alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 14 (Monday, January 22, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Page 6638]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-1628]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Cancer Institute; Notice of Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of 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 contract proposals and the discussions could 
disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as 
patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals 
associated with the contract proposals, the disclosure of which would 
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Cancer Institute Special Emphasis 
Panel, Novel Technologies for Noninvasive Detection, Diagnosis, and 
Treatment of Cancer.
    Date: February 23, 2001.
    Time: 8 am to 5 pm.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate contract proposals.
    Place: National Cancer Institute, 6130 Executive Boulevard, 
Conference Room J, Rockville, MD 20852.
    Contact Person: Lalita D. Palekar, Scientific Review 
Administrator, Special Review, Referral and Resources Branch, 
Division of Extramural Activities, National Cancer Institute, 
National Institutes of Health, 6116 Executive Boulevard, Room 8066, 
Bethesda, MD 20892-7405, (301) 496-7575.


(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.392, 
Cancer Construction; 93.393, Cancer Cause and Prevention Research; 
93.394, Cancer Detection and Diagnosis Research; 93.395, Cancer 
Treatment Research; 93.396, Cancer Biology Research; 93.397, Cancer 
Centers Support; 93.398, Cancer Research Manpower; 93.399, Cancer 
Control, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

    Dated: January 12, 2001.
LaVerne Y. Stringfield,
Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 01-1628 Filed 1-19-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-M
# C_2011370EN.01001202.xml

| 17.12.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 370/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.12.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 370/12

---

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 25 October 2011 — Solvay SA v European Commission

(Case C-109/10 P) (1)

1

(Appeal - Competition - Market in soda ash in the Community - Abuse of dominant position - Infringement of the rights of the defence - Access to the file - Hearing of the undertaking)

2011/C 370/18

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Appellant: Solvay SA (represented by: P. Foriers, R. Jafferali, F. Louis and A. Vallery, avocats)

Appellant:

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: J. Currall and F. Castillo de la Torre, acting as Agents, assisted by N. Coutrelis, avocate)

Other party to the proceedings:

Re:

Re:

Appeal brought against the judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) of 17 December 2009 in Case T-57/01 Solvay v Commission, by which the General Court dismissed the appellants application for the annulment of Commission Decision 2003/6/EC of 13 December 2000 relating to a proceeding pursuant to Article 82 [EC] — Competition — Soda ash market in the Community (excluding the United Kingdom and Ireland) — Abuse of a dominant position — Infringement of the right to be tried within reasonable time — Infringement of procedural rights — Wrong earlier definition of the relevant geographic market — Lack of statement of reasons — Exceptional circumstances showing lack of a dominant position

Solvay

Commission

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Sets aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 17 December 2009 in Case T-57/01 Solvay v Commission; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Sets aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 17 December 2009 in Case T-57/01 Solvay v Commission;

| 2. | Annuls Commission Decision 2003/6/EC of 13 December 2000 relating to a proceeding pursuant to Article 82 of the EC Treaty (COMP/33.133-C: Soda-ash — Solvay); |
| --- | --- |

2.

Annuls Commission Decision 2003/6/EC of 13 December 2000 relating to a proceeding pursuant to Article 82 of the EC Treaty (COMP/33.133-C: Soda-ash — Solvay);

| 3. | Orders the European Commission to pay the costs at first instance and on appeal. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the European Commission to pay the costs at first instance and on appeal.

---

(1)  OJ C 161, 19.6.2010.

1

---
Keith DOUGHERTY, petitioner, v. Chief McKEE, et al.

No. 16-9425.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 2, 2017.

Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed *in forma pauperis* denied, and petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit dismissed. See Rule 39.8.
# C_2011186EN.01001703.xml

| 25.6.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 186/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.6.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 186/17

---

Order of the President of the Court of 11 March 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberverwaltungsgericht für das Land Nordrhein-Westfalen — Germany) — Kashayar Khavand v Bundesrepublik Deutschland

(Case C-563/10) (1)

1

2011/C 186/31

Language of the case: German

The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 38, 5.2.2011.

1

---
EXHIBIT 32.1

SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATIONS

In connection with the Annual Report of DG FastChannel, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-K for the year ended
December 31, 2010, as filed with the SEC on the date hereof (the "Report"), the undersigned, in the capacities and on the dates indicated below, hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to such officer's knowledge: (1) the Report fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and (2) the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
condition and results of operations of the Company.

Date: March 1, 2011

By:

/s/ SCOTT K. GINSBURG Scott K. Ginsburg Chairman of the Board of Directors
and Chief Executive OfficerDate: March 1, 2011

By:

/s/ OMAR A. CHOUCAIR Omar A. Choucair Chief Financial Officer


The
foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 and is not being filed as part of the Report or as a separate disclosure document.

---



QuickLinks
# C_2009069EN.01005001.xml

| 21.3.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 69/50 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.3.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 69/50

---

Action brought on 20 January 2009 — Easycamp v OHIM — Oase Outdoors (EASYCAMP)

(Case T-29/09)

(2009/C 69/109)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Easycamp BV (Amersfoort, The Netherlands) (represented by: C. Beijer, 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: Oase Outdoors ApS (Give, Denmark)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal:

Form of order sought

| — | Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 30 October 2008 in joined cases R 853/2007-1 and R 916/2007-1; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 30 October 2008 in joined cases R 853/2007-1 and R 916/2007-1;

| — | Allow the applicant to continue to use the Community trade mark — application No 3 188 943 for services in class 43; and |
| --- | --- |

—

Allow the applicant to continue to use the Community trade mark — application No 3 188 943 for services in class 43; and

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

—

Order OHIM to pay the costs.

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 figurative mark ‘EASYCAMP’, for services in classes 39, 41 and 43

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: Danish trade mark registration No 199 903 355 of the figurative mark ‘easycamp’ for goods in classes 18, 20, 22, 24, 25 and 28; German trade mark registration No 39 910 614 of the figurative mark ‘easycamp’ for goods in classes 18, 20, 22, 24, 25 and 28; Benelux trade mark registration No 944 316 of the figurative mark ‘easycamp’ for goods in classes 18, 20, 22, 24, 25 and 28; United Kingdom trade mark registration No 2 191 370 of the figurative mark ‘easycamp’ for goods in classes 18, 20, 22, 24, 25 and 28; The unregistered sign ‘easy camp’ used in Denmark and the United Kingdom.

Mark or sign cited:

Decision of the Opposition Division: Partially allowed the opposition

Decision of the Opposition Division:

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeals

Decision of the Board of Appeal:

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation 40/94 as the Board of Appeal wrongly assessed that there was a likelihood of confusion between the trade marks concerned.

Pleas in law:

---
EXHIBIT 23.01

Consent of KPMG LLP, Independent Auditors

The
Board of Directors
Niku Corporation:

We
consent to incorporation by reference in the registration statements (Nos. 333-31318, 333-44988, 333-50184, 333-54404, and 333-56402) on
Forms S-8 and S-3 of Niku Corporation of our report dated February 22, 2001, relating to the consolidated balance sheets of Niku Corporation and subsidiaries as of
January 31, 2001 and 2000, and the related consolidated statements of operations and comprehensive loss, stockholders' equity (deficit), and cash flows for each of the years in the
three-year period ended January 31, 2001, and the related financial statement schedule, which report appears elsewhere herein.

/s/KPMG LLP

Mountain
View, California
April 18, 2001

---
Michael Wayne CHERRY, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 15-9510.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 3, 2016.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit denied.
November 14, 2008 COMMENT 

TO: The Commodity Futures Trading Commission 

RE: Proposed Rules for Trading off the Centralized Market 

To Whom It May Concern: 

My name is Daniel Vassallo and I've been a member ofiCE Futures, U.S. since 2001 

(pre-NYBOT). In that time I've held the position ofbroker, local trader, and currently 

options market-maker. Since I've begun here numerous and swift changes have altered 

the landscape of this dynamic profession, many for the better but some for worse. The 

intent of this letter is to address the latter, in particular, the practice ofblock trading. 

As you are aware, block trading involves a private transaction for a large quantity of a 

given trading product; in my case I will use options as the example. Firstly, I feel this 

practice to be inherently wrong solely due to the fact that it undermines the two true 

constants that our open markets attempt to maintain, price discovery and market 

transparency. Secondly, having been exposed to these trades as a market-maker who 

cannot participate in these "private" transactions, I find these trades to be grossly 

lopsided both in fairness and reasonability. In short, in almost all block trades I've 

witnessed from the trading floor, either the buyer is buying the best price (which is 

quoted by market-makers on the floor) while the seller is selling the worst or vice versa. 

All trades I've witnessed were consummated at prices that could have been filled at 

significantly better prices had they been executed on the trading floor via the open market 

thereby fulfilling the duty of "due diligence" that our floor community prides itself on. 

Given the minimum quantity requirements that are required for block trades to take place 

there are those who are calling merely for an increase in the minimum block requirement 

(currently 250 lots). I personally am calling for a complete abolition of the practice due 

to the fact that it undermines the principles of not only our agricultural markets but also 

the free market economy upon which this country is built. Thank you. 

Sincerely, 

Daniel L. Vassallo 

."':·-·''\ '·· ...
COMMENT 

secretary 

From: Scott Wicks [Scott_Wicks@rembrandtinc.com] 

Sent: Tuesday, January 15, 2008 3:39 PM 

To: secretary 

Cc: Sauder, Trent 

Subject: CFTC 

0 

-~ .. -~ 

(") 

0 

-"'q r :XJ -~·l >~ :!---<-"J Mr. David Stawick, Secretary ::7.;:;:: C) i 'I 

rc-; ·~,..,n 

0... ' '01 

u:. ~-·-i - r·r'i C) -- ..;;._"""' 

0 5: PI .,..= •• i CJ r•; 

-l 9? 9 

Commodity Futures Trading Commission 

Three Lafayette Center _ _, I..·J 

1155 21st Street NW. ~ -......! 

Washington, DC 20581 

Dear Mr. Stawick, 

Please let this letter serve as a supporting document to back the views of Advance Trading regarding 

expansion of speculative positions of the grain complex. This option is not viable for the majority of Point 

of Purchase grain merchandisers/traders/end-users. The first line of all grain transactions occur with 

these groups. These groups have invested Billions of dollars to receive, handle, and store the grain that 

comes to market. It appears that there are two major anomalies that are occurring in this industry that 

are going to radically change production Agriculture. 

1) The government intervention of mandates and subsidies pertaining to corn ethanol. The 

government subsidies will cost our company over $30 million dollars this year due to feed ingredient/grain 

prices reaching unprecedented market highs. We are an end user and procure grain directly from the 

grower. We are now competing with 3 ethanol plants to buy the same corn. The only concern we have is 

that the ethanol plants have a $1.50/bushel advantage over us due to the ethanol subsidy. Please look at 

any stocks/use information and you will see that corn is "over-priced" by at least $1.50/bushel. This is not 

a coincidence. I have still not been able to see the true benefits of reducing foreign dependence on fuels 

using corn ethanol. If the current prices levels are sustained, there is going to be a mass exodus of 

livestock producers and that will lead to unintended consequences of unimaginable proportions. Who is 

going to subsidize the livestock producer? Who is going to bail out the banks that are holding these 

capital notes on facilities? 

2) Hedge funds and speculators have turned against conventional wisdom and influenced the markets 

with sheer volume of money and emotion. The limits were put in place for sound reasons and I for one 

feel that they need to be maintained at current levels. I am not against speculation in the market because 

it can provide good marketing opportunities but strict hedgers/merchandisers are going to have to 

liquidate positions and succumb to huge losses. The losses and risk are larger than the reward for a few 

cents margin. Considering that these people built the infrastructure that allowed grain to move efficiently 

from region to region, I feel that expanding limits is a betrayal and not sound policy. Thanks in advance 

for your consideration. 

Scott Wicks 

1115/2008 
Purchasing 

P.O Box 1008 

1904 Highway 71 North, Suite 200 

Okoboji, Iowa 51355-1008 

712-286-6000 ext. 654 

712-249-0699 Mobile 

scott wicks@rembrandtinc.com 

www.rembrandtinc.net 

1115/2008 

Page 2 of2
Stacey Ian HUMPHREYS, petitioners, v. Eric SELLERS, Warden.

No. 17-7306.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 16, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Georgia denied.
II-O0120

From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

Lee Michelsen <michelsen@gmx. corn>

Sunday, December 5, 2010 8:08 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.

Lee Michelsen

88 Erskine rd

Stamford, CT 6903
Donald BOMAN, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 15-9501.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 3, 2016.

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 *88*Mathis v. United States,* 579 U.S. ----, --- S.Ct. ----, --- L.Ed.2d ---- (2016).
Adrin SMACK, petitioner, v. DELAWARE.

No. 17-7414.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 16, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Delaware denied.
James R. WELCOME, petitioner, v. Ray MABUS, Secretary of the Navy.

No. 16-607.

Supreme Court of the United States

Jan. 9, 2017.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh 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 Defense

###### Office of the Secretary

          - [Transmittal No. 01-03]

# AGENCY:

Department of Defense, Defense Security Cooperation Agency.

# ACTION:

Notice.

# SUMMARY:

The Department of Defense is publishing the unclassified text of a section 36(b)(1) arms sales notification. This is published to fulfill the requirements of section 155 of Public Law 104-164 dated July 21, 1996.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Ms. J. Hurd, DSCA/COMPT/RM, (703) 604-6575.

The following is a copy of a letter to the Speaker of the House of Representatives, Transmittal 01-03 with attached transmittal and policy justification.

Dated: June 21, 2001.

L.M. Bynum,

Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.

      ( print page 34158)          ( print page 34159)          ( print page 34160)    

BILLING CODE 5001-08-M

[FR Doc. 01-16034 Filed 6-26-01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 5001-08-C
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

701 

KA 12-00141 

PRESENT: SCUDDER, P.J., CENTRA, PERADOTTO, CARNI, AND LINDLEY, JJ. 

 

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT, 

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

PRASHANT AGARWAL, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. 

 

JOHN E. TYO, SHORTSVILLE, FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. 

JON E. BUDELMANN, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, AUBURN (CHRISTOPHER T. VALDINA OF

COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT. 

 

Appeal from an order of the Cayuga County Court (Mark H.

Fandrich, A.J.), dated June 20, 2011. The order determined that

defendant is a level two risk pursuant to the Sex Offender

Registration Act. 

It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is

unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: On appeal from an order determining that he is a

level two risk pursuant to the Sex Offender Registration Act

(Correction Law § 168 et seq.), defendant contends that County Court’s

upward departure from his presumptive classification as a level one

risk to a level two risk is not supported by the requisite clear and

convincing evidence (see § 168-n [3]). We reject that contention. 

There is clear and convincing evidence that defendant used the

internet to engage in sexually explicit conversations with an

undercover police officer posing as a 14-year-old girl, instructed her

to masturbate, provided her with Web sites to educate her about sexual

positions, communicated to her that he wanted to engage in sexual

activity with her, and “ ‘exhibited a willingness to act on his

compulsions’ ” by arranging to meet with her and then arriving at the

arranged meeting with various items demonstrating his intent to engage

in sexual activity (People v Blackman, 78 AD3d 803, 804, lv denied 16

NY3d 707). In our view, the People thereby presented evidence of

aggravating factors “ ‘of a kind, or to a degree, not otherwise

adequately taken into account by the [risk assessment] guidelines’ ”

(People v McCollum, 41 AD3d 1187, 1188, lv denied 9 NY3d 807). 

Entered: June 8, 2012 Frances E. Cafarell

Clerk of the Court