alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION 

Sunshine Act Meetings 

The following notice of meeting is published pursuant to the provisions of the Government in the 

Sunshine Act, Public Law 94-409, 5 U.S.C. 552b. 

AGENCY HOLDING THE MEETING: 

Commodity Futures Trading Commission. 

TIME AND DATE: 

The Commission has scheduled two meetings for the following dates: 

October 19, 2010 at 9:30a.m. 

October 26, 2010 at 9:30a.m. 

PLACE: 

Three Lafayette Center, 1155 21st St., NW., 

Washington, DC 

Lobby Level Hearing Room (Room 1 000). 

STATUS: Open. 

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: 

The Commission has scheduled these meetings to consider the issuance of various proposed 

rules. Agendas for each of the scheduled meetings will be made available to the public and 

posted on the Commission's website at http://www.cftc.gov at least seven (7) days prior to the 

meeting. In the event that the times or dates of the meetings change, an announcement of the 

change, along with the new time and place of the meeting will be posted on the Commission's 

website. 

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: 

David A. Stawick, Secretary of the Commission, 

202-418-5071. 

David A. Stawick, 

Secretary of the Commission. 

[FR Doc. 2010- Filed ] 

BILLING CODE 6351-01-P
**EXHIBIT 32.1**

CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTEDPURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

Pursuant to 18U.S.C. Section 1350 (as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002), I, the undersigned Chief Executive Officer andActing Chief Financial Officer of Bancorp International Group, Inc. (the “Company”),hereby certify that, to the best of my knowledge, the Annual Report on Form 10-KSBof the Company for the year ended December 31, 2003 (the “Annual Report”)fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in the AnnualReport fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition andresults of operations of the Company.
| Date: June 20, 2006 | /S/THOMAS MEGAS                                          |
|--------------------------|----------------------------------------------------------|
|                     | Chief Executive  Officer  Acting Chief Financial Officer |

 

----
NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

MARK C. JACKSON,

Appellant,

v.

UNITED STATES,

Appellee.

______________________ 

2014-5121

______________________ 

Appeal from the United States Court of Federal 

Claims in No. 1:14-cv-00277-NBF, Judge Nancy B. Firestone. 

______________________ 

ON MOTION

______________________ 

PER CURIAM. 

O R D E R

Mark C. Jackson files a motion for “Order of Redress.” 

To the extent that Jackson is arguing the merits of his 

appeal, those arguments belong in his briefs. 

Accordingly, 

 IT IS ORDERED THAT: 

Case: 14-5121 Document: 13 Page: 1 Filed: 09/25/2014
2 JACKSON v. US

The motion is denied.

 FOR THE COURT

 /s/ Daniel E. O’Toole 

Daniel E. O’Toole 

Clerk of Court

s26

Case: 14-5121 Document: 13 Page: 2 Filed: 09/25/2014
* 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. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED August 16, 2007 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk 

### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-41382 Summary Calendar

ROBERT MARTINEZ Plaintiff-Appellant

v. TEXAS DEPARTMENT CORRECTIONS Defendant-Appellee

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 1:04-CV-176
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, STEWART, and OWEN, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Robert Martinez, formerly Texas prisoner # 1188230, appeals the district court’s dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint for lack of prosecution. Martinez had raised a number ofclaims regarding a prison disciplinary hearing and various conditions of confinement. The district court dismissed without prejudice after Martinez failed to comply with an order to amend his complaint. Martinez’s appellate brief fails to adequately address the district court’s basis for dismissing his complaint. Although this court liberally construes proNo. 06-41382

2 se briefs, see Haine

s v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972), even pro se litigants must briefarguments in order to preserve them. Yoheyv. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 224-25 (5th Cir. 1993). Because Martinez has failed to brief the relevant issue for appeal, his appeal is frivolous and is dismissed. See Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th Cir. 1983); 5 T H C IR
. R. 42.2. Martinez’s motion for production of documents also is denied. Martinez is cautioned that the dismissal ofhis appeal as frivolous counts as a strike under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). SeeAdepegba v. Hammons, 103 F.3d 383, 387-88 (5th Cir. 1996). He is also cautioned that if he accumulates three strikes under § 1915(g), he will not be able to proceed in forma pauperis in any civil action or appeal filed while he is incarcerated or detained in any facility unless he is under imminent danger of serious physical injury. See § 1915(g). MOTION FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS DENIED; APPEAL DISMISSED; SANCTION WARNING ISSUED.
Jason PERRY, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 17-6681.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 16, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit denied.
Dyhani HEYLIGER, petitioner, v. TERRITORY OF the VIRGIN ISLANDS.

No. 16-9465.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 2, 2017.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of the Virgin Islands denied.
Sam Sterling ALFORD, petitioner, v. FLORIDA.

No. 16-9519.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 2, 2017.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District denied.
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. 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 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 98-31371

Conference Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

SHEILA WALLEN HEARD, also known as Sheila Clemons, also

known as Joan A. Hynes, also known as Charlene Ourso, also

know as Jill Marie Heavey, 

Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Louisiana

USDC No. 95-CR-370-ALL-D

- - - - - - - - - -

August 25, 1999

Before KING, Chief Judge, and DAVIS and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Sheila Wallen Heard appeals her sentence for conspiracy and

possession of stolen mail, arguing that the district court

committed plain error in upwardly departing from the guideline

range pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 4A1.3. She argues that the district

court did not adequately discuss or consider lesser, incremental

sentences. This argument lacks merit. See United States v.

Lambert, 984 F.2d 658, 662-63 (5th Cir. 1993)(en banc). The

record reveals that the district court provided acceptable 
No. 98-31371

-2-

reasons for the departure and that the departure was reasonable. 

Id.; United States v. Ashburn, 38 F.3d 803, 807 (5th Cir.

1994)(en banc). There is no plain error in Heard’s sentence. 

AFFIRMED.
# C_2009282EN.01006602.xml

| 21.11.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 282/66 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.11.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 282/66

---

Action brought on 26 September 2009 — Lenz v Commission

(Case F-80/09)

2009/C 282/127

Language of the case: German

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Erika Lenz (Osnabrück, Germany) (represented by: J. Römer and V. Lenz, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Defendant:

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Application for annulment of the Commission’s decision of 4 May 2009 not to pay the costs of the applicant’s treatment by a non-medical practitioner

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Tribunal should:

| — | Annul the defendant’s decision of 4 May 2009 in the form of the decision of 8 July 2009 rejecting the complaint and order the defendant to reimburse 85 % of the costs of EUR 297 in respect of the non-medical practitioner, that is to say, in this case, EUR 253; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the defendant’s decision of 4 May 2009 in the form of the decision of 8 July 2009 rejecting the complaint and order the defendant to reimburse 85 % of the costs of EUR 297 in respect of the non-medical practitioner, that is to say, in this case, EUR 253;

| — | Declare that the defendant must reimburse to the applicant all the medical costs in the form of non-medical practitioners’ fees incurred after 1 April 2009; |
| --- | --- |

—

Declare that the defendant must reimburse to the applicant all the medical costs in the form of non-medical practitioners’ fees incurred after 1 April 2009;

| — | Order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings and the lawyers’ costs incurred by the applicant in the pre-litigation and judicial proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings and the lawyers’ costs incurred by the applicant in the pre-litigation and judicial proceedings.

---
Keith MANDAN, petitioner, v. Sonny PERDUE, Secretary of Agriculture, et al.

No. 17-897.

Supreme Court of the United States

March 26, 2018.

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

THE CHIEF JUSTICE took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              NOV-30-1999
<PERIOD-START>                                 DEC-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                   MAY-31-1999
<CASH>                                                 529
<SECURITIES>                                             0
<RECEIVABLES>                                            0
<ALLOWANCES>                                             0
<INVENTORY>                                              0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                       529
<PP&E>                                                   0
<DEPRECIATION>                                           0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                         529
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                              409,752
<BONDS>                                                  0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                    0
<PREFERRED>                                              0
<COMMON>                                             9,199
<OTHER-SE>                                        (418,422)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                           529
<SALES>                                                  0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                         0
<CGS>                                                    0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                            0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                    26,049
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                         0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   4,250
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   (30,299)
<INCOME-TAX>                                             0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                      0
<DISCONTINUED>                                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                          0
<CHANGES>                                                0
<NET-INCOME>                                             0
<EPS-BASIC>                                            0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                            0


</TABLE>
Courtney Cortez FOYE, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 17-7305.

Supreme Court of the United States

Feb. 20, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied.
II-Ollll

From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

Richard Ward <dickward 1941 @yahoo.com>

Thursday, December 2, 2010 8:10 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.

Richard Ward

P O Box 718

Okay, OK 74446
# C_2009312EN.01001702.xml

| 19.12.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 312/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.12.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 312/17

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Mokestinių ginčų komisija prie Lietuvos Respublikos vyriausybės (Republic of Lithuania) lodged on 29 September 2009 — Nidera Handelscompagnie B.V. v Valstybinės mokesčių inspekcija prie Lietuvos Respublikos finansų ministerijos

(Case C-385/09)

2009/C 312/28

Language of the case: Lithuanian

Referring court

Referring court

Mokestinių ginčų komisija prie Lietuvos Respublikos vyriausybės

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Nidera Handelscompagnie B.V.

Applicant:

Defendant: Valstybinė mokesčių inspekcija prie Lietuvos Respublikos finansų ministerijos

Defendant:

Questions referred

Questions referred

| 1. | Is legislation under which the right to deduct VAT is given only to VAT payers — that is to say, only to taxable persons registered as VAT payers in a Member State (in this case, in Lithuania) according to the established procedures — in accordance with the provisions of Directive 2006/112/EC governing the right to deduct VAT? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Is legislation under which the right to deduct VAT is given only to VAT payers — that is to say, only to taxable persons registered as VAT payers in a Member State (in this case, in Lithuania) according to the established procedures — in accordance with the provisions of Directive 2006/112/EC governing the right to deduct VAT?

| 2. | If the answer to the first question is in the affirmative, is it in accordance with the general principles of the right to deduct VAT that are laid down in Directive 2006/112/EC if such legislation provides that a VAT payer has the right to deduct input and/or import VAT in respect of goods and/or services acquired before the date of his registration as a VAT payer only if those goods will be used for an activity of that VAT payer that is subject to VAT, that is to say, input and/or import VAT in respect of goods and services acquired before the date of his registration as a VAT payer may not be deducted if those goods have already been used for that activity? |
| --- | --- |

2.

If the answer to the first question is in the affirmative, is it in accordance with the general principles of the right to deduct VAT that are laid down in Directive 2006/112/EC if such legislation provides that a VAT payer has the right to deduct input and/or import VAT in respect of goods and/or services acquired before the date of his registration as a VAT payer only if those goods will be used for an activity of that VAT payer that is subject to VAT, that is to say, input and/or import VAT in respect of goods and services acquired before the date of his registration as a VAT payer may not be deducted if those goods have already been used for that activity?

---
##### 



Exhibit 8

PRINCIPAL SUBSIDIARIES

|                                         |  |                  |      |               |  |                        |  |                                            
|---------------------------------------- |  | ---------------- | ---- | ------------- |  | ---------------------- |  | -------------------------------------------
|                                         |  |                  |      |               |  | Jurisdiction of        |  | Name under which                           
|Name                                     |  | Percentage owned |      | incorporation |  | business is done      
|                                         |  |                  |      |               |  |                       
|hongkong.com
Corporation                 |  |                  | 81.4 | %             |  | Cayman Islands         |  | hongkong.com                               
|Ion Global (BVI) Limited                 |  |                  | 100  | %             |  | British Virgin Islands |  | Ion Global                                 
|china.com Corporation
Limited            |  |                  | 100  | %             |  | Hong Kong              |  |                                           
|china.com Studios, Inc.                  |  |                  | 100  | %             |  | British Virgin Islands |  |                                           
|MEZZO Marketing Limited                  |  |                  | 98.3 | %             |  | Hong Kong              |  | 24/7 Asia; MEZZO
Marketing                 
|Taiwan.com Corporation                   |  |                  | 100  | %             |  | Cayman Islands         |  | Taiwan.com                                 
|chinadotcom Ventures Limited             |  |                  | 100  | %             |  | British Virgin Islands |  | e2e Business Solutions                     
|CDC Mobile Media Corporation             |  |                  | 100  | %             |  | British Virgin Islands |  | NewPalm                                    
|CDC Australia Limited                    |  |                  | 100  | %             |  | British Virgin Islands |  | Praxa                                      
|CDC Software Holdings Limited            |  |                  | 100  | %             |  | British Virgin Islands |  | CDC Software                               
|chinadotcom
e-marketing Holdings Limited |  |                  | 100  | %             |  | British Virgin Islands |  | Chinadotcom e-marketing, MEZZO, RNR, IncNet
|CDC Outsourcing
Holdings Limited         |  |                  | 100  | %             |  | British Virgin Islands |  | CDC Outsourcing
II-00981

From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

Rev. david Bozek <dabozek@msn.com>

Thursday, December 2, 2010 9:28 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.

Rev. david Bozek

515 West Madison St.

Waukegan, IL 60085
[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 126 (Friday, June 29, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Page 34730]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-16432]


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

SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION

[Declaration of Disaster #3339]


State of Wisconsin; Amendment #4

    In accordance with a notice received from the Federal Emergency 
Management Agency, dated June 21, 2001, the above-numbered Declaration 
is hereby amended to include Outagamie and Winnebago Counties as 
disaster areas caused by flooding, severe storms and tornadoes 
occurring between April 10, 2001 and continuing.
    In addition, applications for economic injury loans from small 
businesses located in Brown, Calumet, Fond du Lac, Green Lake, Shawano, 
Waupaca and Waushara Counties in the State of Wisconsin may be filed 
until the specified date at the previously designated location. Any 
counties contiguous to the above named primary counties and not listed 
here have been previously declared.
    All other information remains the same, i.e., the deadline for 
filing applications for physical damage is July 10, 2001 and for 
economic injury the deadline is February 11, 2002.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 59002 and 
59008)

    Dated: June 22, 2001.
Herbert L. Mitchell,
Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance.
[FR Doc. 01-16432 Filed 6-28-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8025-01-P
Delaware

The First State

Page 1

 

6035959 8300 Authentication: 203778859

SR# 20222839126 Date: 06-27-22

You may verify this certificate online at corp.delaware.gov/authver.shtml

I, JEFFREY W. BULLOCK, SECRETARY OF STATE OF THE STATE OF

DELAWARE, DO HEREBY CERTIFY "ARISTOTLE EXCHANGE DCO, INC." IS DULY

INCORPORATED UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE AND IS IN GOOD

STANDING AND HAS A LEGAL CORPORATE EXISTENCE SO FAR AS THE RECORDS

OF THIS OFFICE SHOW, AS OF THE TWENTY-SEVENTH DAY OF JUNE, A.D.

2022. 

AND I DO HEREBY FURTHER CERTIFY THAT THE ANNUAL REPORTS HAVE

BEEN FILED TO DATE.

AND I DO HEREBY FURTHER CERTIFY THAT THE FRANCHISE TAXES HAVE

BEEN PAID TO DATE.
Maurice GATLING, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 16-6070.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 31, 2016.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the District of Columbia Court of Appeals denied.
Samantha MILBY, petitioner, v. MCMC LLC.

No. 16-1409.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 2, 2017.

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