alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
II-00589

From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

Harriet McCleary <mccleary@stolaf. edu>

Thursday, December 2, 2010 1:55 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.

Harriet McCleary

2440 Stevens Ave. S. #2

Minneapolis, MN 55404
# C_2011063EN.01002603.xml

| 26.2.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 63/26 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.2.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 63/26

---

Order of the General Court of 12 January 2011 — Terezakis v Commission

(Case T-411/09) (1)

1

(Access to documents - Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 - Partial refusal of access - Contested act replaced in the course of the proceedings - Refusal to amend the claims - No need to adjudicate)

2011/C 63/51

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Ioannis Terezakis (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: initially B. Lombart, then P. Synoikis, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: L. Flynn and C. ten Dam, Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

APPLICATION for annulment of the Commission’s decision of 3 August 2009 refusing the applicant access to some parts of, and the annexes to, certain letters exchanged between the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) and the Greek Ministry of Finance regarding tax irregularities in connection with the construction of Spata airport at Athens (Greece)

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

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

1.

There is no need to adjudicate on the action.

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

2.

The parties shall bear their own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 312, 19.12.2009.

1

---
Exhibit 4.18



LOGO

6 March, 2017

Ms Kate
Hill

Sabio Solutions Pty Limited

ABN 65 612 360 862

XXXX

Dear Kate,

RE: Extension of Appointment

I refer to the
Letter of Appointment signed between you and the Company, dated 6 September 2016 (the Appointment Letter).

In accordance with our recent
discussions, I am pleased to confirm an extension of your engagement for an additional six months, to 6 September 2017. This extension will be effective immediately upon the completion of the period set out in the original Appointment Letter.

This extension will be on the same terms as described in the original Appointment Letter, except that your title shall be Company Secretary,
and the Company will have the option, by your consent, to increase your working hours for any given month in half-day increments rather than at an hourly rate. A minimum of two days in any given week will be office-based, but additional days may be
worked remotely. For the month of March 2017, via this mechanism, it is understood that you will be working three days per week, of which two will be office-based.

In accordance with Section 2 of the Appointment Letter, please return a signed copy of this letter as written agreement of extension of your appointment.

On behalf of the Board and Management, I would like to thank you for your ongoing commitment to excellence at Novogen and congratulate you on your
outstanding performance.

Yours faithfully,

John
OConnor

Chairman

Novogen Limited ABN 37 063 259 754

PO Box 2333 Hornsby Westfield 1635 NSW Australia

Suite 502,
Level 5, 20 George Street, Hornsby, NSW 2077 Australia

T +61 2 9476 0344 F +61 2 9476 0388

www.novogen.com



---

LOGO



By signing this letter, you agree to the extension of your appointment,



|                                           
|-------------------------------------------
|                                           
|Kate Hill Director, Sabio Solutions Pty
Ltd

Novogen Limited ABN 37 063 259 754

PO Box 2333 Hornsby Westfield 1635 NSW Australia

Suite 502,
Level 5, 20 George Street, Hornsby, NSW 2077 Australia

T +61 2 9476 0344 F +61 2 9476 0388

www.novogen.com
U.S. COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION 

ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENTAL MARKETS ADVISORY COMMITTEE

MARCH 24, 2020

AGENDA

9:30 a.m. Opening Remarks 

• Commissioner Dan M. Berkovitz

• Chairman Heath P. Tarbert

• Commissioner Brian D. Quintenz 

• Commissioner Rostin Behnam 

• Commissioner Dawn D. Stump

10:00 a.m. Market Intelligence Branch (Division of Market Oversight): Update on 

Recent Developments in the Financial and Energy Derivatives Markets 

• Mel Gunewardena, Chief Market Intelligence Officer, DMO MIB

• Christopher Goodenow, Market Analyst, DMO MIB

• Michael Nouri Mesbahi, Market Analyst, DMO MIB

11:00 a.m. Closing Remarks

11:30 a.m. Adjourn Meeting
# C_2009282EN.01005302.xml

| 21.11.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 282/53 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.11.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 282/53

---

Appeal brought on 23 September 2009 by Roberto Sevenier against the order of the Civil Service Tribunal delivered on 8 July 2009 in Case F-62/08, Sevenier v Commission

(Case T-368/09 P)

2009/C 282/101

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Appellant: Roberto Sevenier (Paris, France) (represented by E. Boigelot and L. Defalque, lawyers)

Appellant:

Other party to the proceedings: Commission of the European Communities

Other party to the proceedings:

Form of order sought by the appellant

Form of order sought by the appellant

| — | set aside the order delivered on 8 July 2009 by the Third Chamber of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal in Case F-62/08 Sevenier v Commission, served on the appellant on 13 July 2009; |
| --- | --- |

—

set aside the order delivered on 8 July 2009 by the Third Chamber of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal in Case F-62/08 Sevenier v Commission, served on the appellant on 13 July 2009;

Sevenier

Commission

| — | allow the appellant to rely on his submissions to the European Union Civil Service Tribunal; |
| --- | --- |

—

allow the appellant to rely on his submissions to the European Union Civil Service Tribunal;

| — | order the defendant to pay the costs of both instances. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to pay the costs of both instances.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

By the present appeal, the appellant seeks to have set aside the order of the Civil Service Tribunal (CST) of 8 July 2009, delivered in Case F-62/08 Sevenier v Commission, by which the CST dismissed as manifestly inadmissible the action by which the appellant had sought annulment of a decision of the Commission of 24 September 2007 rejecting the appellant’s application, firstly, to retract his offer to resign dated 19 October 1983 and, secondly, for a referral to the invalidity committee.

Sevenier

Commission

In support of his appeal, the appellant submits, principally, a single plea in law alleging an error in law committed by the CST in the interpretation of the concept of a purely confirmatory act, since the CST categorised the express decision, made following the implied rejection of the appellant’s application, as a purely confirmatory act despite the fact that the express decision upheld in part the application made by the appellant.

In the alternative, the appellant submits that the CST distorted and disregarded documents in the file and failed to fulfil its duty to give reasons by holding that there was no particular fact peculiar to the case which justified the CST not applying the established case-law on purely confirmatory acts.

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

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                           1,073
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 1,676
<PP&E>                                          28,712
<DEPRECIATION>                                  14,070
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  26,318
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            1,335
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    26,318
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 1,541
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    1,542
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 361
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    (1)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       (1)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
<PAGE>

                                                                  Exhibit 10.180


                                    CONTRACT

     THIS AGREEMENT made and executed in Four (4) original counterparts this
23RD day of July A.D. 2001 between the Utah Department of Transportation,
hereinafter called "Department", first party, and Meadow Valley Contractors
hereinafter called "Contractor," second party.

     WITNESSETH, That for and in consideration of payments, hereinafter
mentioned, to be made by the Department, the Contractor agrees to furnish all
labor and equipment; to furnish and deliver all materials not specifically
mentioned as being furnished by the Department and to do and perform all work in
the RESURFACING, DRAINAGE, DETENTION BASIN, RECONSTRUCT SR-130 & CONSTRUCT
BUSINESS in Iron County, State of Utah, the same being identified as
*IM-15-2(38)61 for the approximate sum of Nine Million Forty Seven Thousand Nine
Hundred Seven Dollars and 89/100 ($9,047,907.89).

     The Contractor further covenants and agrees that all of said work and labor
shall be done and performed in the best and most workmanlike manner and in
strict conformity with the plans and specifications. The said Plans, and
Specifications and the Notice to Contractors, Instruction to Bidders, the
Proposal, Special Provisions and Contract Bond are hereby made a part of this
agreement as fully and to the same effect as if the same had been set forth at
length herein.

     In consideration of the foregoing premises, the Department agrees to pay to
Contractor in the manner and in the amount provided in the said specification
and proposal.

     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, The parties hereto have subscribed their names through
their proper officers thereunto duly authorized as of the day and year first
above written.



Attest:                                UTAH DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION


/s/ Tonya Clawson-MVCI                 /s/ ILLEGIBLE
-----------------------------------    -----------------------------------
Secretary                              Director of Transportation - First Party



/s/ Val Martin                         Meadow Valley Contractors
-----------------------------------    -----------------------------------
Witness to: Company Representative     Second Party



Approved as to form:                   by /s/ Robert Terril
                                          --------------------------------
by  /s/ ILLEGIBLE
    -------------------------------    -----------------------------------
UDOT Legal Counsel                     Company Representative

APPROVED /s/ CHERISE YOUNG   8/7/01    94-279836-5501
         --------------------------    -----------------------------------
         Contract Administrator        Utah Contractor License Number

                                       FUNDS AVAILABLE
                                                      --------------------

                                       /s/ JANET [ILLEGIBLE]       7/27/01
                                       -----------------------------------
                                       Budget Officer                Date
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff - Appellee,

 v.

ERMINIO HERNANDEZ-RAUDA, 

 Defendant - Appellant.

No. 15-50406

D.C. No. 3:15-cr-01336-BEN

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of California

Roger T. Benitez, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted June 14, 2016**

Before: BEA, WATFORD, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.

Erminio Hernandez-Rauda appeals from the district court’s judgment and 

challenges the 18-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for 

being a removed alien found in the United States, in violation of 8 U.S.C. 

§ 1326(a). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

 

 

*

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

 

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision 

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

FILED

JUN 20 2016

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
 2 15-50406 

Hernandez-Rauda contends that the district court procedurally erred by 

failing to consider his mitigating arguments and the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)

sentencing factors. We review for plain error, see United States v. 

Valencia-Barragan, 608 F.3d 1103, 1108 (9th Cir. 2010), and find none. The 

record reflects that the district court considered Hernandez-Rauda’s arguments and 

the applicable section 3553(a) factors, and sufficiently explained the sentence. 

See United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 991-92 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc). 

Hernandez-Rauda next contends that the sentence is substantively 

unreasonable. The district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing 

Hernandez-Rauda’s sentence. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). 

The above-Guidelines sentence is substantively reasonable in light of the section 

3553(a) factors and the totality of the circumstances, including Hernandez-Rauda’s 

immigration history and the need for deterrence. See Gall, 552 U.S. at 51; see 

also United States v. Burgos-Ortega, 777 F.3d 1047, 1056-57 (9th Cir.), cert. 

denied, 135 S. Ct. 2848 (2015) (district court “reasonably concluded” that the need 

for deterrence outweighed the mitigating factors and “required a sentence at least 

equal to [the defendant’s] last illegal re-entry sentence”). 

 AFFIRMED.
##### 



Certification pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
  (i)
    
    the annual report of the Company on Form 20-F for the year ended 30 June 2005 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report) fully complies with
the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and(ii)
    
    the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
 
 Certification pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
  (i)
    
    the annual report of the Company on Form 20-F for the year ended 30 June 2005 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report) fully complies with
the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and(ii)
    
    the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
# C_2009220EN.01002002.xml

| 12.9.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 220/20 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.9.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 220/20

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van beroep te Antwerpen — Belgium lodged on 26 June 2009 — G.A. Dijkman and M.A. Dijkman-Lavaleije v Belgische Staat

(Case C-233/09)

2009/C 220/38

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Referring court

Hof van beroep te Antwerpen

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: G.A. Dijkman and M.A. Dijkman-Lavaleije

Applicants:

Defendant: Belgische Staat

Defendant:

Question referred

Question referred

Is it an infringement of Article 56(1) of the EC Treaty for residents of Belgium who invest in other countries, such as the Netherlands, with a view to avoiding the supplementary municipal tax due under Article 465 WIB92 to be obliged to use a Belgian intermediary for the payment out of income from moveable assets, whereas residents of Belgium who invest in Belgium always benefit from the system of withholding tax relief under Article 313 WIB92 and are thus able to avoid the supplementary municipal tax provided for in Article 465 WIB92, since withholding tax on movable assets has already been withheld at source?

---
Eric Bernard SCOTT, petitioner, v. GEORGIA.

No. 17-7622.

Supreme Court of the United States

March 19, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Georgia denied.
II-00101

From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

Lisa Piner <weesap@gmail.com>

Sunday, December 5, 2010 7:22 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.

Lisa Piner

1651 Iowa

Costa Mesa, CA 92626
Exhibit 13.1
 Certification
Pursuant to Section 302
The Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
  (1)
    
    The Companys periodic report on Form 20-F for the period ended June
30, 2010 (the Form 20-F) fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 as amended; and(2)
    
    The information contained in the Form 20-F fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.
  Chairman and Acting Principal Executive Officer
    
    Chief Financial OfficerWilliam Rueckert
    
    Mark HinzeDate: December 9, 2010
    
    Date: December 9, 2010
[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 125 (Thursday, June 28, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Page 34428]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-16270]


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

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Department of the Air Force


Notice of Intent To Grant an Exclusive Patent License

    Pursuant to the provisions of part 404 of Title 37, Code of Federal 
Regulations, which implements Public Law 96-517, as amended, the 
Department of the Air Force announces its intention to grant Hybrid 
Plastics, Inc., a California corporation, an exclusive license in U.S. 
Patent No. 5,939,576 entitled, ``Method of Functionalizing Polycyclic 
Silicones and the Compounds So Formed,'' issued August 17, 1999; U.S. 
Patent No. 5,942,638 entitled, ``Method of Functionalizing Polycyclic 
Silicones and the Resulting Compounds,'' issued August 24, 1999; and 
U.S. Patent No. 6,100,417 entitled, ``Functionalizing Olefin Bearing 
Silsesquioxanes,'' issued August 8, 2000.
    A license for these patents will be granted unless a written 
objection is received within 60 days from the date of publication of 
this Notice. Information concerning this Notice may be obtained from 
Mr. William H. Anderson, Associate General Counsel (Acquisition), SAF/
GCQ, 1500 Wilson Blvd., Suite 304, Arlington, VA 22209-2310. Mr. 
Anderson can be reached at 703-588-5090 or by fax at 703-588-8037.

Janet A. Long,
Air Force Federal Register Liaison Officer.
[FR Doc. 01-16270 Filed 6-27-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 5001-05-U
EXHIBIT 99.1



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with the Quarterly Report of PW Eagle, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2003 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), I, William H. Spell, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



| | (1) |  | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
| | --- |  | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



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



Dated: May 14, 2003





/s/ William H. Spell

William H. Spell

Chief Executive Officer