alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 124 (Wednesday, June 27, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Page 34265]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-16156]



[[Page 34265]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

[NAFTA-04554 and NAFTA-4554A]


Haggar Clothing Company Edinburg Manufacturing Waxahachie Garment 
Company Edinburg Direct Garment Company, Inc. Edinburg, TX, Haggar 
Clothing Company Weslaco Operations Weslaco Direct Cutting Company, Inc 
Weslaco Cutting Inc. Weslaco, TX; Amended Certification Regarding 
Eligibility to Apply for NAFTA-Transitional Adjustment Assistance

    In accordance with Section 250(A), Subchapter D, Chapter 2, Title 
II, of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 2273), the Department of Labor 
issued a Certification or NAFTA Transitional Adjustment Assistance on 
May 3, 2001, applicable to workers of Haggar Clothing Company, Edinburg 
Manufacturing, Edinburg, Texas and Haggar Clothing Company, Weslaco 
Operations, Weslaco, Texas. The notice was published in the Federal 
Register on May 18, 2001 (66 FR 27691).
    At the request of the State agency, the Department reviewed the 
certification for workers of the subject firm. The workers are engaged 
in the production of men's coats and pants. New information shows that 
some workers separated from employment at the subject firm had their 
wage reported under two separate unemployment insurance (UI) tax 
accounts: Haggar Clothing Company, Edinburg Manufacturing, Waxahachie 
Garment Company, Edinburg Direct Garment Company, Inc., and Haggar 
Clothing Company, Weslaco Operations, Weslaco Direct Cutting Company, 
Inc., Weslaco Cutting, Inc.
    Accordingly, the Department is amending the certification to 
properly reflect this matter.
    The intent of the Department's certification is to include all 
workers of Haggar Clothing Company, Edinburg Manufacturing, Waxahchie 
Garment Company, Edinburg Direct Garment Company, Inc. and Haggar 
Clothing Company, Weslaco Operations, Weslaco Direct Cutting Company, 
Inc., Weslaco Cutting, Inc. who were adversely affected by a shift of 
Production of men's coats and pants to Mexico.
    The amended notice applicable to NAFTA-04554 and NAFT-4554A is 
hereby issued as follows:

``All workers of Haggar Clothing Company, Edinburg Manufacturing, 
Waxahachie Garment Company, Edinburg Director Garment Company, Inc., 
Einburg, Texas (NAFTA-4554) and Haggar Clothing Company, Weslaco 
Operations Weslaco Direct Cutting Company, Inc., Weslaco Cutting, 
Inc., Weslaco, Texas (NAFTA-4554A) who became totally or partially 
separated from employment on or after May 1, 2001, through May 3, 
2003, are eligible to apply for NAFTA-TAA under Section 250 of the 
Trade Act of 1974.''

    Signed at Washington, D.C. this 8th day of June, 2001.
Edward A. Tomchick,
Director, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. 01-16156 Filed 6-26-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-30-M
James SAMPLE, petitioner, v. PENNSYLVANIA.

No. 16-9492.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 2, 2017.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Superior Court of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia Office denied.

Justice ALITO took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.
David DELVA, aka Sealed Defendant 4, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 17-7739.

Supreme Court of the United States

March 19, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit denied.
EXHIBIT 32.2

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 GSI
Group Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Glenn E. Davis, Principal Financial 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, to the best of my knowledge:



| | (1) | the Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, 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/ Glenn E. DavisGlenn E. DavisPrincipal Financial Officer


March 30, 2011

This Certification shall not be deemed filed for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended,
or otherwise subject to the liability of that section, or incorporated by reference into any of the Companys filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission by implication or by any reference in any such filings to the Report.

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to GSI Group Inc. and will be retained by GSI Group Inc. and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
Andrew U.D. STRAW, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR the SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA.

No. 17-7499.

Supreme Court of the United States

March 19, 2018.

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

 

 

 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

December 19, 2007 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

131035(86) Maura D. Corrigan 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman,

 Justices 

HARVEY GRACE,

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

 SC: 131035 

v COA: 257896 

Oakland CC: 2002-045572-NM 

BRUCE LEITMAN and BRUCE 

LEITMAN, P.C., 

Defendants-Appellees. 

______________________________ 

AMENDMENT TO ORDER 

On order of the Court, the order of December 17, 2007 is amended to correct a 

clerical error. The statement following the text of the order is corrected to read as 

follows: 

“Kelly and Young, Jr., JJ., would grant reconsideration.” 

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

December 19, 2007 

 Clerk
# C_2009297EN.01003102.xml

| 5.12.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 297/31 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.12.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 297/31

---

Action brought on 9 October 2009 — Deutsche Bahn v OHIM (Combination of the colours grey and red)

(Case T-404/09)

2009/C 297/47

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Deutsche Bahn AG (Berlin, Germany) (represented by U. Hildebrandt, K. Schmidt-Hern and B. Weichhaus, lawyers)

Applicant:

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

Defendant:

Forms of order sought

Forms of order sought

| — | Annulment of the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 23 July 2009 (Case R 379/2009-1); |
| --- | --- |

—

Annulment of the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 23 July 2009 (Case R 379/2009-1);

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

—

Order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

Community trade mark concerned: A trade mark consisting of the combination of the colours grey and red for services in Class 39 (Application No 6 733 315)

Community trade mark concerned:

Decision of the Examiner: Application refused

Decision of the Examiner:

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed

Decision of the Board of Appeal:

Pleas in law: In its assessment of the mark applied for, the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market applied criteria which are inconsistent with the case-law of the Court of First Instance; it was, in particular, ignored that different criteria are applicable to the registration of colour marks for services than for goods.

Pleas in law:

---
Julio Cesar REYES, petitioner, v. W.L. MONTGOMERY, Warden.

No. 15-9422.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 3, 2016.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.
CFTC Staff Roundtable on Non-Intermediation Participants (May 25, 2022) 

Name Entity Representing Title

1. Michael Winnike BlackRock Director, Market Structure

2. Todd Phillips Center for American Progress Director, Financial Regulation and Corporate 

Governance

3. Stephen Berger Citadel Managing Director, Global Head of Government & 

Regulatory Policy

4. Biswarup Chatterjee Citi Managing Director, Head of Innovation, Global 

Markets

5. Sean Downey CME Executive Director, Clearing, Risk & Capital Policy

6. Christine Parker Coinbase Vice President, Deputy General Counsel, U.S. Legal

7. Chris Perkins CoinFund Management LLC President

8. Graham Harper DRW Head of Public Policy and Market Structure 

9. Thomas Chippas Eris Clearing LLC Chief Executive Officer

10. Mariam Rafi FIA Global Head of Clearing, Citi

11. Dave Olsen FIA Principal Traders Group President and Chief Investment Officer, Jump 

Trading Group

12. Neil Constable FMR Co. Head of Quantitative Research and Investments

13. Sam Bankman-Fried FTX Chief Executive Officer and Founder

14. Robert Creamer Geneva Trading President and Chief Executive Officer

15. Alicia Crighton Goldman Sachs Global Co-Head of Futures and Head of OTC and 

Prime Clearing Businesses

16. Chris Edmonds ICE Chief Development Officer

17. Ann Battle International Swaps and Derivatives 

Association

Senior Counsel, Market Transitions

18. Emma Richardson JP Morgan Managing Director, Global Head of Product 

Development for Derivatives Clearing 

19. Claire O'Dea LCH Director, Government Relations and Regulatory 

Strategy, Americas, London Stock Exchange Group

20. Jennifer Han Managed Funds Association Executive Vice President, Chief Counsel, Head of 

Global Regulatory Affairs

21. Thomas Wipf Morgan Stanley Vice Chairman of Institutional Securities

22. Nelson Neale National Council of Farmer 

Cooperatives

President, CHS Hedging LLC

23. Thomas W. Sexton III National Futures Association President and Chief Executive Officer

24. Reginald Griffith National Grain and Feed Association Global Head of Regulatory Compliance, Louis 

Dreyfus Company

25. Demetri Karousos Nodal Clear LLC President 

26. Joe Cisewski Pantera Capital General Counsel

27. Gerry Corcoran RJ O'Brien Chairman and Chief Executive Officer

28. Andrew Smith Virtu Senior Vice President, Business Development and 

Market Structure 

29. Hilary Allen Professor of Law, American University, 

Washington College of Law

30. Dennis McLaughlin Independent Risk Management and Clearing 

Expert
Name Entity Representing Title

31. David Murphy Visiting Professor, London School of Economics
# C_2011319EN.01000702.xml

| 29.10.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 319/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.10.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 319/7

---

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 15 September 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom) — Williams and Others v British Airways plc

(Case C-155/10) (1)

1

(Working conditions - Directive 2003/88/EC - Organisation of working time - Right to annual leave - Airline pilots)

2011/C 319/11

Language of the case: English

Referring court

Referring court

Supreme Court of the United Kingdom

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Williams and Others

Applicants:

Defendant: British Airways plc

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Supreme Court of the United Kingdom — Interpretation of Article 7 of Council Directive 93/104/EC of 23 November 1993 concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time (OJ 1993 L 307, p. 18) and of Article 7 of Directive 2003/88/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 November 2003 concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time (OJ 2003 L 299, p. 9) — Scope of the obligations laid down by the directives as to the nature and level of allowances for paid annual leave — Extent of the Member States’ freedom to lay down the conditions therefor — Paid annual leave granted to airline pilots

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

Article 7 of Directive 2003/88/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 November 2003 concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time and Clause 3 of the Agreement annexed to Council Directive 2000/79/EC of 27 November 2000 concerning the European Agreement on the Organisation of Working Time of Mobile Workers in Civil Aviation, concluded by the Association of European Airlines (AEA), the European Transport Workers’ Federation (ETF), the European Cockpit Association (ECA), the European Regions Airline Association (ERA) and the International Air Carrier Association (IACA), must be interpreted as meaning that an airline pilot is entitled, during his annual leave, not only to the maintenance of his basic salary, but also, first, to all the components intrinsically linked to the performance of the tasks which he is required to carry out under his contract of employment and in respect of which a monetary amount, included in the calculation of his total remuneration, is provided and, second, to all the elements relating to his personal and professional status as an airline pilot.

It is for the national court to assess whether the various components comprising that worker’s total remuneration meet those criteria.

---

(1)  OJ C 161, 19.6.2010.

1

---
#### Buck Bowden v. The State.

1. Charge of the Court.—In the absence from the record of any charge to the jury, this court presumes that the law of the case was correctly charged.

2. Aggravated Assault.—The party assaulted was about fifty years of age, with one arm disabled by disease. *Held,*that he was “decrepit,” within the meaning of Article 6586, 2 Paschal’s Digest.

3. Statement of Facts.—When, in consequence of disagreement of the attorneys, the judge alone certifies to the statement of facts, it is not necessary that his certificate shall show that the attorneys failed to agree upon a statement.

Appeal from the County Court of Wise. Tried below before the Hon. J. W. Patterson, County Judge.

The opinion states the case.

*W. J. Sparks,*for the appellant.

*George McCormick,*Assistant Attorney General, for the State.

White, J.

The appellant in this case was indicted for an aggravated assault, under subdivision 4, Article 6536 *57Paschal’s Digest, which reads as follows: “When committed by a person of robust health or strength upon one who is aged or decrepit.” He was tried, found guilty, and his punishment assessed at a fine of $100.

There is no charge of the court, to be found in the record, and the presumption is that the law of the case was charged correctly.

The evidence shows the party assaulted to have been about fifty years of age, disabled by rheumatism to such an extent that he was compelled to carry his arm in an unnatural position, and in such a manner as to render it almost, if not entirely, useless to him in a personal difficulty.

Whilst his condition might not come, technically, within the meaning of the word "decrepit" as defined by Mr. "Webster, yet, as testified to by witnesses on the trial, it may, with propriety, be said that it fell in the measure of that word as used in common acceptation.

The statement of facts in this case was not agreed upon or signed by the attorneys representing the parties, but was certified to by the judge, without the fact being made to appear that it was so made and certified to after a failure of the attorneys to agree. The assistant attorney general seems to conclude that on this account it should not be treated or considered as a legitimate statement of facts under the statute. Pasc. Dig., Arts. 3138, 1490. When a similar question was raised in the case of *Kelso*v. *Town*send, 13 Texas, 140, Lipscomb, J., said: “We believe that the implied right would be in the judge to certify, under his seal, a correct statement of the facts. It will be recollected that it is only in the case where the parties cannot agree that the judge is required to give his statement of the facts under his seal. When they agree, and he approves, he is only required to sign the same. The fact that in this case he certifies to the facts would create the presumption, or at any rate strengthen it, that the parties *58had not agreed to a statement of the facts.” See, also, *Bateman*v. Bateman, 16 Texas, 545.

The judgment of the court below is affirmed.

*Affirmed.*
II-Olll5

From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

Joseph Tripician <joetrip@aol.com>

Thursday, December 2, 2010 8:09 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-AK6! 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.

Joseph Tripician

575 Main Street

Roosevelt Islant, NY 10044
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





I, George A. McQuain, the President and
Chief Executive Officer of Global Axcess Corp (the "Company"), certify, pursuant
to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that
to the best of my knowledge:





(1) the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q
of the Company for the second quarter ended June 30, 2009 (the "Report") fully
complies with the requirements of Section 13 (a) or 15 (d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); 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 4, 2009





/s/
      George A. McQuainName:
      George A. McQuainTitle:
      President and Chief Executive
Officer
# C_2009205EN.01005002.xml

| 29.8.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 205/50 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.8.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 205/50

---

Action brought on 26 June 2009 — Donati v ECB

(Case F-63/09)

2009/C 205/93

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Paola Donati (Frankfurt on Main, Germany) (represented by: L. Levi, M. Vandenbussche, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Central Bank

Defendant:

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Annulment of the ECB’s decision not to take further action on the claims relating to alleged psychological harassment suffered by the applicant, and compensation for the non-material harm suffered.

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Tribunal should:

| — | annul the decision of the Board of Directors of 16 December 2008 in so far as it involves a threat and an attempt to intimidate the applicant; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of the Board of Directors of 16 December 2008 in so far as it involves a threat and an attempt to intimidate the applicant;

| — | annul the decision of the Board of Directors of 16 December 2008 in so far as it does not contain a decision on the result of the administrative investigation and on the final outcome of the applicant’s complaint; in the alternative, annul the Board of Director’s decision of 16 December 2008 in so far as it contains an ‘implied’ decision to take no further action on the applicant’s complaint and not to adopt subsequent measures, in particular not to open disciplinary proceedings; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of the Board of Directors of 16 December 2008 in so far as it does not contain a decision on the result of the administrative investigation and on the final outcome of the applicant’s complaint; in the alternative, annul the Board of Director’s decision of 16 December 2008 in so far as it contains an ‘implied’ decision to take no further action on the applicant’s complaint and not to adopt subsequent measures, in particular not to open disciplinary proceedings;

| — | annul, so far as is necessary, the decision of 16 April 2008 rejecting the applicant’s ‘special appeal’; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul, so far as is necessary, the decision of 16 April 2008 rejecting the applicant’s ‘special appeal’;

| — | order the defendant to pay compensation for the non-material harm suffered, assessed on equitable principles at EUR 10 000; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to pay compensation for the non-material harm suffered, assessed on equitable principles at EUR 10 000;

| — | order the European Central Bank to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the European Central Bank to pay the costs.

---