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

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3836 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 3836

   To amend section 332 of the Communications Act of 1934 to include 
 public safety requirements in terms and conditions States may require 
                          of mobile services.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             July 18, 2019

 Ms. Eshoo (for herself, Mr. Thompson of California, Mr. Huffman, Mrs. 
 Davis of California, Mr. Khanna, Ms. Speier, Mr. Ruiz, Mr. Rouda, Ms. 
 Brownley of California, Mr. Cox of California, Ms. Roybal-Allard, Mr. 
 Panetta, Ms. Hill of California, Mr. Cisneros, Ms. Lee of California, 
and Mr. McNerney) introduced the following bill; which was referred to 
                  the Committee on Energy and Commerce

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To amend section 332 of the Communications Act of 1934 to include 
 public safety requirements in terms and conditions States may require 
                          of mobile services.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Wireless Infrastructure Resiliency 
during Emergencies and Disasters Act'' or the ``WIRED Act''.

SEC. 2. REGULATORY TREATMENT OF MOBILE SERVICES.

    Section 332(c)(3)(A) of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 
332(c)(3)(A)) is amended by inserting after ``other terms and 
conditions of commercial mobile services'' the following: ``including 
reasonable requirements to promote resilient wireless communications 
infrastructure for situational awareness during a natural disaster (as 
such term is defined in section 602 of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster 
Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5195a(a)(2)))''.
                                 <all>
```
Howard A. CARTER, petitioner, v. Jay LANE, Superintendent, State Correctional Institution at Fayette, et al.

No. 16-6726

Supreme Court of the United States

Jan. 9, 2017.

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

Justice ALITO took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.
Kalvin TROLLINGER, petitioner, v. OKLAHOMA.

No. 16-9417.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 2, 2017.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma, Third Division denied.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 6
 

<CIK>     0000744822


<NAME>      Fidelity Investment Trust


<SERIES>

        <NUMBER>        11


        <NAME>      Fidelity Overseas Fund


<MULTIPLIER>    1,000


       

<S>

<C>

<PERIOD-TYPE>

6-MOS


<FISCAL-YEAR-END>

OCT-31-1998


<PERIOD-END>

APR-30-1998


<INVESTMENTS-AT-COST>

3,115,933


<INVESTMENTS-AT-VALUE>

4,160,199


<RECEIVABLES>

100,871


<ASSETS-OTHER>

0


<OTHER-ITEMS-ASSETS>

0


<TOTAL-ASSETS>

4,261,070


<PAYABLE-FOR-SECURITIES>

31,246


<SENIOR-LONG-TERM-DEBT>

0


<OTHER-ITEMS-LIABILITIES>

15,731


<TOTAL-LIABILITIES>

46,977


<SENIOR-EQUITY>

0


<PAID-IN-CAPITAL-COMMON>

3,102,687


<SHARES-COMMON-STOCK>

110,505


<SHARES-COMMON-PRIOR>

110,720


<ACCUMULATED-NII-CURRENT>

0


<OVERDISTRIBUTION-NII>

6,891


<ACCUMULATED-NET-GAINS>

76,715


<OVERDISTRIBUTION-GAINS>

0


<ACCUM-APPREC-OR-DEPREC>

1,041,582


<NET-ASSETS>

4,214,093


<DIVIDEND-INCOME>

34,779


<INTEREST-INCOME>

6,689


<OTHER-INCOME>

(3,839)


<EXPENSES-NET>

24,310


<NET-INVESTMENT-INCOME>

13,319


<REALIZED-GAINS-CURRENT>

77,099


<APPREC-INCREASE-CURRENT>

547,703


<NET-CHANGE-FROM-OPS>

638,121


<EQUALIZATION>

0


<DISTRIBUTIONS-OF-INCOME>

36,842


<DISTRIBUTIONS-OF-GAINS>

145,109


<DISTRIBUTIONS-OTHER>

0


<NUMBER-OF-SHARES-SOLD>

55,367


<NUMBER-OF-SHARES-REDEEMED>

60,954


<SHARES-REINVESTED>

5,372


<NET-CHANGE-IN-ASSETS>

436,641


<ACCUMULATED-NII-PRIOR>

41,157


<ACCUMULATED-GAINS-PRIOR>

246,303


<OVERDISTRIB-NII-PRIOR>

0


<OVERDIST-NET-GAINS-PRIOR>

0


<GROSS-ADVISORY-FEES>

17,325


<INTEREST-EXPENSE>

0


<GROSS-EXPENSE>

24,625


<AVERAGE-NET-ASSETS>

3,858,339


<PER-SHARE-NAV-BEGIN>

34.120


<PER-SHARE-NII>

 .120


<PER-SHARE-GAIN-APPREC>

5.570


<PER-SHARE-DIVIDEND>

 .340


<PER-SHARE-DISTRIBUTIONS>

1.340


<RETURNS-OF-CAPITAL>

0


<PER-SHARE-NAV-END>

38.130


<EXPENSE-RATIO>

130


<AVG-DEBT-OUTSTANDING>

0


<AVG-DEBT-PER-SHARE>

0



        



</TABLE>
# C_2011370EN.01001302.xml

| 17.12.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 370/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.12.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 370/13

---

Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 27 October 2011 — European Commission v Republic of Poland

(Case C-311/10) (1)

1

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 2007/46/EC - Approval of motor vehicles and their trailers, and of systems, components and separate technical units intended for such vehicles - Failure to transpose within the period prescribed - Incomplete transposition)

2011/C 370/20

Language of the case: Polish

Parties

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: G. Zavvos and Ł. Habiak, acting as Agents)

Applicant:

Defendant: Republic of Poland (represented by: M. Szpunar, acting as Agent)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Failure to adopt, within the period prescribed, the provisions necessary to give effect to Directive 2007/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 September 2007 establishing a framework for the approval of motor vehicles and their trailers, and of systems, components and separate technical units intended for such vehicles (Framework Directive) (OJ 2007 L 263, p. 1)

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Declares that, by failing to communicate to the European Commission the laws, regulations and administrative provisions implementing Directive 2007/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 September 2007 establishing a framework for the approval of motor vehicles and their trailers, and of systems, components and separate technical units intended for such vehicles, the Republic of Poland has failed to fulfil its obligations sunder Article 48 of that directive; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Declares that, by failing to communicate to the European Commission the laws, regulations and administrative provisions implementing Directive 2007/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 September 2007 establishing a framework for the approval of motor vehicles and their trailers, and of systems, components and separate technical units intended for such vehicles, the Republic of Poland has failed to fulfil its obligations sunder Article 48 of that directive;

| 2. | Declares that, by failing to adopt, within the period prescribed, all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to implement Directive 2007/46, the Republic of Poland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 48 of that directive; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Declares that, by failing to adopt, within the period prescribed, all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to implement Directive 2007/46, the Republic of Poland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 48 of that directive;

| 3. | Orders the Republic of Poland to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the Republic of Poland to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 246, 11.9.2010.

1

---
# C_2009180EN.01006201.xml

| 1.8.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 180/62 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.8.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 180/62

---

Action brought on 11 June 2009 — United States Polo Association v OHIM — Textiles CMG (U.S. POLO ASSN.)

(Case T-228/09)

2009/C 180/114

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Parties

Applicants: United States Polo Association (Lexington, United States) (represented by: P. Goldenbaum, T. Melchert and I. Rohr, lawyers)

Applicants:

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

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Textiles CMG, SA (Onteniente, Valencia, Spain)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 20 March 2009 in case R 886/2008-4; and |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 20 March 2009 in case R 886/2008-4; and

| — | Order the defendant to pay its own costs and those of the applicant, and, should the other party before the Board of Appeal intervene in the proceedings, order it to pay its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the defendant to pay its own costs and those of the applicant, and, should the other party before the Board of Appeal intervene in the proceedings, order it to pay its own costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for the Community trade mark: The applicant

Applicant for the Community trade mark:

Community trade mark concerned: The word mark “U.S. POLO ASSN.”, for goods in classes 9, 20, 21, 24 and 27

Community trade mark concerned:

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

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

Mark or sign cited: Spanish trade mark registration of the word mark “POLO-POLO” for goods in class 24; Community trade mark registration of the word mark “POLO-POLO” for goods in classes 24, 25 and 39

Mark or sign cited:

Decision of the Opposition Division: Upheld the opposition for all the contested goods

Decision of the Opposition Division:

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

Decision of the Board of Appeal:

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation 40/94 (which became Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation 207/2009) as the Board of Appeal erred in its finding that there is a likelihood of confusion between the trade marks concerned.

Pleas in law:

---
1

The Honorable Joseph F. Bataillon, Chief Judge, United States District Court

for the District of Nebraska.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 06-1731

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* District of Nebraska.

Laron L. Newman, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: May 2, 2007

Filed: May 7, 2007

___________

Before RILEY, MAGILL, and MELLOY, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Laron Newman (Newman) appeals the 96-month prison sentence the district

court1

 imposed upon him after granting the government’s Federal Rule of Criminal

Procedure 35(b) motion to reduce Newman’s sentence for his post-sentencing

substantial assistance. Newman’s counsel has moved to withdraw and has filed a brief

under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), arguing the district court abused its

discretion by not taking into account the level of Newman’s cooperation and his
-2-

rehabilitative efforts in prison when deciding how far to depart from the advisory

Guidelines. 

Counsel’s argument is without merit. See United States v. Coppedge, 135 F.3d

598, 599 (8th Cir. 1998) (per curiam) (concluding a challenge to the extent of a

sentence reduction upon the government’s Rule 35(b) motion was unreviewable

because the appeal was not based on any criteria listed in 18 U.S.C. § 3742(a)); United

States v. Haskins, 479 F.3d 955, 957 (8th Cir. 2007) (per curiam) (holding a court

lacks jurisdiction to consider the reasonableness of a sentence following a Rule 35(b)

reduction; and United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005), did not expand

§ 3742(a) to include appellate review of discretionary sentencing reductions). Cf.

United States v. Pepper, 412 F.3d 995, 998-99 (8th Cir. 2005) (deciding only

assistance facts, and not other factors, can be considered in a substantial assistance

downward departure).

Having reviewed the record independently under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75,

80 (1988), we find no nonfrivolous issues. Accordingly, we grant counsel’s motion

to withdraw, and we affirm.

______________________________
II-00853

From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

Jared Cornelia <jaredcl200@yahoo.com>

Thursday, December 2, 2010 10:43 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.

Jared Cornelia

125 Denn Place

Wilmington, DE 19804
WASHINGTON, DC 2001 K Street, NW, Suite 725, North Tower, Washington, DC 20006 | Tel +1 202.466.5460

September 22, 2023

Mr. Christopher J. Kirkpatrick

Secretary

Commodity Futures Trading Commission

1155 21st St. NW

Washington, DC 20581

Re: Supplement to Petition for Order under Section 4(c) of the Commodity Exchange Act

Dear Mr. Kirkpatrick:

On May 24, FIA and CME jointly filed a Petition for Order under Section 4(c) of the Commodity 

Exchange Act (the “Petition”) with the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (“CFTC”). The 

Petition generally asks the CFTC to expand the scope of permissible investments for futures 

commission merchants and derivatives clearing organizations under CFTC Rule 1.25 subject to 

certain terms and conditions. The Petition contains data in support of its requests in the Petition 

text itself as well as in two accompanying appendices. This letter supplements and clarifies the 

data cited in the Petition.

Specifically, Appendix 1 of the Petition sets out the outstanding debt of six jurisdictions (Canada, 

Japan, United Kingdom, France, Germany, and the United States), both marketable and nonmarketable, and the marketable public debt in USD equivalents where the time to maturity is two 

years or less as of March 22, 2022. The table immediately below is intended to update the 

corresponding data as of July 11, 2023.

Canada Japan

United 

Kingdom France Germany

United 

States

Total Outstanding 

Debt 

1.010Tn 8.653Tn 3.169Tn 2.605Tn 1.972Tn 26.098Tn

Total Amount 

Outstanding for 2yrs 

or less 

447.126Bn 2.642Tn 534.968Bn 594.1864Bn 557.984Bn 11.372Tn

 Source: Bloomberg

In addition, the Petition references 2-year sovereign CDS spreads from April 2018 to April 2023 for 

the same six jurisdictions. Please note that the data set forth in the table for the United States and 

Canada at page 7 of the Petition was inadvertently transposed. The correct data is shown in 

Appendix 1 for each jurisdiction.
Mr. Christopher J. Kirkpatrick

September 22, 2023

Page 2

Please contact me at 202-466-5460 if you have any questions about this letter.

Sincerely,

/Michael R. Sorrell, Jr./______

Deputy General Counsel

FIA

cc: M. Clark Hutchison III, Director, Division of Clearing and Risk

Amanda Olear, Director, Market Participants Division
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 9
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                          10,197
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                           5,961
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                35,725
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                     42,717
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                           5,597
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                             5,588
<LOANS>                                        176,622
<ALLOWANCE>                                      1,602
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 290,566
<DEPOSITS>                                     249,173
<SHORT-TERM>                                     7,635
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                              3,203
<LONG-TERM>                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            49
<OTHER-SE>                                      30,506
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                 290,566
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                 11,711
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                2,524
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                 1,431
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                15,666
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                               6,724
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               6,992
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                            8,674
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                      400
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   2
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                  6,835
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  3,155
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                       2,067
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     2,067
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.43
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.42
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    4.47
<LOANS-NON>                                        849
<LOANS-PAST>                                       253
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                 1,495
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                      361
<RECOVERIES>                                        68
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                1,602
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                             1,602
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0
        

</TABLE>
II-00389

From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

Marilynn Jacob s <mkj santafe@gmail.com>

Thursday, December 2, 2010 9:48 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.

Marilynn Jacobs

Fonda

Santa Fe, NM 87508
Michael PRICE, Individually and in His Official Capacity as Lieutenant of Haywood County Sheriff's Department, et al., petitioners, v. Teresa Ann HENSLEY, et al.

No. 17-1160.

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.
Trevon SYKES, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 16-9604.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 16, 2018.

On petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed *in forma pauperis* and petition for writ of certiorari granted. Judgment vacated, and case remanded to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit for further consideration in light of that court's opinion in *United States v. Naylor,*887 F.3d 397 (CA8 2018).
II-00125

From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

Misty Sweeney-Dull <mmsd 1108@gmail. com>

Saturday, December 4, 2010 11:55 PM

dfadefinitions <dfadefinitions@CFTC.gov>

Re: No loopholes in Dodd-Frank

1) Securities and Exchange Commission/Commodities Futures Trading Commission, Re: Commercial Risk (CFTC RIN

3235-AK65, SEC File Number $7-12-10)

Dear Commissioners Shapiro and Gensler: Don’t let the American Bankers Association (ABA) redefine important terms like

"commercial risk" to keep banks that engage in risky derivatives trading from complying with transparency and business

conduct requirements. Commercial risk should not be expanded to include financial risk. Accepting the ABA argument

would open the door for exemptions for risky hedge funds and insurance companies.

2) Commodities Futures Trading Commission, Re: Position Limits (RIN 3038-AD 17 )

Dear Commissioner Gensler: The CFTC needs to set strong position limits to crack down on the energy and food commodity

speculation that serves no productive purpose. I urge the Commission to define limits that will address not only manipulation,

but also excessive speculation, which will require a stricter approach.

3) U.S. Department of the Treasury, Re: FX Swaps (75 FR 66426 Document Number 2010-27274)

Dear Secretary Geithner: Just say "no" to foreign exchange traders who want to exempt foreign currency derivatives from the

clearing and transparency requirements of the

Dodd-Frank Act. $4 trillion dollars a day is traded in these highly-leveraged swaps and this number may increase to over $10

trillion in a decade. As the head of the Financial

Stability Oversight Board your job is to decrease risk in the system, not encourage off-book trading and opaque markets.

Misty Sweeney-Dull

629 Gardner St

South Beloit, IL 61080