alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
II-00068

From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

Karen Hansen <KLH.Ohio@gmail.com>

Tuesday, December 7, 2010 1:15 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.

Karen Hansen

145 S Monroe Ave

Columbus, OH 43205
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>              9
<MULTIPLIER>           1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                         110,011
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                          18,253
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                     0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                  1,130,063
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                          19,462
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                            19,999
<LOANS>                                      2,833,658
<ALLOWANCE>                                     45,658
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               4,338,522
<DEPOSITS>                                   3,573,011
<SHORT-TERM>                                   288,969
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                             48,675
<LONG-TERM>                                     73,402
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                           30,000
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        23,548
<OTHER-SE>                                     300,917
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>               4,338,522
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                 60,422
<INTEREST-INVEST>                               17,234
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                   202
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                77,858
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                              30,413
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               4,343
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                           43,102
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                    2,000
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                 225
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                 36,274
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 19,657
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                      19,657
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    13,454
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.58
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.57
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    4.39
<LOANS-NON>                                     20,078
<LOANS-PAST>                                     1,941
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                    36
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                44,537
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                    2,254
<RECOVERIES>                                     1,375
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                               45,658
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                            45,658
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0
        


</TABLE>
EPIC SYSTEMS CORPORATION, petitioner, v. Jacob LEWIS.

No. 16-285.

Supreme Court of the United States

Jan. 13, 2017.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit granted. The case is consolidated and a total of one hour is allotted for oral argument.
Exhibit 21


               SUBSIDIARIES OF NS GROUP, INC.
                  (all are wholly-owned)

Name                               State of Incorporation

Erlanger Tubular Corporation          Oklahoma
Imperial Adhesives, Inc. (1)          Ohio
Koppel Steel Corporation              Pennsylvania
Newport Steel Corporation             Kentucky
Northern Kentucky Management          Kentucky


(1)  Subsidiary sold on October 12, 2000
# C_2011046EN.01001101.xml

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

12.2.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 46/11

---

Judgment of the General Court of 17 December 2010 — Storck v OHIM (Shape of a chocolate mouse)

(Case T-13/09) (1)

1

(Community trade mark - Application for a three-dimensional Community trade mark - Shape of a chocolate mouse - Absolute ground for refusal - Lack of distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009) - Rights of the defence)

2011/C 46/19

Language of the case: German

Parties

Parties

Applicant: August Storck KG (Berlin, Germany) (represented by: P. Goldenbaum, T. Melchert and I. Rohr, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: initially G. Schneider, then G. Schneider and R. Manea, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 12 November 2008 (Case R 185/2006-4), concerning an application for registration as a Community trade mark of a three-dimensional sign consisting of the shape of a chocolate mouse.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Chocoladefabriken Lindt & Sprüngli AG to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Chocoladefabriken Lindt & Sprüngli AG to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 69, 21.3.2009.

1

---
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3727 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 3727

  To require the Secretary of Defense to establish a process for the 
  inspection of facilities used to house, detain, screen, and review 
             migrants and refugees, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             July 11, 2019

  Mr. Peters introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Armed Services

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To require the Secretary of Defense to establish a process for the 
  inspection of facilities used to house, detain, screen, and review 
             migrants and refugees, and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. INSPECTION OF FACILITIES USED TO HOUSE, DETAIN, SCREEN, AND 
              REVIEW MIGRANTS AND REFUGEES.

    The Secretary of Defense, in coordination with the Comptroller 
General of the United States, the Secretary of Homeland Security, and 
the Secretary of Health and Human Services shall establish a process 
under which the Comptroller General, the Inspector General of the 
Department of Homeland Security, and the Inspector General of the 
Department of Health and Human Services, as appropriate, may be 
provided with access to Government-owned or Department of Defense-owned 
installations where there are facilities used to house, detain, screen, 
or review migrants, refugees, or other persons recently arriving in the 
United States for purposes of conducting surprise inspections of such 
facilities.
                                 <all>
```
# C_2011194EN.01001401.xml

| 2.7.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 194/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.7.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 194/14

---

Judgment of the General Court of 18 May 2011 — Glenton España v OHIM — Polo/Lauren (POLO SANTA MARIA)

(Case T-376/09) (1)

1

(Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community figurative mark POLO SANTA MARIA - Earlier Benelux figurative mark showing the silhouette of a polo player - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

2011/C 194/20

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Glenton España, SA (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: E. Armijo Chávarri and A. Castán Pérez-Gómez, lawyers)

Applicant:

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

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: The Polo/Lauren Company, LP (New York, New York, United States) (represented by: R. Black, R. Guthrie, Solicitors, and S. Malynicz, Barrister)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court:

Re:

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 18 June 2009 (Case R 594/2008-2) in relation to opposition proceedings between The Polo/Lauren Company, LP, and Glenton España, SA

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Glenton España, SA to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Glenton España, SA to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 282, 21.11.2009.

1

---
Roosevelt WILLIAMS, Jr., petitioner, v. DISTRICT ATTORNEY OF MONROE COUNTY, ALABAMA, et al.

No. 17-7279.

Supreme Court of the United States

March 19, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit denied.
# C_2009102EN.01002001.xml

| 1.5.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 102/20 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.5.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 102/20

---

Action brought on 16 February 2009 — Herhof v OHIM — Stabilator (stabilator)

(Case T-60/09)

2009/C 102/32

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Herhof-Verwaltungsgesellschaft mbH (Solms, Germany) (represented by: A. Zinnecker and T. Bösling, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Stabilator sp. z o.o. (Gydnia, Poland)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | Anuul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 16 December 2008 in Joined Cases R 483/2008-4 and R 705/2008-4; |
| --- | --- |

—

Anuul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 16 December 2008 in Joined Cases R 483/2008-4 and R 705/2008-4;

| — | Order the applicant to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the applicant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: Stabilator sp. z o.o.

Applicant for a Community trade mark:

Community trade mark concerned: the figurative mark ‘stabilator’ for goods and services in Classes 19, 37 and 42, Application No 4 068 961

Community trade mark concerned:

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: the applicant

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings:

Mark or sign cited in opposition: the word mark ‘STABILAT’ for goods in Classes 1, 7, 11, 20, 37, 40 and 42

Mark or sign cited in opposition:

Decision of the Opposition Division: opposition allowed in part and application rejected in part

Decision of the Opposition Division

Decision of the Board of Appeal: annulment in part of the contested decision and rejection of the opposition

Decision of the Board of Appeal:

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94, (1) because there is a likelihood of confusion between the marks at issue or at least a likelihood of association.

Pleas in law:

1

---

(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark (OJ 1994 L 11, p. 1).

1

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

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM FORM 10-QSB
FOR THE QUARTER ENDED JUNE 30, 1998 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                       1,024,955
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  311,646
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,465,222
<PP&E>                                         128,319
<DEPRECIATION>                                   1,466
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,575,549
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,096,442
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     3,158,325
<OTHER-SE>                                     231,207
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 2,575,549
<SALES>                                        615,671
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               615,671
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  578,755
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               231,492
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 38,539
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             38,539
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    38,539
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    0.025
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    0.025
        

</TABLE>
# C_2012032EN.01002101.xml

| 4.2.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 32/21 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.2.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 32/21

---

Judgment of the General Court of 16 December 2011 — Rintisch v OHIM — Valfleuri Pâtes alimentaires (PROTIACTIVE)

(Case T-152/09) (1)

1

(Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community word mark PROTIACTIVE - Earlier national word and figurative marks PROTIPLUS, PROTI and PROTIPOWER - Late submission of documents - Discretion granted by Article 74(2) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 76(2) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009) - Concept of a provision to the contrary - Rule 20(1) of Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 - Rule 50(1) of Regulation No 2868/95)

2012/C 32/39

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Bernhard Rintisch (Bottrop, Germany) (represented by: A. Dreyer, lawyer)

Applicant:

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

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: Valfleuri Pâtes alimentaires SA (Wittenheim, France) (represented by: F. Baujoin, lawyer)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court:

Re:

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 3 February 2009 (Case R 1661/2007-4) relating to opposition proceedings between Bernhard Rintisch and Valfleuri Pâtes alimentaires SA.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Mr Bernhard Rintisch to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Mr Bernhard Rintisch to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 153, 4.7.2009.

1

---
Jenny RUBIN, et al., petitioners, v. ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF IRAN, et al.

No. 16-534.

Supreme Court of the United States

Jan. 9, 2017.

The Acting Solicitor General is invited to file a brief in this case expressing the views of the United States.

Justice KAGAN took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.
Exhibit 10.2


 





AMENDMENT TO THE


AMENDED AND RESTATED EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT


 


 


This Amendment (“Amendment”)
is entered into as of the 23rd day of May 2016, by and between Home Bank, N.A. (the “Bank”) and John W.
Bordelon (the “Executive”).


 


WITNESSETH


 


WHEREAS, the
Bank and the Executive previously entered into an Amended and Restated Employment Agreement, dated as of March 28, 2011 (the “Agreement”);
and


 


WHEREAS, the
parties desire to amend the Agreement in order to extend its term, as provided in Section 2(b) thereof.


 


NOW, THEREFORE,
the parties hereto, intending to be legally bound hereby, agree as follows:


 


1.The
last sentence in Section 2(a) of the Agreement is amended and restated to read as follows: “The terms and conditions of
this Agreement shall be and remain in effect during the period beginning on the Effective Date of this Agreement and ending on
June 22, 2019, plus such extensions, if any, as are provided pursuant to Section 2(b) hereof (the “Employment Period”).”


 


2.Except
to the extent expressly amended hereby, the Agreement shall continue unmodified and shall remain in full force and effect.


 


IN WITNESS WHEREOF,
this Amendment has been duly executed by the parties hereto as of the day and year first written above.


 


 





	 	HOME BANK, N.A.
	 	 	 
	 	 	 
	 	By:  	/s/ Michael P. Maraist
	 	    	Michael P. Maraist
	 	      	Chairman of the Board
	 	 	 
	 	 	 
	 	EXECUTIVE
	 	 	 
	 	 	 
	 	/s/ John W. Bordelon
	 	John W. Bordelon
Amery GASPARD, petitioner, v. Officer MELENDEZ.

No. 17-7104.

Supreme Court of the United States

Feb. 20, 2018.

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

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 380 

To amend the Federal Power Act to require the consideration of invasive 

species when prescribing fishways, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 9, 2019 

Mr. GROTHMAN (for himself and Mr. POCAN) introduced the following bill; 

which was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce 

A BILL 

To amend the Federal Power Act to require the consideration 

of invasive species when prescribing fishways, and for 

other purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. CONSIDERATION OF INVASIVE SPECIES. 

4 Section 18 of the Federal Power Act (16 U.S.C. 811) 

5 is amended by inserting after ‘‘the Secretary of Com6 merce.’’ the following: ‘‘In prescribing a fishway, the Sec7 retary of Commerce or the Secretary of the Interior, as 

8 appropriate, shall consider the threat of invasive species.’’. 

Æ 


pbinns on DSK79D2C42PROD with BILLS
Exhibit 4(a).21

AMENDMENT TO NOTE PURCHASE AGREEMENT

This AMENDMENT TO NOTE PURCHASE AGREEMENT
(Amendment) is made as of June 28, 2009 (the Effective Date) by and between Evolution CDC SPV Ltd. (Seller) and CDC Delaware Corporation (Buyer) for the purpose of modifying the Note Purchase
Agreement (as defined below).

WHEREAS, Seller and Buyer have entered into a Senior Exchangeable Convertible Note Purchase Agreement on
April 16, 2009 regarding the 3.75% Senior Exchangeable Convertible Note(s) due 2011, identified as Note R-20 for an aggregate principal amount of US$ 18,600,000 (Note Purchase Agreement);

WHEREAS, the parties wish to amend and supplement the Note Purchase Agreement as set forth herein;

NOW, THEREFORE, the parties agree as follows:



|1. | Amendment of Section 2.2(a) of the Note Purchase Agreement.
|-- | -----------------------------------------------------------

Section 2.2(a) of the Note Purchase Agreement is amended and restated to read in its entirety:

2.2 Closing.

The Closing shall occur in Atlanta, Georgia at Two Concourse Parkway, Suite 800, Atlanta, Georgia 30028
on the date of August 15, 2009 or at such other place and time before August 15, 2009 as Buyer and Seller shall mutually agree in writing (the Closing Date). At the Closing, Buyer shall pay the Cash Consideration to the Seller
by wire transfer of immediately available funds to an account of the Seller which shall be designated by the Seller in writing at least two (2) days prior to the Closing, for and in exchange for Sellers simultaneous delivery to Buyer of a
Note Transfer Agreement with respect to the Purchased Note.



|2. | Deletion of Section 2.2(b) of the Note Purchase Agreement.
|-- | ----------------------------------------------------------

Section 2.2(b) of the Note Purchase Agreement shall be deleted in its entirety.



|3. | Except as amended by this Amendment, the terms and condition of the Note Purchase Agreement shall remain in full force and effect. This Amendment may be executed in counterparts.
This Amendment shall be governed by New York law.
|-- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| |  |                        |  |                      
| |  | ---------------------- |  | ---------------------
| |  | Evolution CDC SPV Ltd.
| |  |                       
| |  | By:                    |  | /s/    Adrian Brindle
| |  | Name:                  |  | Adrian Brindle       
| |  | Title:                 |  | Director             



---

| |  |                          |  |                       
| |  | ------------------------ |  | ----------------------
| |  | CDC Delaware Corporation
| |  |                         
| |  | By:                      |  | /s/    Matthew Lavelle
| |  | Name:                    |  | Matthew Lavelle       
| |  | Title:                   |  | CFO                   



-2-
Daniel WYANT, et al., petitioners, v. Melissa MAYS, et al.

No. 17-901.

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.