alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
II-00069

From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

suzanne kruger <soozikruger@webtv.net>

Monday, December 6, 2010 11:54 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.

suzanne kruger

rt.2, box 1008

harpers ferry, WV 25425
Larry Ray SWEARINGEN, petitioner, v. TEXAS.

No. 15-1377.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 3, 2016.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas denied.
Lionel FOSTER-ADAMS, petitioner, v. FLORIDA.

No. 15-9439.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 3, 2016.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District denied.
# C_2010288EN.01007201.xml

| 23.10.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 288/72 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.10.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 288/72

---

Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 29 June 2010 — Knöll v European Police Office (Europol)

(Case F-44/09) (1)

(Staff case - Europol employees - Non-renewal of a contract - Contract of indefinite duration - Article 6 of the Staff Regulations applicable to Europol employees - Principle of respect for the rights of the defence)

(2010/C 288/134)

Language of the case: Dutch

Parties

Applicant: Brigitte Knöll (Hochheim am Main, Germany) (represented initially by P. de Casparis, lawyer, then by W. J. Dammingh and N. D. Dane, lawyers)

Defendant: European Police Office (Europol) (represented by D. Neumann and D. El Khoury, agents, and by B. Wägenbaur and R. Van der Hout, lawyers)

Re:

Annulment of the decision of 12 June 2008 informing the applicant that it was impossible to offer her a permanent post, and the decision of 7 January 2009 rejecting the complaint brought against the first decision.

Operative part of the judgment

The Tribunal:

| 1. | annuls the decision of 12 June 2008 by which the European Police Office (Europol) refused to offer to Ms Knöll a contract of indefinite duration; |
| --- | --- |

1.

annuls the decision of 12 June 2008 by which the European Police Office (Europol) refused to offer to Ms Knöll a contract of indefinite duration;

| 2. | orders Europol to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

orders Europol to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 180, of 01.08.09., p 64

---
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED CONDENSED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR THE QUARTER ENDED SEPTEMBER 30,
2000, FILED AS PART OF FORM 10-QSB QUARTERLY REPORT FOR THE NINE MONTHS ENDED
SEPTEMBER 30, 2000, AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FORM
10-QSB QUARTERLY REPORT FOR THE NINE MONTHS ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 2000.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                         934,973
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  127,149
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,198,969
<PP&E>                                         879,673
<DEPRECIATION>                               (724,890)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,392,400
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          904,494
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        90,753
<OTHER-SE>                                 (3,375,795)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,392,400
<SALES>                                         69,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                69,000
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                5,106,270
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           3,856,977
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (8,835,637)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (8,835,637)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (8,835,637)
<EPS-BASIC>                                    (0.112)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (0.112)


</TABLE>
II-00047

From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

Mark Teig <debestmark@netscape.net>

Thursday, December 9, 2010 1:59 AM

dfadefinitions <dfadefinitions@CFTC.gov>

Re: No loopholes in Dodd-Frank

1) Securities and Exchange Commission/Commodities Futures Trading Commission, Re: Commercial Risk (CFTC RIN

3235-AK65, SEC File Number $7-12-10)

Dear Commissioners Shapiro and Gensler: Don’t let the American Bankers Association (ABA) redefine important terms like

"commercial risk" to keep banks that engage in risky derivatives trading from complying with transparency and business

conduct requirements. Commercial risk should not be expanded to include financial risk. Accepting the ABA argument

would open the door for exemptions for risky hedge funds and insurance companies.

2) Commodities Futures Trading Commission, Re: Position Limits (RIN 3038-AD 17 )

Dear Commissioner Gensler: The CFTC needs to set strong position limits to crack down on the energy and food commodity

speculation that serves no productive purpose. I urge the Commission to define limits that will address not only manipulation,

but also excessive speculation, which will require a stricter approach.

3) U.S. Department of the Treasury, Re: FX Swaps (75 FR 66426 Document Number 2010-27274)

Dear Secretary Geithner: Just say "no" to foreign exchange traders who want to exempt foreign currency derivatives from the

clearing and transparency requirements of the

Dodd-Frank Act. $4 trillion dollars a day is traded in these highly-leveraged swaps and this number may increase to over $10

trillion in a decade. As the head of the Financial

Stability Oversight Board your job is to decrease risk in the system, not encourage off-book trading and opaque markets.

Mark Teig

190 Van Keuren Avenue

Pine Bush, NY 12566
In Re Jeffrey A. WEEKLEY, petitioner.

No. 17-6472.

Supreme Court of the United States

March 19, 2018.

Petition for rehearing denied.
No. A-934 (85-7008).

#### Lesko *v.*Pennsylvania.

Sup. Ct. Pa. Application for stay of execution of sentence of death, presented to Justice Brennan, and by him referred to the Court, is granted pending the disposition of the petition for writ of certiorari.
**Exhibit 23.1**

 

Independent Auditors’ Consent

 

The Board of Directors 

Adolor Corporation:

 

 

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statements (No. 333-51222, No. 333-62428, No. 333-100585, and No. 333-105912) on Form S-8 and registration statements (No. 333-107998 and No. 333-64298)on Form S-3 of Adolor Corporation of our report dated February 13, 2004, with respect to the consolidated balance sheets of Adolor Corporation and subsidiary as of December 31, 2003 and 2002, and the related consolidated statements of operations,comprehensive loss, stockholders’ equity and cash flows, for each of the years in the three-year period ended December 31, 2003, and for the period from August 9, 1993 (inception) to December 31, 2003, which report appears in the December 31,2003, annual report on Form 10-K of Adolor Corporation. 

 

/s/    KPMG LLP 

 

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 

March 2, 2004
##### 



Exhibit 32.2
 
  (1)
    
    The Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the year ended December 31,
2005 (the Form 10-K) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the Act); and(2)
    
    The information contained in the Form 10-K fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial conditions and results of operations of the Company as of the
dates and for the periods referred to in the Form 10-K.
 /s/ Alfred H. DrewesAlfred H. DrewesSenior Vice President and
Chief Financial Officer
February 23, 2006
**THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS**

**Post Office Box 12248**

**Austin, Texas 78711**

**(512) 463-1312**

April 23, 2004

Mr. Charles R. Watson Jr.

Mullin Hoard & Brown, L.L.P.

P. O. Box 31656

Amarillo, TX 79120-1656

Mr. L. T. "Butch" Bradt

The Teltschik Law Firm

5718 Westheimer Rd., Suite 700

Houston, TX 77057-5785

RE:Case Number:  02-0670

Court of Appeals Number:  07-00-00143-CV

Trial Court Number:  96-64747

Style:GEORGE E. CIRE, JR., MARTHA K. ADAMS AND TAYLOR & CIRE

v.

CARLA ROBERSON CUMMINGS

Dear Counsel:

Today the Supreme Court of Texas delivered the enclosed opinion and judgment in the above-referenced cause.  

Sincerely,

Andrew Weber, Clerk

by Claudia Jenks, Chief Deputy Clerk

**Case No. 02-0670Page 2**
Bijan WOODLEY, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 17-7741.

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.
EXHIBIT 23.1

# CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT
REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

We have issued our reports dated
November 17, 2006, accompanying the consolidated financial statements and schedule in the
Annual Report of Semitool, Inc. on Form 10-K for the year ended September 30, 2006. We
hereby consent to the incorporation by reference of said reports in the Registration
Statements of Semitool, Inc. on Forms S-3 (File No. 333-112964 and File No. 333-39492) and
on Forms S-8 (File No. 333-114284, File No. 333-62474 and File No. 333-89562).

/s/ GRANT THORNTON LLP

Salt Lake City, UtahDecember
13, 2006
Gary E. JOHNSON, et al., petitioners, v. COMMISSION ON PRESIDENTIAL DEBATES, et al.

No. 17-916.

Supreme Court of the United States

Feb. 20, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit denied.
# C_2011232EN.01002401.xml

| 6.8.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 232/24 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.8.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 232/24

---

Judgment of the General Court of 28 June 2011 — Oetker Nahrungsmittel v OHIM — Bonfait (Buonfatti)

(Case T-471/09) (1)

(Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community word mark ‘Buonfatti’ - Earlier Benelux word mark Bonfait - No likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 2007/2009)

(2011/C 232/41)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Dr. Oetker Nahrungsmittel KG (Bielefeld, Germany) (represented by: F. Graf von Stosch, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Bonfait BV (Denekamp, Netherlands)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 2 October 2009 (Case R 340/2007-4) relating to opposition proceedings between Bonfait BV and Dr. August Oetker Nahrungsmittel KG.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 2 October 2009 (Case R 340/2007-4). |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 2 October 2009 (Case R 340/2007-4).

| 2. | Orders OHIM to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Dr. Oetker Nahrungsmittel KG. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders OHIM to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Dr. Oetker Nahrungsmittel KG.

---

(1)  OJ C 24, 30.1.2010.

---
II-00640

From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

Marshall Shield <corp@myshield.us>

Thursday, December 2, 2010 1:00 PM

dfadefinitions <dfadefinitions@CFTC.gov>

Re: No loopholes in Dodd-Frank

Thursday, December 02, 2010

World Critical Problem

I’m so tired of hearing parents so excited they have numerous children 3-17 +

Two major countries on this planet decided years ago to limit family children

This has caused problems over this last decade, female babies aren’t wanted, and most have been killed leaving their cotmtry

overflowing with male babies .....

Mother Nature/God knows what must take place to limit how many humans are walking on this planet:

Wars

Diseases’

With the world being destroyed, mainly because of Greed, why have more than two children, or 1, if any.

What will the future offer your children?

There are NO Cost Controls!!!

Everything keeps climbing, this started in the 80’s

Is anything being done? NO!

Does anyone give a damn?

The USA Costing has NO Control, homes worth $45K-$75K are being sold for $220K-$430K; All Brokers, and Real Estate

Agents along with the Federal Senators, Congressman, and President should be charged with Criminal Fraud!

Many are concerned about the cost of gas

Many are concerned about medical/health costing

Why be concerned about the above, if you don’t have a place to live

Where will your children live in the future?

What will they be able to purchase?

What will they be able to eat, the grass in their back yard?

STOP HAVING NUMEROUS CHILDREN!!!!

GO TO www.congress.org and/or www.congress.gov and do something!

You have direct access to the Presidents staff; on the US White House contact and

Email: president@whitehouse.gov

http://www.whitehouse, gov/contacl!?ec=9

Fax:202-456-2461

Send your concerns to the persons responsible!

Don’t just get upset/mad: DO SOMETHING!
II-00640

I’ve sent my 7 page document: "What is Wrong with the USA" hundreds of times to all 100 Federal Senators and most

congress! To all the Presidents and wanta be presidents from the late 80’s every month thru 2009!

What have you done?

I’m mad as hell; I can’t take this anymore!

Marshall Shield

1202 So. 3rd St. Ste. 5

Mount Vernon, WA 98273
[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 124 (Wednesday, June 27, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Page 34180]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-16061]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. EL01-94-000]


Rumford Power Associates, LP, Complainant, v. Central Maine Power 
Company, Respondent; Notice of Complaint

June 21, 2001.
    Take notice that on June 20, 2001, Rumford Power Associates, L.P. 
(Rumford) filed a complaint pursuant to Section 206 of the Federal 
Power Act against Central Maine Power Company (CMP) requesting that the 
Commission issue an order: (1) Directing CMP to issue a Final Cost 
Report for the facilities constructed under the Rumford Interconnection 
Agreement, and refund to Rumford certain monies collected thereunder 
without authorization; (2) finding that CMP's non-capital cost carrying 
charges, calculated under CMP's Open Access Transmission Tariff (OATT), 
are unjust and unreasonable and should, therefore, be summarily 
modified or set for hearing to determine just and reasonable rates; and 
(3) requiring CMP to charge Rumford the ``Control Center Services'' 
charge under Schedule 1 of CMP's OATT, as elected by Rumford, instead 
of CMP's local ``Scheduling, System Control and Dispatch Service'' 
charge.
    Any person desiring to be heard or to protest this filing should 
file a motion to intervene or protest with the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, in 
accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice 
and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). All such motions or 
protests must be filed on or before July 10, 2001. Protests will be 
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to 
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the 
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a motion to 
intervene. Copies of this filing are on file with the Commission and 
are available for public inspection in the Public Reference Room. This 
filing may also be viewed on the Internet at 
http://www.ferc.fed.us/online/rims.htm (call 202-208-2222) for 
assistance. Answers to the complaint shall also be due on or before 
July 10, 2001.
    Comments, protests and interventions may be filed electronically 
via the internet in lieu of paper. See, 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and 
the instructions on the Commission's web site at 
http://www.ferc.fed.us/efi/doorbell.htm.

David P. Boergers,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 01-16061 Filed 6-26-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
II-O0801

From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

Bert Canepa <nonnocanepa@yahoo.com>

Thursday, December 2, 2010 11:14 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.

Bert Canepa

20565 Nob Hill Circle

Groveland, CA 95321
**Order of the General Court (Third Chamber) of 14 March 2011 – Campailla v Commission**

**(Case T-429/09)**

Action for damages – Limitation period – Article 46 of the Statute of the Court of Justice – Inadmissibility

1.                     *Actions for damages – Limitation period – Point from which time starts to run – Liability for an individual measure – Date
on which the injurious effects of the measure are produced – Refusal of the Commission to intervene in a dispute concerning
the payment of a debt by a non-member State to a Community national under the Cotonou Agreement – Time running from the point
at which the damage realised, concretising at the point of that refusal – Account taken of a subjective assessment of the
reality of the damage – Not permissible – Inadmissibility on account of prescription (Arts 235 EC and 288, second para., EC;
Statute of the Court of Justice, Arts 46 and 53) (see paras 41-42, 52, 62, 67)*

2.                     *Actions for damages – Limitation period – Interruption – Conditions – Lodging of an application before the Community judicature
or submission of a prior request to the competent institution – Concept of application for that purpose – Application for
annulment – Not included (Art. 288, second para., EC; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 46) (see paras 43, 63, 65, 67)*

**Re:**

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | ACTION for damages to compensate for the harm allegedly suffered following the Commission’s refusal to intervene in a dispute between the applicant and the Cameroonian State. |

**Operative part**

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

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 2. | | Mr Massimo Campailla is ordered to bear his own costs and those incurred by the European Commission. |
II-00059

From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

Robert Lee <fly-rod@excite.com>

Tuesday, December 7, 2010 8:45 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.

Robert Lee

800 SE 171st Court Rd

Silver Springs, FL 34488
Robert L. HEDRICK, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES MARSHALS SERVICE.

No. 16-6830.

Supreme Court of the United States

Jan. 9, 2017.

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