alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2010113EN.01001402.xml

| 1.5.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 113/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.5.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 113/14

---

Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 4 March 2010 — European Commission v Kingdom of Belgium

(Case C-258/09) (1)

1

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 2008/1/EC - integrated pollution prevention and control - Failure to transpose within the prescribed period)

2010/C 113/20

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: A. Alcover San Pedro and A. Marghelis, Agents)

Applicant:

Defendant: Kingdom of Belgium (represented by: T. Materne, Agent)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Failure to adopt or communicate, within the prescribed period, the measures necessary to comply, in the Walloon Region, with 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) — Existing installations liable to have an effect on emissions into the air, water and soil and on pollution.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Declares that, by authorising, in the Walloon Region, the operation of existing installations which do not comply with the requirements laid down in Articles 3, 7, 9, 10, 13, 14(a) and (b) and 15(2) of Directive 2008/1/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 January 2008 concerning integrated pollution prevention and control, despite the time-limit of 30 October 2007 as laid down in Article 5(1) of that directive, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under the directive; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Declares that, by authorising, in the Walloon Region, the operation of existing installations which do not comply with the requirements laid down in Articles 3, 7, 9, 10, 13, 14(a) and (b) and 15(2) of Directive 2008/1/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 January 2008 concerning integrated pollution prevention and control, despite the time-limit of 30 October 2007 as laid down in Article 5(1) of that directive, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under the directive;

| 2. | Orders the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 220, 12.9.2009.

1

---
```

[Federal Register: September 20, 2004 (Volume 69, Number 181)]
[Notices]
[Page 56201]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr20se04-44]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION


Sunshine Act Meetings

Time and Date: 11 a.m., Friday, October 22, 2004.

Place: 1155 21st St., NW,. Washington, DC, 9th Floor Commission
Conference Room.

Status: Closed.

Matters To Be Considered: Surveillance Matters.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jean A. Webb, 202-418-5100.

Jean A. Webb,
Secretary of the Commission.
[FR Doc. 04-21147 Filed 9-16-04; 9:43 am]
BILLING CODE 6351-01-M
```
FIRST RESOLUTION INVESTMENT CORP., et al., petitioners, v. Sandra TAYLOR-JARVIS.

No. 16-362.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 31, 2016.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Ohio denied.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA MIDDLE DISTRICT COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, Respondent

v. MARCELO RIVERA, Petitioner : : : : : : : : : : : No. 317 MAL 2014 Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER PER CURIAM AND NOW , this 23rd day of September, 2014, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is DENIED
.
II-00732

From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

Dianne Douglas <ragdoll7@juno.com>

Thursday, December 2, 2010 11:54 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.

Dianne Douglas

2723 E Valencia Drive

Phoenix, AZ 85042
MEETING OF THE CFTC AGRICULTURAL

ADVISORY COMMITTEE 

Other New Business 

• Dan Rutherford, Office of Customer 

Education and Outreach 

• Christa Lachenmayr, Division of

Market Oversight 

– USDA Liaison Report 

– AAC Subcommittee Update 

• Member comments/questions 

September 24, 2020 
Agricultural Customer Education 

September 24, 2020 
 

 

 

 

 

Disclaimer

This presentation is being made by a representative of

the Commodity Futures Trading Commission on behalf

of the Commission for educational and informational 

purposes only. It does not constitute legal interpretation,

guidance or advice of the Commission. 

Any opinions or views stated by the presenter are his/her

own and may not represent the Commission’s views.

References in this presentation to studies, news reports,

or the use of any organization, trade, firm, or corporation 

name do not constitute endorsements, 

recommendations, or favoring by the CFTC. 

9/24/2020 45 
Agricultural Customer Resources 

cftc.gov/agriculture 

• Checklists 

• Advisories & Articles 

• CFTC Data and Research 

• Third-party Resources 

9/24/2020 46 
Getting Started: Checklists 

Bulk orders: https://orders.gpo.gov/cftcpubs.aspx 

or consumers@cftc.gov 

9/24/2020 47 
Advisories & Articles: Timely Education 

and Anti-Fraud Information 

9/24/2020 48 
 

 

Data & Research 

• Quick access to relevant CFTC data and 

research findings: 

– Commitments of Traders 

– Cotton On-Call 

– Who Participates in Agricultural Futures 

Markets – And How? Robe, Roberts. 2019. 

– The End of an Era: Who Pays the Price when 

the Livestock Futures Pits Close? Gousgounis, 

Onur. 2020. 

9/24/2020 49 
 

 

 

 

External Resources 

Don’t need to reinvent the wheel. 

Highlight resources from: 

• USDA 

• CME Group 

• University of Illinois, Kansas State, 

University of Minnesota 

• Annie’s Project 

9/24/2020 50 
 

 

 

 

 

Moving Forward 

• Risk Management Planning Guide 

– Videos to assist with learning 

• Research and reports 

• Timely publications and articles about fraud 

trends affecting producers, and other key 

topics. 

• Event announcements 

– Roundtables, listening sessions, public 

presentations, trade shows and conferences 

9/24/2020 Privileged and Confidential 51 
 

 

 

 

 

Other Education & Outreach 

• Coronavirus response: 4 customer advisories; 3 web 

articles 

• World Investor Week, October 5-11 

• Newly redesigned Learn & Protect section 

– RED List, Advisories & Articles, Publications and Videos. 

• Social media outreach 

• Collaborate with Federal, International, and private sector 

partners 

– FLEC, IOSCO, Futures Fundamentals 

9/24/2020 Privileged and Confidential 52
II-00320

From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

Art Hanson <ahanson47@comcast.net>

Friday, December 3, 2010 2:43 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.

Art Hanson

1815 Briarwood Dr.

Lansing, MI 48917-1773
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

# AGENCY:

Department of Defense.

# ACTION:

Notice of advisory committee meeting date change. 

# SUMMARY:

On Thursday, February 22, 2001 (66 FR 11158), the Department of Defense announced a closed meeting of the Defense Science Board (DSB) Task Force on Precision Targeting. This meeting has been rescheduled from July 26-27, 2001 to July 25-26, 2001. The meeting will be held at SAIC, 4001 N. Fairfax Drive, Arlington, VA.

Dated: June 21, 2001.

L.M. Bynum,

Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.

[FR Doc. 01-16031  Filed 6-26-01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 5001-08-M
Kenneth RIVERA, petitioner, v. Bryan STIRLING, et al.

No. 16-9362.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 2, 2017.

*119Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

WESTERN DISTRICT

DORMONT MANUFACTURING COMPANY,

Petitioner

v.

ERIE INSURANCE COMPANY A/S/O

DAVID AND SUSAN LOMBARDO, AND

DAVID AND SUSAN LOMBARDO,

Respondents :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 2 WM 2020

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 8th day of May , 2020, the “ Application for Leave to File Reply

Brief ” is GRANTED, and the Petition for Allowance of Appeal, treated as a Petition for

Review, is DENIED.
II-00226

From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

Ruth Shuvalov <rshuvalov03 @gmail.com>

Friday, December 3, 2010 2:50 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.

Ruth Shuvalov

293 Misenheimer Dr NW

Concord, NC 28025
# C_2011269EN.01001101.xml

| 10.9.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 269/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.9.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 269/11

---

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 14 July 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Højesteret — Denmark) — Viking Gas A/S v Kosan Gas A/S, formerly BP Gas A/S

(Case C-46/10) (1)

1

(Trade marks - Directive 89/104/EEC - Articles 5 and 7 - Gas bottles protected as a three-dimensional mark - Placing on the market by an exclusive licensee - Business activity of a competitor of the licensee consisting in the refilling of those bottles)

2011/C 269/17

Language of the case: Danish

Referring court

Referring court

Højesteret

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Viking Gas A/S

Applicant:

Defendant: Kosan Gas A/S, formerly BP Gas A/S

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Højesteret — Interpretation of Articles 5 and 7 of First Council Directive 89/104/EEC of 21 December 1988 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks (OJ 1989 L 40, p. 1) — Placing on the market, by an exclusive licensee, of a composite gas bottle the shape of which is registered as a three-dimensional national and Community trade mark constituted by its packaging — Business activity of a competitor of the licensee consisting in the refilling of the licensee’s composite gas bottles and the sale of gas in those bottles after affixing to them an adhesive label indicating that the bottles have been filled by the competitor but without having removed the figurative and word marks of the exclusive licensee

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

Articles 5 and 7 of First Council Directive 89/104/EEC of 21 December 1988 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks must be interpreted as meaning that the holder of an exclusive licence for the use of composite gas bottles intended for re-use, the shape of which is protected as a three-dimensional mark and to which the holder has affixed its own name and logo that are registered as word and figurative marks, may not prevent those bottles, after consumers have purchased them and consumed the gas initially contained in them, from being exchanged by a third party, on payment, for composite bottles filled with gas which does not come from the holder of that licence, unless that holder is able to rely on a proper reason for the purposes of Article 7(2) of Directive 89/104.

---

(1)  OJ C 80, 27.3.2010.

1

---
James BRANCH, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 17-7878.

Supreme Court of the United States

March 26, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.
# C_2015190EN.01000801.xml

| 8.6.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 190/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.6.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 190/8

---

Judgment of the General Court of 22 April 2015 — Planet v Commission

(Case T-320/09) (1)

((Protection of the financial interests of the Union - Early warning system (EWS) enabling identification of the level of risk associated with contractors - OLAF enquiry into the performance of a public contract concerning an institutional modernisation project in Syria - Decisions to activate W1a and W1b warnings - Legal basis - Fundamental rights - Obligation to state reasons))

(2015/C 190/08)

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Applicant: Planet AE Anonymi Etairia Parochis Simvouleftikon Ipiresion (Athens, Greece) (represented by: V. Christianos, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: D. Triantafyllou and F. Dintilhac, Agents)

Re:

Application for annulment of the decisions of the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) requesting the applicant’s registration in the early warning system (‘EWS’), by activation initially of a W1a warning and subsequently of a W1b warning.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls the decisions of the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) requesting the registration of Planet AE Anonymi Etairia Parochis Simvouleftikon Ipiresion in the early warning system (EWS), and those of the European Commission concerning the activation of a W1a warning and a W1b warning concerning that undertaking; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decisions of the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) requesting the registration of Planet AE Anonymi Etairia Parochis Simvouleftikon Ipiresion in the early warning system (EWS), and those of the European Commission concerning the activation of a W1a warning and a W1b warning concerning that undertaking;

| 2. | Orders the Commission to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the Commission to pay the costs.

---

(1)  
  OJ C 267, 7.11.2009.

---
# C_2009055EN.01005301.xml

| 7.3.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 55/53 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.3.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 55/53

---

Action brought on 9 January 2009 — Putterie-de-Beukelaer v Commission

(Case F-1/09)

(2009/C 55/96)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Françoise Putterie-de-Beukelaer (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: E. Boigelot, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Defendant:

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Annulment of the decision not to admit the applicant to the 2007 attestation procedure.

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Tribunal should:

| — | Annul the Appointing Authority's decision of 30 September 2008 to reject the applicant's complaint relating to the decision that her application for the 2007 attestation procedure was inadmissible; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the Appointing Authority's decision of 30 September 2008 to reject the applicant's complaint relating to the decision that her application for the 2007 attestation procedure was inadmissible;

| — | Annul the Appointing Authority's decision that her application for the 2007 attestation procedure was inadmissible; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the Appointing Authority's decision that her application for the 2007 attestation procedure was inadmissible;

| — | order the Commission of the European Communities to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission of the European Communities to pay the costs.

---
# C_2011252EN.01000701.xml

| 27.8.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 252/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.8.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 252/7

---

Order of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 1 March 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de première instance de Liège — Belgium) — Claude Chartry v Etat belge

(Case C-457/09) (1)

1

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 234 EC - Assessing whether a national rule is consistent with both European Union law and the national Constitution - National legislation laying down the priority nature of preliminary proceedings for reviewing constitutionality - Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Need for a connection with European Union law - Clear lack of jurisdiction of the Court)

2011/C 252/10

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Referring court

Tribunal de première instance de Liège

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Claude Chartry

Applicant:

Defendant: Etat belge

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Tribunal de première instance de Liège — Interpretation of Article 6 EU and of Article 234 EC — Mandatory reference by national courts to the Belgian Constitutional Court for a preliminary ruling in cases of presumed infringement of fundamental rights by national legislation — Validity, under Community law, of the provision requiring such reference — Infringement of the principle of effective judicial protection and of the rights of the defence if the ordinary courts may not review the national rules’ compliance with the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms — Time-barring of recovery under tax assessments raised by the tax authority in respect of ‘profits from self-employment’

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

The Court of Justice of the European Union clearly has no jurisdiction to reply to the question referred by the tribunal de première instance de Liège (Belgium).

---

(1)  OJ C 37, 13.2.2010.

1

---
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 Adolor Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Michael R.
Dougherty, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to 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 Exchange Act of 1934; and

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



|                                     
|-------------------------------------
|/s/ MICHAEL R. DOUGHERTY             
|Michael R. Dougherty                 
|President and Chief Executive Officer

Date: February 26, 2009