alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
John R. BEHRMANN, et ux., petitioners, v. Michael GOLDSTEIN, et al.

No. 17-1216.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 23, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied.
EXHIBIT 32.2

          CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED
            PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, David J. Surette,  the Chief Finacial  Officer of Global Axcess,  Corp.  (the
"Company"),  certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that to the best of my knowledge:

(1)      the  Quarterly  Report on Form  10-QSB of the  Company  for the  fiscal
quarter ended June 30, 2003 (the "Report") fully complies with the  requirements
of Section 13 (a) or 15 (d) of the  Securities  Exchange  Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C.
78m or 78o(d)); 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: August 4, 2003

                                      /s/ David J. Surette
                                      Name: David J. Surette
                                      Title: Chief Financial
                                            Officer
**Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 29 March 2012 —
Commission v Sweden

(Case C-607/10)**

Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Environment — Directive 2008/1/EC — Integrated pollution prevention and control — Conditions for the authorisation of existing installations — Obligation to ensure the operation of such installations in accordance with the requirements of the directive

Actions for failure to fulfil obligations — Examination of the merits by the Court — Situation to be taken into consideration — Situation on expiry of the period laid down in the reasoned opinion (Art. 258 TFEU) (see para. 23)

**Re:**

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Infringement of Article 5(1) of Directive 2008/1/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 January 2008 concerning integrated pollution prevention and control (OJ 2008 L 24, p. 8) — Conditions for the authorisation of existing installations — Obligation to ensure that those installations are operated in accordance with the requirements laid down in the directive. |

**Operative part**

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | | The Court: |

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 1. | | Declares that, by failing to take the necessary measures to ensure that the competent national authorities see to it, by means of permits issued in accordance with Articles 6 and 8 of Directive 2008/1/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 January 2008 concerning integrated pollution prevention and control (Codified version) or, as appropriate, by reconsidering and, where necessary, by updating the conditions, that all existing installations operate in accordance with the requirements of Articles 3, 7, 9, 10 and 13, Article 14(a) and (b) and Article 15(2) of that directive, the Kingdom of Sweden has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 5(1) of that directive; |

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 2. | | Orders the Kingdom of Sweden to pay the costs. |
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-6263

GERALD ERNEST MANNING, JR., Petitioner - Appellant, versus R. DAVID MITCHELL, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Durham. James A. Beaty, Jr., Chief District Judge. (1:06-cv-00105-JAB) Submitted: June 21, 2007 Decided: June 28, 2007 Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Gerald Ernest Manning, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Mary Carla Hollis, NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.- 2 - PER CURIAM: Gerald Ernest Manning, Jr., seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that any assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district court is likewise debatable. Miller-El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee , 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Manning has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Manning’s motion for a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We deny Manning’s motion for appointment of counsel and dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. DISMISSED
Peter Earl CASWELL, petitioner, v. Leroy KIRKEGARD, Warden, et al.

No. 16-9287.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 2, 2017.

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

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Health and Human Services

###### National Institutes of Health

Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given the following meeting.

The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

*Name of Committee:*                         National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Special Emphasis Panel, Multicenter Therapeutic Trails of X-linked ALD                    

*Date:*                         July 16, 2001.                    

*Time:*                         9:00 am to 5:00 pm.                    

*Agenda:*                         To review and evaluate grant applications.                    

*Place:*                         Governor's House, 1615 Rhode Island Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20036.                    

*Contact Person:*                         Norman Chang, Scientific Review Administrator, Division of Scientific Review, National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, National Institutes of Health, 6100 Executive Blvd., Room 5E03, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 496-1485.                    

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.209, Contraception and Infertility Loan Repayment Program; 93.864, Population Research; 93.865, Research for Mothers and Children; 93.929, Center for Medical Rehabilitation Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

Dated: June 22, 2001.

LaVerne Y. Stringfield,

Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. 01-16365 Filed 6-28-01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-M
II-00266

From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

Lewis Banelis <lewb60@gmail.com>

Thursday, December 2, 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 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.

Lewis Banelis

240 Belmont Street Apt.311

Worcester, MA 01604
----

            COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 2070/2004

of 1 December 2004         

authorising transfers between the quantitative limits of textiles and clothing products originating in the Republic of India

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 3030/93 of 12 October 1993 on common rules for imports of certain textile products from third countries (1), and in particular Article 7 thereof,

Whereas:

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

Transfers between the quantitative limits for textile goods originating in the Republic of India are authorised for the quota year 2004 in accordance with the Annex.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on the day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 1 December 2004.

For the Commission

Peter MANDELSON            

Member of the Commission

----

(1)OJ L 275, 8.11.1993, p. 1. Regulation as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 1627/2004 (OJ L 295, 18.9.2004, p. 1).

(2)OJ L 153, 27.6.1996, p. 53.

----

ANNEX

----
# C_2010063EN.01003001.xml

| 13.3.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 63/30 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.3.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 63/30

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Giudice di Pace di Varese (Italy) lodged on 17 December 2009 — Mohammed Mohiuddin Siddiquee v Azienda Sanitaria Locale Provincia di Varese

(Case C-541/09)

2010/C 63/49

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Referring court

Giudice di Pace di Varese

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Mohammed Mohiuddin Siddiquee

Applicant:

Defendant: Azienda Sanitaria Locale Provincia di Varese

Defendant:

Questions referred

Questions referred

| 1. | Does Article 4 of Community Regulation No 882/2004, (1) in conjunction with Article 6 thereof, establish an individual right for citizens to be subject to controls on foodstuffs and beverages only by staff who fulfil the requirements laid down in that regulation, and may such a right be relied on in legal proceedings and used as a defence to enforcement action by the Member States? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Does Article 4 of Community Regulation No 882/2004, (1) in conjunction with Article 6 thereof, establish an individual right for citizens to be subject to controls on foodstuffs and beverages only by staff who fulfil the requirements laid down in that regulation, and may such a right be relied on in legal proceedings and used as a defence to enforcement action by the Member States?

1

| 2. | If not, is Directive 2000/13/EC, (2) in the context of the Community rules governing the labelling of foodstuffs and beverages, based on considerations of health? |
| --- | --- |

2.

If not, is Directive 2000/13/EC, (2) in the context of the Community rules governing the labelling of foodstuffs and beverages, based on considerations of health?

2

| 3. | Is it contrary to Directive 76/768/EEC (3) as subsequently amended, or to other relevant Community rules for a Member State to differentiate between the liability of the various operators in the industry, excluding the trader from liability by the very nature of his activity as a trader? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Is it contrary to Directive 76/768/EEC (3) as subsequently amended, or to other relevant Community rules for a Member State to differentiate between the liability of the various operators in the industry, excluding the trader from liability by the very nature of his activity as a trader?

3

| 4. | If not, must Article 6 of Directive 76/768/EEC as amended be interpreted as giving rise to the joint and several liability of the cosmetics manufacturer and the mere trader who takes no part in the manufacture, packaging or labelling of the cosmetic? |
| --- | --- |

4.

If not, must Article 6 of Directive 76/768/EEC as amended be interpreted as giving rise to the joint and several liability of the cosmetics manufacturer and the mere trader who takes no part in the manufacture, packaging or labelling of the cosmetic?

---

(1)  OJ 2004 L 165, p. 1.

1

(2)  OJ 2000 L 109, p. 29.

2

(3)  OJ 1976 L 262, p. 169.

3

---
II-01225

From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

Ford, Mildred Y. <mford@CFTC.gov>

Wednesday, December 15, 2010 8:27 AM

OTCDefinitions <OTCDefinitions@CFTC.gov>

FW: No loopholes in Dodd-Frank

..... Original Message .....

From: Walter Shields [mailto:walter.shields~vahoo.com]

Sent: Tuesday, December 14, 2010 7:07 PM

To: dfadefinitions

Subject: 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.

Walter Shields

1633 Bel Aire Drive

Glendale, CA 91201
# C_2010024EN.01006502.xml

| 30.1.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 24/65 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.1.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 24/65

---

Action brought on 30 November 2009 — ATB Norte v OHIM — Bricocenter Italia (BRICO CENTER)

(Case T-476/09)

2010/C 24/115

Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

Parties

Parties

Applicant: ATB Norte, SL (Burgos, Spain) (represented by: P. López Ronda, G. Macías Bonilla, H.L. Curtis-Oliver and G. Marín Raigal, 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: Bricocenter Italia Srl (Rozzano Milanofiori (Milan), Italy)

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

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 24 September 2009 — R 1006/2008-4. |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 24 September 2009 — R 1006/2008-4.

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

—

Order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: Bricocenter Italia S.r.l.

Applicant for a Community trade mark:

Community trade mark concerned: Figurative mark containing the word element ‘BRICOCENTER’ (Application No 4 934 212) in respect of services in Class 35.

Community trade mark concerned:

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: ATB Norte, SL.

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

Mark or sign cited in opposition: Figurative Community trade marks containing the word elements ‘CENTROS DE BRICOLAGE BRICOCENTRO’ (No 3 262 623) and ‘ATB CENTROS DE BRICOLAGE BRICOCENTRO’ (No 989 046) in respect of services in Classes 35, 37 and 39.

Mark or sign cited in opposition:

Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition upheld.

Decision of the Opposition Division:

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Opposition Division’s decision annulled and the opposition rejected in its entirety.

Decision of the Board of Appeal:

Pleas in law: Incorrect interpretation and application of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009.

Pleas in law:

---
SEFs: Trade execution liquidity – Credit default Swap (CDS) Produc

• Disruptive market size 

( large risk transfer)

• >= 100 MM for High 

Yield index

• >= 200 MM for 

Investment Grade index

• >= 25 MM for High Yield 

index

• >= 100 MM for 

Investment Grade index

• Normal lot size• Actively traded, small 

risk size and high ticket volume traded

• < 25 MM for High Yield 

index

• < 100 MM for Investment 

grade index

Trade Size

(Notional)

Index CDS

• Markets requires s

time to transfer/ hewithout causing diunder normal marconditions. 

Note: If sufficient t

provided for risk trliquidity risk will trainvestors in the fowider bid/ask

• VENUE: Many to 1, RFQ 

model, voice with digital conversion for downstream processing 

• DEALER SELECTION: 

Select 1 to n (2) dealers for a request for quote (RFQ)

• PRICING: Indicative 

and/or firm

• Disruptive market size 

( large risk transfer)

• >= 25 MM for High Yield• >= 50 MM for Investment 

Grade

Tier 3 (1)

• Market has the ab

absorb risk transfeminimum disruptio15 minutes under market conditions

Note: If sufficient t

provided for risk trliquidity risk will trainvestors in the fowider bid/ask

• VENUE: Many to 1, RFQ 

model electronic / voice platforms with digital conversion for downstream processing

• DEALER SELECTION: 

Select 1 to n (2) dealers for a request for quote (RFQ)

• PRICING: Indicative 

and/or firm 

• >= 5 MM for High Yield• >= 25 MM for Investment 

Grade

Tier 2 (1)

• Market has the ab

absorb risk transfeinstantaneously unormal market conwithout causing di

• VENUE: Many to 1 or 

many to many electronic platform

• PRICING: Indicative 

and/or firm

• Normal lot size• Actively traded, small risk 

size and high ticket volume traded

• < 5 MM for High Yield• < 25 MM for Investment 

Grade

• Note: Widely transmitted 

request for Quotes in High Yield markets even in small size widens the bid/offers and dries up liquidity

Tier 1 (1)

Trade Size (Notional) Attributes Risk Manage

Single Name CDS

Varies by asset class

Blocks where 

immediate 

risk transfer 

could cause 

market

disruption

Large block 

trades

Normal 

trade 

size

(1) Trade size applicable for current tier and all tiers with smaller minimum trade size(2) Number of dealers participating on the SEF who are eligible to deal with the counterparty(3) Not to be confused with post trade, legal entity (at the allocation level) reporting