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

Sent: 

Rich at Tremont [rich@tremont.coop] 

Wednesday, January 16, 2008 4:41 PM 

To: secretary _ J 1::-c. r;-;;::: ;:;;::c;'U:::r:~.Ri rq 

Subject: CFTC increase in Federal Speculative Position Limits ' ' 

Attachments: January 11 CFTC response.doc 

Mr. David Stawick, Secretary 

Commodity Futures Trading Commission 

Three Lafayette Center 

1155 21st Street NW. 

Washington, DC 20581 

Dear Mr. Stawick: 

Page 1 of 1 

,.• ~ ' 

COMMENT 

I am writing to discuss an issue of great importance to my business as an Illinois country grain 

elevator. The Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) is proposing to double the speculative 

position limits for corn,· soybeans, and wheat on the Chicago Board of Trade as well as the other grain 

exchanges. Over the years we have seen increases in these limits that have encouraged more and more 

speculators to trade larger blocks of futures contracts that at times distort the futures prices vs. the 

cash prices that we quote farmers. Currently these distortions are causing disruptions in our normal 

course of business and potentially could cause us to abandon using the CBOT and upset the price discovery 

mechanism which is the basis on which we quote grain prices to farmers. We must not let this happen to 

US agriculture. 

I am asking you to deny the implementation of this proposal. We need to preserve the relationship of 

futures prices to cash prices to allow convergence for the producers, merchants, and end users of our 

grain commodities. 

I am attaching a copy of a letter written by Advance Trading, Inc from Bloomington, Illinois which 

details much more clearly than I could, the risk to us agriculture of this proposal. 

Thank you for your time and consideration. Please call me at 309-925-2641 if you have any questions 

regarding this issue. 

Sincerely, 

Richard Sauder, Manager 

Tremont Coop Grain Co. 

1/16/2008
# C o u rt o f

A p p ea ls

o f t h e S t a te o f

G eo rg ia

ATLANTA,_

_ _ __ _ _ __ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ __ _

Th e Co u rt

o f Ap p ea l s h er eb y p a s s es t h e f

o ll owi n g o r der :

A1 7 D0 06 9 . W I LLI AM J . HENDERSON v . THE STATE.

In 2 0 0 0

, W i ll i am J

. H en d ers o n p l ed g u il t y t o m u rd er an d o t h er ch arg es . Th e Su p rem e Co u rt lat er affi rm ed t h e t ri al co u rt ’ s d en i al o f h i s m o t i on fo r o u t -o f-t i m e

ap p eal

. Hen d

er s o n v

. S t a t e , 2 9 3 G a. 6 (7 4 3 SE2 d 1 9 ) (2 0 1 3 ). Hen d ers on h as n o w fi led an ap p l i cat i o n fo r d i s cret io n ary ap p eal i n t h i s Co u rt

, seek i n g rev i ew o f t h e t ri al

co u rt ’ s d en i al o f h i s m o ti o n i n arres t o f ju dg m en t . W e l ack ju ri s d ict i o n

. Un d e r o u r Co n st i t u t io n , t h e Su p rem e Co u rt h as ap p el l at e ju ri s d ict i o n o v er

“ [a] l l cas e s i n wh i ch a s en t en ce o f deat h was im p o s ed o r co u l d b e i m

p o s ed .” Ga.

Co n s t

. o f 1 9 8 3, Art

. VI, Sec. VI, Par. III (8 ). Becau s e a p en al t y of d eat h can b e i m p o s ed fo r t h e cri m e o f m urd er, ju ri s d ict i o n i s pro p er i n t h e S u p r e m e Co u rt

. See

OCGA § 1 7 -1 0 -3 0 (b ); Nea l v. S t a t e , 29 0 G a. 5 6 3

, 5 7 2 (7 22 SE2 d 7 6 5 ) (2 0 1 2 ) (Hu ns t ei n , C. J., co n cu rri n g ); see al s o S t a t e v. Th o r n t o n , 2 5 3 Ga. 5 2 4 (1 ) (3 2 2 SE2 d

7 1 1 ) (1 9 8 4 ) (d i rect i n g t hi s Co u rt t o t ran s fer “ al l cas es i n wh i ch ei t h er a s en t en ce o f

d eat h o r o f l ife i m

p ri s o n m en t h as b een i m p o s e d u po n co n vi ct i o n o f m u rd er”).

Acco r d i n g l y , Hen d ers o n ’ s ap p l i cat i o n is h ereb y TRANSFERRED t o th e Su p rem e Co u rt fo r d i s po s it i o n

.

C o u r t o f A p p e a l s o f t h e S t a t e o

f G e o r g ia

C le r k ’ s O f f i c e

, A t la n t a

,

_

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ I c e r t i f y t h a t t h e a b o v e i s a tr u e e x t r a c t f r o m

t h e m i n u t e s o

f t h e C o u r t o

f A p p e a l s o f G e o r g i a

. W i tn e s s m y s i g n a t u r e a n d t h e s e a l o

f s a i d c o u r t

h e r e t o a f f i x e d t h e d a y a n d y e a r l a s t a b o v e w r i t t e n

.

, C l e r k

. 09/22/2016 September 22, 2016
II-00962

From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

Fran Larson <flarsonl @juno.com>

Thursday, December 2, 2010 9:39 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.

Fran Larson

1060 Terra Nova Blvd 112A

Pacifica, CA 94044
II-00998

From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

Andrew Rudin <andrewrudin@earthlink.net>

Thursday, December 2, 2010 9:18 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.

Andrew Rudin

7217 Oak Avenue

Melrose Park, PA 19027
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 Quarterly Report of PW Eagle, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), I, Jerry A. Dukes, Chief
Executive Officer, of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §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.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Dated: August 11, 2005



/S/     JERRY A.
DUKESJerry A. Dukes Chief Executive Officer
# C_2009141EN.01002803.xml

| 20.6.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 141/28 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.6.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 141/28

---

Action brought on 1 April 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Belgium

(Case C-120/09)

2009/C 141/50

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: M. van Beek and J.-B. Laignelot, acting as Agents)

Applicant:

Defendant: Kingdom of Belgium

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | Declare that, by failing to transpose into Walloon law Article 2(f), (j) and (k) of, and point 4C of Annex III to, Council Directive 1999/31/EC of 26 April 1999 on the landfill of waste, (1) the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive; |
| --- | --- |

—

Declare that, by failing to transpose into Walloon law Article 2(f), (j) and (k) of, and point 4C of Annex III to, Council Directive 1999/31/EC of 26 April 1999 on the landfill of waste, (1) the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

1

| — | order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

The European Commission raises two grounds of complaint in support of its action.

First, it alleges that the defendant has not transposed into the law of the Walloon Region the concepts of ‘underground storage’, ‘landfill gas’ and ‘eluate’ provided for by the provisions of Article 2(f), (j) and (k) of Directive 1999/31/EC on the landfill of waste. The Commission draws attention to the importance of those concepts which, being key concepts for the application of the directive, are also referred to in other provisions adopted on the basis of and in application of that directive.

Secondly, the applicant complains that Walloon law does not include any provisions relating to the trigger levels from which it can be considered that the location of the landfill has a significant adverse effect on groundwater quality. Point 4C of Annex III to the directive, which provides for the drawing up of such provisions, is crucially important in order to ensure effective control of groundwater quality and, consequently, to guarantee the protection of the environment which constitutes the essential objective of the directive.

---

(1)  OJ 1999 L 182, p. 1.

1

---
# C_2009069EN.01004801.xml

| 21.3.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 69/48 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.3.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 69/48

---

Action brought on 15 January 2009 — Euro-Information v OHIM (EURO AUTOMATIC CASH)

(Case T-15/09)

(2009/C 69/105)

Language in which the application was lodged: French

Parties

Applicant: Européenne de traitement de l'Information (Euro-Information) (Strasbourg, France) (represented by: A. Grolée, lawyer)

Applicant:

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

Defendant:

Form of order sought

| — | annulment of the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 18 November 2008, Case R 70/2006-4, in that it refused registration of the Community trade mark application EURO AUTOMATIC CASH No 4 114 864 with regard to the entirety of the goods and services claimed in Classes 9, 35, 36, 37, 38 and 42; |
| --- | --- |

—

annulment of the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 18 November 2008, Case R 70/2006-4, in that it refused registration of the Community trade mark application EURO AUTOMATIC CASH No 4 114 864 with regard to the entirety of the goods and services claimed in Classes 9, 35, 36, 37, 38 and 42;

| — | registration of the application for Community trade mark EURO AUTOMATIC CASH No 4 114 864 for all the goods and services referred to in the application filed; |
| --- | --- |

—

registration of the application for Community trade mark EURO AUTOMATIC CASH No 4 114 864 for all the goods and services referred to in the application filed;

| — | OHIM to be ordered to pay the costs of the applicant incurred in the proceedings before OHIM and in the present action, under Article 87 of the Rules of Procedure. |
| --- | --- |

—

OHIM to be ordered to pay the costs of the applicant incurred in the proceedings before OHIM and in the present action, under Article 87 of the Rules of Procedure.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘EURO AUTOMATIC CASH’ for goods and services in Classes 9, 35, 36, 37, 38 and 42 — application No 4 114 864

Community trade mark concerned:

Decision of the Examiner: Refusal of the application for registration

Decision of the Examiner:

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal

Decision of the Board of Appeal:

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) and of Article 7(2) of Council Regulation No 40/94, since the trade mark applied for is not descriptive and has the necessary distinctive character.

Pleas in law:

---
# C_2010209EN.01003803.xml

| 31.7.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 209/38 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

31.7.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 209/38

---

Order of the General Court of 3 June 2010 — Z v Commission

(Case T-173/09) (1)

1

(Access to documents - Inadmissibility - Injunction)

2010/C 209/59

Language of the case: German

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Z (Hannoversch Münden, Germany) (represented by: C. Grau and N. Jäger, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: A. Bouquet, V. Bottka and R. Sauer, agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Require the Commission, first, to indicate to the applicant, by granting it access the file of the procedure in Case COMP/39.406 (Tuyaux marins) and in particular by making available a copy of Commission's decision of 28 January 2009 imposing a fine, if the applicant is mentioned by name in that decision and, if so, to state the context in which its name is mentioned, second, to remove, in a manner to be specified after the granting of access to the file, the mention of its name in the Commission's decision of 28 January 2009 and, third, not to mention it by name and refrain from making any reference to its name in the non-confidential version of the decision of 28 January 2009.

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

The Court:

| 1. | Dismissed the action as inadmissible. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismissed the action as inadmissible.

| 2. | Orders Z to pay the costs, including those of the application for interim measures |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Z to pay the costs, including those of the application for interim measures

---

(1)  OJ C 167, 18.7.2009.

1

---
# C_2009267EN.01007001.xml

| 7.11.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 267/70 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.11.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 267/70

---

Action brought on 25 August 2009 — Novartis v OHIM — Sanochemia Pharmazeutika AG

(Case T -331/09)

2009/C 267/128

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Novartis AG (Basel, Switzerland) (represented by: N. Hebeis, lawyer)

Applicant:

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

Defendant:

Other part to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Sanochemia Pharmazeutika AG

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

Form of order sought

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 18 June 2009 in Case R 1601/2007-1; and |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 18 June 2009 in Case R 1601/2007-1; and

| — | Order the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: Sanochemia Pharmazeutika AG

Applicant for a Community trade mark:

Community trade mark concerned: the word mark, ‘TOLPOSAN’ for goods in Class 5 (Registration No 4 134 383)

Community trade mark concerned:

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

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

Mark or sign cited in opposition: the international registration of the word mark ‘TONOPAN’ for goods in Class 5 (No 227 508)

Mark or sign cited in opposition:

Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition dismissed

Decision of the Opposition Division:

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed

Decision of the Board of Appeal:

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (1), since there is no likelihood of confusion between the trade marks at issue.

Pleas in law:

1

---

(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark (OJ 2009 L 78, p. 1).

1

---
Sonny Lamarr PHILLIPS, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 16-9394.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 2, 2017.

*124Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit denied.
# C_2010024EN.01006301.xml

| 30.1.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 24/63 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.1.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 24/63

---

Action brought on 27 November 2009 — Oetker Nahrungsmittel v OHIM — Bonfait (Buonfatti)

(Case T-471/09)

2010/C 24/111

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Dr. August Oetker Nahrungsmittel KG (Bielefeld, Germany) (represented by: F. Graf von Stosch, 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: Bonfait BV

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

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | Annul the Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market of 2 October 2009 in Case R 340/2007-4 concerning opposition No B 871 121; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market of 2 October 2009 in Case R 340/2007-4 concerning opposition No B 871 121;

| — | order the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market to pay the costs of the proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: Oetker Nahrungsmittel

Applicant for a Community trade mark:

Community trade mark concerned: Word mark ‘Buonfatti’ for goods in Classes 29 and 30 (Application No 3 939 915)

Community trade mark concerned:

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

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

Mark or sign cited in opposition: in particular, the Benelux word mark ‘Bonfait’ No 393 133 and the figurative Community trade mark ‘Bonfait’ No 648 816 for goods in Classes 29 and 30

Mark or sign cited in opposition:

Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejection of the opposition

Decision of the Opposition Division:

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Annulment of the decision of the Opposition Decision and refusal of the application to register

Decision of the Board of Appeal:

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009, (1) since there is no likelihood of confusion between the conflicting trade marks

Pleas in law:

1

---

(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark (OJ 2009 L 78, p. 1)

1

---
Phillip W. MOORE, petitioner, v. Julie L. JONES, Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections, et al.

No. 17-7553.

Supreme Court of the United States

Feb. 26, 2018.

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.                  

###### Federal Emergency Management Agency

          - [FEMA-1378-DR]

# AGENCY:

Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA).

# ACTION:

Notice.

# SUMMARY:

This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration for the State of West Virginia, (FEMA-1378-DR), dated June 3, 2001, and related determinations.

# EFFECTIVE DATE:

June 18, 2001.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Madge Dale, Response and Recovery Directorate, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-3772.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The notice of a major disaster declaration for the State of West Virginia is hereby amended to include the following area among those areas determined to have been adversely affected by the catastrophe declared a major disaster by the President in his declaration of June 3, 2001:
      ( print page 33964)    

## Preston County for Individual Assistance

(The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA) are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 83.537, Community Disaster Loans; 83.538, Cora Brown Fund Program; 83.539, Crisis Counseling; 83.540, Disaster Legal Services Program; 83.541, Disaster Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 83.542, Fire Suppression Assistance; 83.543, Individual and Family Grant (IFG) Program; 83.544, Public Assistance Grants; 83.545, Disaster Housing Program; 83.548, Hazard Mitigation Grant Program.)

Lacy E. Suiter,

Assistant Director, Readiness, Response and Recovery Directorate.

[FR Doc. 01-15930 Filed 6-25-01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6718-02-P