alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
WARNING: THE EDGAR SYSTEM ENCOUNTERED ERROR(S) WHILE PROCESSING THIS SCHEDULE.

<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
     (Replace this text with the legend)
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                        0000852447
<NAME>                        Institutional Equity Holdings
<CURRENCY>                    U.S. DOLLARS

<S>                                                        <C>

<PERIOD-TYPE>                                              3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                                             APR-1-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                              JUN-30-1999
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                                     1
<CASH>                                                        135,756
<SECURITIES>                                                1,152,468
<RECEIVABLES>                                                 420,143
<ALLOWANCES>                                                        0
<INVENTORY>                                                         0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                            1,711,207
<PP&E>                                                        438,176
<DEPRECIATION>                                                306,648
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                              3,512,587
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                         774,933
<BONDS>                                                             0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                               0
<PREFERRED>                                                     1,900
<COMMON>                                                       25,300
<OTHER-SE>                                                    355,818
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                                3,512,587
<SALES>                                                     4,472,651
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                            4,473,065
<CGS>                                                               0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                               4,763,455
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                               21,739
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                                    0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                             61,492
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                              (373,621)
<INCOME-TAX>                                                        0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                          (373,621
<DISCONTINUED>                                                 15,047
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                                     0
<CHANGES>                                                           0
<NET-INCOME>                                                 (358,621)
<EPS-BASIC>                                                   (0.15)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                                   (0.15)







</TABLE>
In the Matter of DISCIPLINE OF Harris C. LEGOME.

No. D-2945.

Supreme Court of the United States

Dec. 12, 2016.

Harris C. Legome, of Haddonfield, New Jersey, is suspended from the practice of law in this Court and a rule will issue, returnable within 40 days, requiring him to show cause why he should not be disbarred from the practice of law in this Court.
EXHIBIT 32.1

                            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 Annual Report of ROO Group, Inc. (the "Company") on
Form  10-KSB  for the  fiscal  year ended  December  31,  2004 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),  I, Robert
Petty,  Chief Executive Officer of the Company,  certify,  pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
section 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 and Exchange Act of 1934; and

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

      A signed  original of this written  statement  required by Section 906 has
been  provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and  furnished
to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.


March 31, 2005                         /s/ Robert Petty
                                       -----------------------------------------
                                       Robert Petty
                                       Chief Executive Officer
II-00878

From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

Howard McCoy <hwmccoy@hughes.net>

Thursday, December 2, 2010 10:24 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.

Howard McCoy

400 Indiantown Farm Lane

Centreville, MD 21617
II-00362

From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

Lynne Marko <enlynka@usamontana.com>

Thursday, December 2, 2010 11:03 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.

Lynne Marko

PO Box 1801

Kalispell, MT 59903
# C_2011095EN.01000701.xml

| 26.3.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 95/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.3.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 95/7

---

Judgment of the General Court of 15 February 2011 — Yorma's v OHIM — Norma Lebensmittelfilialbetrieb (YORMA’S)

(Case T-213/09) (1)

1

(Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the Community figurative mark including the word element ‘yorma’s’ - Earlier Community word mark NORMA - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

2011/C 95/11

Language of the case: German

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Yorma’s AG (Deggendorf, Germany) (represented by: A. Weiß, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: S. Schäffner, acting as Agent)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: Norma Lebensmittelfilialbetrieb GmbH & Co. KG (Nuremberg, Germany) (represented by: A. von Welser, 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 First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 20 February 2009 (Case R 1879/2007-1), concerning opposition proceedings between Norma Lebensmittelfilialbetrieb GmbH & Co. KG and Yorma’s AG

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

dismisses the action;

| 2. | orders Yorma’s AG to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

orders Yorma’s AG to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 180, 1.8.2009.

1

---
II-00948

From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

Margaret Klette <sasa515 @juno.com>

Thursday, December 2, 2010 9:44 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

insurance companies.

It is time to return to moral values.

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.

Margaret Klette

2523 Portland Ave. So. #608

Minneapolis, MN 55404
Bruce A. CRISWELL, petitioner, v. Lorie DAVIS, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division.

No. 17-7464.

Supreme Court of the United States

March 26, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied.
John WELLS, petitioner, v. OHIO.

No. 16-6918.

Supreme Court of the United States

Jan. 23, 2017.

*835Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals of Ohio, Jefferson County denied.
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3680 Referred in Senate (RFS)]

<DOC>
116th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 3680

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            October 1, 2020

     Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland 
                   Security and Governmental Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
 at 415 North Main Street in Henning, Tennessee, as the ``Paula Croom 
        Robinson and Judy Spray Memorial Post Office Building''.

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

SECTION 1. PAULA CROOM ROBINSON AND JUDY SPRAY MEMORIAL POST OFFICE 
              BUILDING.

    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located 415 North Main Street in Henning, Tennessee, shall be known and 
designated as the ``Paula Croom Robinson and Judy Spray Memorial Post 
Office Building''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Paula 
Croom Robinson and Judy Spray Memorial Post Office''.

            Passed the House of Representatives September 30, 2020.

            Attest:

                                             CHERYL L. JOHNSON,

                                                                 Clerk.
```
secretary 

From: 

Sent: 

To: 

Subject: 

Hello, 

sdemonte@aol.com 

Monday, August 17, 2009 10:06 PM 

secretary 

CCX Carbon Financial Instrument 

COMMENT 

C.F.T.C. 

OFFICE OF tHE SECRETARIAT 

I would like to voice my concern over this issue as it is yet another tool to be abused by big brokerage 

houses. It has been my experience that the CFTC really does not care about the public interest so I 

assume this email falls on deaf ears. 

The system you intend to implement benefits purely big institutions and not the general public. The 

politics behind this whole venture is for another discussion, however it is a fraud in general. I would 

like to request that firms must have collateral in excess of 2x their average end of daily trade value in 

order to participate in this market. For example, if Goldman trades $108 in a day they need reserves 

of $208 etc. 

Until you fix the manipulation in your exchanges then the public will never trust the CFTC. Look at 

precious metals and the blatant manipulation that occurs daily. The same can be said for crude oil 

and most other products traded. Fix the problems and make reserve requirements obscenely high so 

manipulators will not be temped to participate. I would also like to see a new ticket charge placed on 

every order to fund a stronger anti-fraud or other such division to adequately investigate and stop 

abusive practices and market manipulation. 

Furthrmore, put teeth in your actions taken against firms or individuals that will deter those abussive 

practices. 

Sincerely, 

Scott DeMonte 

1 

Received Cf!C 

Records Section 

f/;~{)1
Julian R. HOOD, Jr., petitioner, v. OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT.

No. 17-1067.

Supreme Court of the United States

March 26, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit denied.
Jordan Allen GUY, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 16-7091.

Supreme Court of the United States

Jan. 9, 2017.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied.
# C_2009069EN.01005301.xml

| 21.3.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 69/53 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.3.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 69/53

---

Action brought on 3 February 2009 — Cachuera v OHIM — Gelkaps (Ayanda)

(Case T-43/09)

(2009/C 69/115)

Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: La Cachuera SA (Misiones, Argentina) (represented by: E. Armijo Chávarri, lawyer)

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: Gelkaps GmbH (Pritzwalk, Germany).

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Gelkaps GmbH (Pritzwalk, Germany)

Form of order sought

| — | Declare the action against the Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (OHIM) of 19 November 2008 lodged in time and in the required form and, via the appropriate procedure, order the annulment of that decision and order expressly that OHIM pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

Declare the action against the Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (OHIM) of 19 November 2008 lodged in time and in the required form and, via the appropriate procedure, order the annulment of that decision and order expressly that OHIM pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: Gelkaps GmbH.

Community trade mark concerned: Word mark ‘AYANDA’ (Application No 3.315.405) for goods and services in Classes 3, 5, 28, 29, 30, 32 and 44.

Community trade mark concerned:

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

Mark or sign cited in opposition: Spanish figurative and word marks ‘AMANDA’, for goods in Class 30.

Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition upheld in part.

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed.

Decision of the Board of Appeal:

Pleas in law: Incorrect application of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 on the Community trade mark.

Pleas in law:

---
# C_2010063EN.01002503.xml

| 13.3.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 63/25 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.3.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 63/25

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tartu Ringkonnakohus (Estonia) lodged on 15 December 2009 — AS Rakvere Piim, AS Maag Piimatööstus v Veterinaar- ja Toiduamet

(Case C-523/09)

2010/C 63/42

Language of the case: Estonian

Referring court

Referring court

Tartu Ringkonnakohus

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: AS Rakvere Piim and AS Maag Piimatööstus

Applicants:

Defendant: Veterinaar- ja Toiduamet

Defendant:

Questions referred

Questions referred

| 1. | Must Article 27(4)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 882/2004 (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on official controls performed to ensure the verification of compliance with feed and food law, animal health and animal welfare rules be interpreted as not prohibiting the demanding of a fee from an operator at the minimum rate laid down in Part B of Annex IV to that regulation for the activities listed in Part A of Annex IV to the regulation, even if the costs borne by the responsible competent authorities in connection with the items listed in Annex VI to that regulation are lower than the above-mentioned minimum rates? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Must Article 27(4)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 882/2004 (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on official controls performed to ensure the verification of compliance with feed and food law, animal health and animal welfare rules be interpreted as not prohibiting the demanding of a fee from an operator at the minimum rate laid down in Part B of Annex IV to that regulation for the activities listed in Part A of Annex IV to the regulation, even if the costs borne by the responsible competent authorities in connection with the items listed in Annex VI to that regulation are lower than the above-mentioned minimum rates?

1

| 2. | Is a Member State entitled, on the conditions mentioned in the previous question, to establish fees for the activities listed in Part A of Annex IV to that regulation that are lower than the minimum amounts laid down in Part B of Annex IV to that regulation, if the costs borne by the responsible competent authorities in connection with the items listed in Annex VI to that regulation are lower than the above-mentioned minimum rates, without the conditions laid down in Article 27(6) of that regulation being satisfied? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Is a Member State entitled, on the conditions mentioned in the previous question, to establish fees for the activities listed in Part A of Annex IV to that regulation that are lower than the minimum amounts laid down in Part B of Annex IV to that regulation, if the costs borne by the responsible competent authorities in connection with the items listed in Annex VI to that regulation are lower than the above-mentioned minimum rates, without the conditions laid down in Article 27(6) of that regulation being satisfied?

---

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

1

---
Chad PYLES, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 17-7446.

Supreme Court of the United States

Feb. 20, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit denied.
Raymond TATE, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 16-9262.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 2, 2017.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit denied.
Blake Daniel HULLIHEN, petitioner, v. Paul KLEE, Warden.

No. 17-7352.

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.
**Order of the President of the Court of First Instance of 25 May 2009 – Biofrescos v Commission**

**(Case T-159/09 R)**

Application for interim measures – Application for suspension of operation – Submission of the application – Inadmissibility – Financial loss – Lack of urgency

1.                     *Application for interim measures – Suspension of operation of a measure – Interim measures – Conditions for granting – Prima
facie case (Arts 225(1) EC, 242 EC and 243 EC; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 104(2)) (see para.
12)*

2.                     *Application for interim measures – Conditions for admissibility – Application – Formal requirements (Art. 242 EC; Rules of
Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 104(2) and (3)) (see paras 12-15, 18-19)*

3.                     *Application for interim measures – Suspension of operation of a measure – Interim measures – Conditions for granting – Urgency
– Serious and irreparable damage (Arts 242 EC and 243 EC; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 104(2))
(see paras 22-23, 27-28)*

4.                     *Application for interim measures – Suspension of operation of a measure – Conditions for granting – Serious and irreparable
damage(Art. 242 EC; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 104(2); Council Regulation No 2913/92; Commission
Regulation No 2454/93) (see paras 29-32)*

**Re:**

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | APPLICATION for suspension of the recovery of import duties not yet demanded of the applicant, in so far as that recovery was ordered by Commission Decision C(2009) 72 final of 16 January 2009, finding post-clearance recovery of those duties justified, and remission of those duties not justified, in the applicant’s case. |

**Operative part**

1.The application for interim measures is dismissed.

2.      Costs are reserved.