alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 122 (Monday, June 25, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Page 33675]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-15856]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RP01-409-001]


Maritimes & Northeast Pipeline, L.L.C.; Notice of Compliance 
Filing

June 19, 2001.
    Take notice that on June 14, 2001, Maritimes & Northeast Pipeline, 
L.L.C. (Maritimes) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff, 
First Revised Volume No. 1, the following tariff sheet, to be effective 
on June 4, 2001:

First Revised Volume No. 1
Sub Original Sheet No. 309

    Maritimes states that the purpose of this filing is to comply with 
the directives of the Commission's Letter Order dated May 30, 2001, in 
Docket No. RP01-409 (May 30 Order).
    Maritimes states that, on May 4, 2001, revised tariff sheets were 
filed in this docket in order to add a new Section 34 to its General 
Terms and Conditions that provides for transportation and storage 
services using off-system capacity acquired by Maritimes on other 
pipelines and requested a waiver of the Commission's ``shipper must 
have title'' policy with respect to off-system capacity.
    Maritimes states that the May 30 Order accepted Maritimes' May 4 
tariff filing, effective June 4, 2001, subject to the condition that 
Maritimes file, within fifteen days of the May 30 Order, a revised 
tariff sheet to reflect the changes required by the May 30 Order.
    Maritimes states that copies of its filing have been mailed to all 
affected customers and interested state commissions.
    Any person desiring to protest said filing should file a protest 
with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, N.E., 
Washington, D.C. 20426, in accordance with Section 385.211 of the 
Commission's Rules and Regulations. All such protests must be filed in 
accordance with Section 154.210 of the Commission's Regulations. 
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 proceedings. Copies of this filing are on file with the 
Commission and are available for public inspection in the Public 
Reference Room. This filing may be viewed on the web at http://www.ferc.fed.us/online/rims.htm (call 202-208-2222 for assistance). 
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 of the Commission's web site at http://www.ferc.fed.us/efi/doorbell.htm.

Linwood A. Watson, Jr.,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. 01-15856 Filed 6-22-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
# C_2010346EN.01004103.xml

| 18.12.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 346/41 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.12.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 346/41

---

Order of the General Court of 18 October 2010 — Marcuccio v Commission

(Case T-515/09 P) (1)

1

(Appeal - Civil service - Officials - Refusal of an institution to translate a decision - Appeal in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly unfounded)

2010/C 346/83

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Parties

Appellant: Luigi Marcuccio (Tricase, Italy) (represented by: G. Cipressa, lawyer)

Appellant:

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: J. Currall and C. Berardis-Kayser, Agents, and A. Dal Ferro, lawyer)

Other party to the proceedings:

Re:

Re:

Appeal against the order of the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union (First Chamber) of 7 October 2009 in Case F-3/08 Marcuccio v Commission ECR SC-0000 seeking the annulment of that order.

Marcuccio

Commission

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The appeal is dismissed. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The appeal is dismissed.

| 2. | Mr Luigi Marcuccio is ordered to bear his own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the European Commission in the present proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Mr Luigi Marcuccio is ordered to bear his own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the European Commission in the present proceedings.

---

(1)  OJ C 51, 27.2.2010.

1

---
II-00264

From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

Steve Branch <shb4123 @gmail. com>

Thursday, December 2, 2010 7:30 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.

Steve Branch

88 Edgehill

Providence, RI 2906
#### D. G. Bronson *v.*The State.

1. Aggravated Assault—Indictment.—It is not necessary that an indictment for aggravated assault should allege an intent to injure.

2. Charge of the Court.—It is necessary to give such instructions only as are applicable to every deduction which the jury might legitimately draw from the facts.

3. Newly-discovered Evidence. — If there be a doubt upon the point of diligence, or as to the character or materiality of newly-discovered evidence relied on for a new trial, the action of the court below becomes a matter for its discretion, and will not be revised on appeal.

Appeal from the District Court of Bexar. Tried below before the Hon. George H. Noonan.

The trial was had at the March term, 1875, and the appellant was found guilty by the jury, who assessed his fine at $150.

*Wœlder &*Upson, for the appellant.

*H. H.*Boone, Attorney General, and *W. B. Dunham,*for the State.

White, J.

It is not necessary in an indictment for an aggravated assault and battery to allege an "intent to injure.” *The State*v. *Allen,*30 Texas, 59; *The State*v. *Lutterloh,*22 Texas, 214; *The State*v. *Hays,*41 Texas, 526; *The State*v. *Hartman,*41 Texas, 562.

It is assigned as error that the court did not charge the *47law of simple assault and of self-defense. The rule is that it is only necessary to give such instructions as are applicable to every legitimate deduction which the jury may draw from the facts. *Bishop*v. *The State,*43 Texas, 390; *Chambers*v. *The State,*42 Texas, 254; *Jackson*v. *The State,*25 Texas (Supp.), 229.

There was no evidence adduced requiring the court to charge upon any offense other than an aggravated assault, mar were there any facts adduced in the evidence tending to show that the offense was committed in self-defense.

Nor was it error for the court to refuse to grant a new trial upon the proposed newly-discovered evidence. The correct doctrine is laid down by the court in the case of *Shaw*v. *The State.*In that case it is said, “where there Is doubt upon the point of negligence, or as to the character of the evidence, or as to its materiality, it becomes a matter of discretion, and the court will not—perhaps I ought to say cannot, rightfully—interfere.” 1 Gra. & Wat. on New Tr. 489; 27 Texas, 752; *Brown*v. *The State,*16 Texas, 127; *Goins*v. *The State,*41 Texas, *334; Koontz*v. *The State,*41 Texas, 572.

We perceive no error in the judgment, and it is, therefore, affirmed.

*Affirmed.*
II-00757

From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

Kelly McConnell <prvt@2ezgroup.com>

Thursday, December 2, 2010 11:38 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.

Kelly McConnell

11375 SW Erste

Tigard, OR 97223
[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 115 (Thursday, June 14, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Page 32407]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-15104]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

RAILROAD RETIREMENT BOARD


Sunshine Act Meeting

    Notice is hereby given that the Railroad Retirement Board will hold 
a meeting on June 20, 2001, 9:00 a.m., at the Board's meeting room on 
the 8th floor of its headquarters building, 844 North Rush Street, 
Chicago, Illinois, 60611. The agenda for this meeting follows:

Portion open to the public:
    (1) OMB Bulletin No. 01-07, Workforce Planning & Restructuring.

Portion closed to the public:
    (A) Reassignment of Ms. Ruby Bland.

    The person to contact for more information is Beatrice Ezerski, 
Secretary to the Board, Phone No. 312-751-4920.

    Dated: June 11, 2001.
Beatrice Ezerski,
Secretary to the Board.
[FR Doc. 01-15104 Filed 6-12-01; 10:07 am]
BILLING CODE 7905-01-M
II-01054

From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

Doug McNeill <doug.mcneill@wap.org>

Thursday, December 2, 2010 8:41 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.

Doug McNeill

33T Ridge Road

Greenbelt, MD 20770
# C_2009193EN.01002203.xml

| 15.8.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 193/22 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.8.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 193/22

---

Order of the President of the Court of First Instance of 8 June 2009 — Z v Commission

(Case T-173/09 R)

(Interim measures - Access by a third party concerned to a Commission decision imposing a fine but not yet published - Application for interim measures — No need to adjudicate - No urgency)

2009/C 193/36

Language of the case: German

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Z (X, Germany) (represented by: C. Grau and N. Jäger, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: R. Sauer, V. Bottka and A. Bouquet, Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Access to the Commission’s decision of 28 January 2009 in a proceeding pursuant to Article 81 EC and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/G/39.406 — Marine hoses) and deletion of the applicant’s name from the text of that decision

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The application for interim measures is dismissed insofar as it has not already become devoid of purpose. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The application for interim measures is dismissed insofar as it has not already become devoid of purpose.

| 2. | This order annuls and replaces the order of 6 May 2009. |
| --- | --- |

2.

This order annuls and replaces the order of 6 May 2009.

| 3. | The costs are reserved. |
| --- | --- |

3.

The costs are reserved.

---
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

RICHARD L. ABBOTT, §

§

Plaintiff Below, § No. 210, 2021

Appellant, §

§ Court Below—Court of Chancery

v. § of the State of Delaware

§

KATHLEEN M. VAVALA, DAVID § C.A. No. 2021-0409

A. WHITE, COLLINS J. SEITZ, §

JR., JAMES T. VAUGH, JR., §

TAMIKA R. MONTGOMERY- §

REEVES, GARY F. TRAYNOR, §

and KAREN L. VALIHURA, §

§

Defendants Below, §

Appellees. §

Submitted: July 2, 2021

Decided: July 12, 2021

Before RIDGELY, Justice,

* NEWELL and DANBERG, Chief Judges,**

PER CURIAM:

O R D E R

This 12th day of July, 2021, it appears to the Court that:

(1) The plaintiff/appellant, Richard L. Abbott ("Abbott"), has petitioned 

this Court, pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 42, to accept an interlocutory appeal 

from the Court of Chancery’s June 3, 2021 denial of Abbott’s motions for temporary 

* Sitting by designation pursuant to Del. Const. Art. IV, § 38, 29 Del. C. § 5610(a)(2) and Supreme 

Court Rule 2(a).

** Sitting by designation pursuant Del. Const. Art. IV, § 12 and Supreme Court Rule 2(a).
2

restraining order and for expedited proceedings. On June 30, 2021, the Court of 

Chancery denied Abbott’s application for certification on the grounds that Abbott 

identified no substantial issue that justifies an appeal before final judgment, that he 

failed to demonstrate that any of the eight criteria identified in Supreme Court Rule 

42(b)(iii) support certification, and that on balance and after fully considering 

Abbott’s arguments, there is no benefit to certification that could outweigh the costs 

of piecemeal litigation.

(2) Abbott filed his notice of appeal and application for certification of 

interlocutory appeal with exhibits on July 1, 2021. He also filed on July 1, 2021 a 

motion to recuse from all involvement in this appeal Chief Justice Seitz, Justice 

Traynor and Justice Montgomery-Reeves, the Panel which entered an order on May 

18, 2021 that was cited by the Court of Chancery. 

(3) By Order dated July 2, 2021, this Panel was designated by the Chief 

Justice pursuant to Del. Const. Article IV, §§ 12 and 38, 29 Del. C. § 5610(a)(2) and 

Supreme Court Rule 2(a) to consider Abbott’s application for certification of 

interlocutory appeal.

(4) Applications for interlocutory review are addressed to the sound 

discretion of the Court.1 In the exercise of its discretion and giving great weight to 

the trial court’s review, this Court has concluded that the application for 

1 Del. Supr. Ct. R. 42(d)(v).
3

interlocutory review does not meet the strict standards for certification under 

Supreme Court Rule 42(b). Exceptional circumstances that would merit 

interlocutory review of the Court of Chancery’s decision do not exist in this case,2

and the potential benefits of interlocutory review do not outweigh the inefficiency, 

disruption, and probable costs caused by an interlocutory appeal.3

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the interlocutory appeal is 

REFUSED. The motion to recuse is DENIED as MOOT.

2 Del. Supr. Ct. R. 42(b) (ii).

3 Del. Supr. Ct. R. 42(b)(iii).
Cedric EASTER, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 17-7408.

Supreme Court of the United States

Feb. 20, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit denied.
Exhibit 31.1

CERTIFICATION

I, Donald R. Walsh, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Avatech Solutions, Inc.;

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the
statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the
Registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4. The Registrants other certifying officer and I are responsible
for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the Registrant and have:

(a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the Registrant, including
its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;

(b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the Registrants disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end
of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

(c) Disclosed in this report any change in the Registrants
internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the Registrants most recent fiscal quarter (the Registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to
materially affect, the Registrants internal control over financial reporting; and

5. The Registrants other certifying officer
and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the Registrants auditors and the audit committee of Registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent
function):

(a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting
which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the Registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and

(b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the Registrants internal control over financial reporting.



|                   |  |                        
|------------------ |  | -----------------------
|Date: May 15, 2006 |  | /s/ Donald R. Walsh    
|                   |  | Donald R. Walsh        
|                   |  | Chief Executive Officer
II-01206

From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

Werner Simon <werner. simon 133 @gmail. com>

Wednesday, December 1, 2010 3:49 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.

Werner Simon

34 Calais Road,A307

Randolph, NJ 07869-3517