alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
II-00739

From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

Marguerite Winkel <pegartista@earthlink.net>

Thursday, December 2, 2010 11:50 AM

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.

Marguerite Winkel

2012W3rd

Spokane, WA 99201
1179.

#### CROY v. THE STATE.

While evidence which a defendant has been compelled involuntarily to disclose, through the coercion of a search of his person by an officer pending an illegal arrest, is.not admissible against him, it is no violation of this principle to receive testimony of witnesses that the defendant, intentionally or through accident or inadvertence, exposed to view a pistol previously concealed, while resisting an arrest, legal or illegal, or while such arrest and consequent detention were pending or in progress.

Accusation of carrying concealed weapon, from city court of Dalton — -Judge Longley. April 11, 1908.

Submitted June 9,

Decided June 18, 1908.

*George G.*Glenn, for plaintiff in error.

*Samuel P. Maddox, solicitor-general,*contra.

Powell, J.

An officer was attempting to arrest certain kinsmen of the defendant. It is claimed that under the circumstances this arrest was illegal; but in the light of what we are about to say, inquiry into this is wholly immaterial. The defendant interfered, - and the officer attempted to take him also. He threw his hand back as if to draw a weapon, and disclosed a pistol in his pocket. A scuffle between him and the officer followed; and in this scuffle the pistol was again diáclosed to view as the defendant fell upon the ground. The officer thus seeing it took it from his pocket. Upon the trial of the defendant for carrying the weapon concealed, the officer and another witness were allowed to testify to these facts, over the defendant’s objection that he was thus compelled to incriminate himself.

This court is thoroughly committed to the proposition announced in *Hammock*v. *State,*1 *Ga. App.*126 (58 S. E. 66); *Sherman*v. *State,*2 *Ga. App.*29 (58 S. E. 390), and several other cases, that when by an unlawful search and seizure under an illegal arrest, a person is compelled by an officer to furnish incriminating evidence against himself, such evidence is not admissible against him in a criminal prosecution; but we have never held, nor do we see anj lawful basis for holding, that evidence indicating a defendant’s guilt is not admissible against him simply because he may happen to have been.the victim of an unlawful arrest, unless the evidence was obtained against him solely through an involuntary disclosure on his part, immediately coerced by that arrest and the destruction *457of Ms .ability to keep to Ms own self and person the indicia of guilt which he otherwise would not have divulged or disclosed.

*Judgment affirmed.*
Emilio GARCIA-PINEDO, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 17-7962.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 2, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied.
Carlton J. BLOUNT, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 17-8011.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 16, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit denied.
Robert SHAPIRO, petitioner, v. ACCU, et al.

Robert Shapiro, petitioner, v. U-Haul, et al.; and Robert Shapiro, petitioner, v. United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, et al.

No. 17-6462.

Supreme Court of the United States

Feb. 26, 2018.

Petition for rehearing denied.
Thomas CUNNINGHAM, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 16-7029.

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.
Jerry SAYERS, petitioner, v. B. POWELL.

No. 16-5576.

Supreme Court of the United States

Dec. 12, 2016.

Petition for rehearing denied.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT 

No. 08-8260

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff - Appellee, 

 v. 

MAURICE PICKENS, 

 Defendant - Appellant. 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Florence. Terry L. Wooten, District Judge. 

(4:04-cr-00477-TLW-1; 4:07-cv-70006-TLW) 

Submitted: April 20, 2009 Decided: April 30, 2009 

Before NIEMEYER and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior 

Circuit Judge. 

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

Maurice Pickens, 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: 

Maurice Pickens seeks to appeal the district court’s 

order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2008) 

motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or 

judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2253(c)(1) (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) (2006). A 

prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that 

reasonable jurists would find that any assessment of the 

constitutional claims by the district court is debatable or 

wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district 

court is likewise debatable. Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 

322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); 

Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have 

independently reviewed the record and conclude that Pickens 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 legal 

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the 

court and argument would not aid the decisional process. 

DISMISSED
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 372 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 372

  To amend the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 to 
 provide for the eligibility of Transportation Security Administration 
 employees to receive public safety officers' death benefits, and for 
                            other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 9, 2019

 Ms. Brownley of California (for herself, Ms. Norton, Mr. Khanna, Mr. 
 Grijalva, Ms. Kaptur, Mr. Vela, Mrs. Napolitano, Ms. Schakowsky, Mr. 
 Soto, Mr. Blumenauer, Ms. Wasserman Schultz, Ms. Moore, Mr. DeFazio, 
Mr. Beyer, Ms. Pingree, Mr. Gonzalez of Texas, Mr. Cardenas, Ms. Clarke 
   of New York, Ms. Eshoo, Mr. Rush, Mr. Hastings, Mrs. Beatty, Mr. 
 Aguilar, Mr. Moulton, and Ms. Roybal-Allard) introduced the following 
       bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To amend the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 to 
 provide for the eligibility of Transportation Security Administration 
 employees to receive public safety officers' death benefits, and for 
                            other purposes.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Honoring Our Fallen TSA Officers 
Act''.

SEC. 2. TRANSPORTATION SECURITY ADMINISTRATION EMPLOYEES ELIGIBLE TO 
              RECEIVE PUBLIC SAFETY OFFICERS' DEATH BENEFITS.

    Section 1204(9) of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act 
of 1968 (34 U.S.C. 10284(9)) is amended--
            (1) in subparagraph (C), by striking ``or'' at the end;
            (2) in subparagraph (D), by striking the period at the end 
        and inserting ``; or''; and
            (3) by inserting after subparagraph (D) the following:
                    ``(E) an employee of the Transportation Security 
                Administration who is performing official duties of the 
                Administration, if those official duties are related to 
                protecting the Nation's transportation systems to 
                ensure freedom of movement for people and commerce.''.

SEC. 3. EFFECTIVE DATE.

    This Act and the amendments made by this Act shall take effect as 
if they had been enacted on October 31, 2013.
                                 <all>
```
# C_2011046EN.01001103.xml

| 12.2.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 46/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.2.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 46/11

---

Judgment of the General Court of 17 December 2010 — Amen Corner v OHIM — Comercio Electrónico Ojal (SEVE TROPHY)

(Case T-192/09) (1)

1

(Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community figurative mark SEVE TROPHY - Earlier Community figurative marks Seve Ballesteros Trophy and SEVE TROPHY - Relative grounds for refusal - Lack of similarity of the goods and of the services - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009) - No unfair advantage taken of or detriment caused to the distinctive character or repute of the earlier marks - Article 8(5) of Regulation No 40/94 (now Article 8(5) of Regulation No 207/2009))

2011/C 46/21

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Amen Corner, SA (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: J.A. Calderón Chavero and T. Villate Consonni, lawyers)

Applicant:

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

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Comercio Electrónico Ojal, SL (Madrid)

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 5 March 2009 (Case R 462/2008-2) relating to opposition proceedings between Amen Corner, SA and Comercio Electrónico Ojal, SL.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Amen Corner, SA to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Amen Corner, SA to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 167, 18.7.2009.

1

---
<PAGE>


                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.2

                                  CERTIFICATION
                       PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
           AS ADOPTED BY SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

         I, James H. Tate, as Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
of Thermadyne Holdings Corporation (the "Company") certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that to my knowledge:

         (1) the accompanying Form 10-Q report for the period ending June 30,
2002 as filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report")
fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; 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:  August 14, 2002

                                       /s/  JAMES H. TATE
                                       ---------------------------------
                                       James H. Tate
                                       Senior Vice President and
                                       Chief Financial Officer of the
                                       Company
# C_2009267EN.01008002.xml

| 7.11.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 267/80 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.11.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 267/80

---

Action brought on 17 September 2009 — Longevity Health Products v OHIM — Gruppo Lepetit (RESVEROL)

(Case T-363/09)

2009/C 267/143

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Parties

Applicants: Longevity Health Products, Inc. (Nassau, The Bahamas) (represented by: J. Korab, 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: Gruppo Lepetit SpA (Lainate, Italy)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | Admit the complaint filed by the applicant; |
| --- | --- |

—

Admit the complaint filed by the applicant;

| — | Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 9 July 2009 in case R 1204/2008-2 and dismiss the request for a declaration of invalidity filed by the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal with regard to Community trade mark 5 244 512; and |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 9 July 2009 in case R 1204/2008-2 and dismiss the request for a declaration of invalidity filed by the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal with regard to Community trade mark 5 244 512; and

| — | Order the defendant to bear the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the defendant to bear 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 “RESVEROL”, for goods and services in classes 3, 5 and 35

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: National trade mark registrations of the mark “LESTEROL” for goods in class 5

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 207/2009 as the Board of Appeal wrongly held that there was a likelihood of confusion between the trade marks concerned.

Pleas in law:

---
[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 124 (Wednesday, June 27, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Page 34233]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-16041]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service


North American Wetlands Conservation Council (Council) Meeting 
Announcement

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Notice of meeting.

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

SUMMARY: The Council will meet to select North American Wetlands 
Conservation Act (NAWCA) proposals for recommendation to the Migratory 
Bird Conservation Commission. The meeting is open to the public.

DATES: The date and time of the meeting is July 10, 2001 at 1 p.m.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at the Park City Marriott, 1895 
Sidewinder Drive, Park City, UT, 84060. The Council Coordinator is 
located at U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 4401 N. Fairfax Drive, Suite 
110, Arlington, Virginia, 22203.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: David A. Smith, Council Coordinator, 
(703) 358-1784.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In accordance with NAWCA (Pub. L. 101-233, 
103 Stat. 1968, December 13, 1989, as amended), the State-private-
Federal Council meets to consider wetland acquisition, restoration, 
enhancement and management projects for recommendation to, and final 
funding approval by, the Migratory Bird Conservation Commission. 
Proposals require a minimum of 50 percent non-Federal matching funds.

    Dated: June 15, 2001.
K. Adams,
Acting Deputy Director, Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. 01-16041 Filed 6-26-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P
II-01028

From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

William Sowa <wsowa@usa.net>

Thursday, December 2, 2010 8:59 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.

Americans are watching your behavior on this issue with great interest.

William Sowa

315 N Hobart Rd

Hobart, IA 46342
[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 123 (Tuesday, June 26, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Pages 33964-33965]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-16089]


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

FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM


Sunshine Act Meeting

AGENCY: Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.

Time and Date: 10:00 a.m., Monday, July 2, 2001.

Place: Marriner S. Eccles Federal Reserve Board Building, 20th and C 
Streets, NW., Washington, DC 20551.

Status: Closed.

Matters to be Considered:
    1. Personnel actions (appointments, promotions, assignments, 
reassignments, and salary actions) involving individual Federal Reserve 
System employees.
    2. Any items carried forward from a previously announced meeting.

Contact Person for More Information: Michelle A. Smith, Assistant to 
the Board; 202-452-3204.

Supplementary Information: You may call 202-452-3206 beginning at

[[Page 33965]]

approximately 5 p.m. two business days before the meeting for a 
recorded announcement of bank and bank holding company applications 
scheduled for the meeting; or you may contact the Board's Web site at 
http://www.federalreserve.gov for an electronic announcement that not 
only lists applications, but also indicates procedural and other 
information about the meeting.

    Dated: June 22, 2001.
Robert deV. Frierson,
Associate Secretary of the Board.
[FR Doc. 01-16089 Filed 6-22-01; 11:08 am]
BILLING CODE 6210-01-P
II-00429

From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

Larry Forsberg <larryforsberg@sbcglobal.net>

Thursday, December 2, 2010 7:56 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.

Larry Forsberg

2929 Linden Av.

Berkeley, CA 94705
EXHIBIT 3.4



CERTIFICATE OF AMENDMENT

TO THE
AMENDED AND RESTATED

CERTIFICATE OF INCORPORATION

OF NIKU CORPORATION



---



Pursuant to Section 242 of the General

Corporation Law of the State of Delaware



---



Niku Corporation, a Delaware corporation (hereinafter called the
Corporation), does hereby certify as follows:



FIRST: The first paragraph of Article IV of the Corporations Amended and Restated Certificate of Incorporation is hereby amended to read in its entirety as set forth below:



The total number of shares of all classes of stock which the corporation has authority to issue is 70,000,000 shares,
consisting of two classes: 60,000,000 shares of Common Stock, par value $0.0001 per share, and 10,000,000 shares of Preferred Stock, par value $0.0001 per share.



SECOND: The foregoing amendment was duly adopted in accordance with Section 242 of the General Corporation Law of the State
of Delaware.



IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Niku Corporation has caused
this Certificate to be duly executed in its corporate name this 3rdday of December, 2003.



By:

/s/    MICHAEL SHAHBAZIANName:

Michael ShahbazianTitle:

Corporate Secretary