vernard Green seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C. A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2011) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge iss ues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (B) (2006)
. A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2)
. When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller

- El v. Cock rell , 537 U.S. 322, 336

- 38 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a constit utional right. Slack , 529 U.S. at 484

- 85. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Green has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal3 contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the

c ourt and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
Michael Chiofar Gummo BEAR, petitioner, v. WASHINGTON, et al.

No. 16-5346.

Supreme Court of the United States

Dec. 5, 2016.

Petition for rehearing denied.
# C_2012151EN.01002702.xml

| 26.5.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 151/27 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.5.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 151/27

---

Order of the General Court of 19 March 2012 — Associazione ‘Giùlemanidallajuve’ v European Commission

(Case T-273/09) (1)

1

(Competition - Restrictive practices - Abuse of dominant position - Rejection of a complaint - Legitimate interest - Community interest - Action in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly lacking any foundation in law)

2012/C 151/43

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Associazione ‘Giùlemanidallajuve’ (Cerignola, Italy) (represented by: L. Misson, G. Ernes and A. Pel, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: A. Bouquet and V. Di Bucci, acting as Agents, assisted by J. Derenne, lawyer)

Defendant:

supported by

Fédération internationale de football association (FIFA), (Zurich, Switzerland), (represented by: A. Barav and D. Reymond, lawyers)

Re:

Re:

Application for annulment of Commission decision C(2009) 3916 of 12 May 2009, taken pursuant to Article 7(2) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 773/2004 and rejecting, for lack of legitimate interest and lack of Community interest, the complaint submitted by the applicant concerning the infringement of Articles 81 EC and 82 EC allegedly committed by the Federazione italiana giuoco calcio, the Comitato olimpico nazionale italiano, the Union of European Football Associations and the Fédération Internationale de football association, in the context of the sanctions imposed on Juventus Football Club SpA de Turin (Italy) (Case COMP/39.464 — Supporters Juventus Turin v FIGC-CONI-UEFA-FIFA)

Supporters Juventus Turin

FIGC-CONI-UEFA-FIFA

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The action is dismissed. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The action is dismissed.

| 2. | The Associazione ‘Giùlemanidallajuve’ shall pay its own costs and those incurred by the European Commission. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The Associazione ‘Giùlemanidallajuve’ shall pay its own costs and those incurred by the European Commission.

| 3. | The Fédération internationale de football association (FIFA) shall pay its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

The Fédération internationale de football association (FIFA) shall pay its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 244, 10.10.2009.

1

---