alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
II-00189

From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

David Melik >

Friday, December 3, 2010 10:12 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.

David Melik
# C_2011211EN.01000801.xml

| 16.7.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 211/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.7.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 211/8

---

Order of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 8 April 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Craiova (Romania)) — Administrația Finanțelor Publice a Municipiului Târgu-Jiu, Administrația Fondului pentru Mediu v Victor Vinel Ijac

(Case C-336/10) (1)

1

(First subparagraph of Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure - Internal taxation - Article 110 TFEU - Pollution tax levied upon first registration of motor vehicles)

2011/C 211/13

Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Referring court

Curtea de Apel Craiova

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Administrația Finanțelor Publice a Municipiului Târgu-Jiu, Administrația Fondului pentru Mediu

Applicant:

Defendant: Victor Vinel Ijac

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Curtea de Apel Craiova — Registration of second-hand vehicles previously registered in other Member States — Environmental tax levied on motor vehicles upon first registration in a Member State — Whether national legislation is compatible with Article 110 TFEU

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

Article 110 TFEU must be interpreted as precluding a Member State from introducing a pollution tax affecting motor vehicles on their first registration in that Member State, if that fiscal measure is so designed as to discourage the putting into service, in that Member State, of second-hand vehicles bought in other Member States, without, however, discouraging the purchase of second-hand vehicles of the same age and condition on the national market.

---

(1)  OJ C 274, 9.10.2010.

1

---
Commodity Futures Trading Commission 

 Office of Public Affairs 

 Three Lafayette Centre 

 1155 21st Street, NW 

 Washington, DC 20581 

 www.cftc.gov

Proposed Rules Regarding Registration of Swap Dealers and Major Swap 

Participants 

The Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) announced the publication in the Federal Register of 

proposed regulations concerning the registration process for swaps dealers and major swap participants. These 

proposed rules implement provisions of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act.

On July 21, 2010, the Congress passed the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer 

Protection Act. Among other things, section 731 of the Dodd-Frank Act added section 4s to the 

CEA to: 

• Require the registration of persons who are “swap dealers” and “major swap participants.” This requirement is found 

in new CEA section 4s(a). 

• Prohibit a swap dealer or major swap participant from permitting any person to associate with it who is subject to a 

statutory disqualification “if the swap dealer or major swap participant knew, or in the exercise of reasonable care 

should have known, of the statutory disqualification.” This prohibition is found in new CEA section 4s(b)(6). 

Additionally, section 716 of the Dodd-Frank Act prohibits an insured depository institution (IDI) from receiving Federal 

assistance if it is also a swap dealer that engages in swaps activities that are not covered by the exclusion in paragraph (d) of 

that section. 

• Under section 716(c), an IDI can retain its access to Federal assistance if it transfers covered activities to a non-IDI 

affiliate (Push-Out Affiliate) that is a swap dealer or major swap participant, if the affiliate complies with the 

requirements of section 716(c), including such requirements as the CFTC may establish. 

• The Push-Out Affiliate, however, would not have access to Federal assistance. 

Comment period 

On November 10, 2010, the Commission proposed rules to implement section 731 of the Dodd-Frank Act, proposing a 

comprehensive regulatory scheme for the registration process for swap dealers and major swap participants. 

The comment period closes on [insert 60 days from publication in FR]. 

The Commission’s proposed rules: 

• Establish a process for the registration of swap dealers and major swap participants, including a provisional 

registration pending effectiveness of final definitional rules and rules implementing compliance requirements under 

CEA section 4s; 

• Require swap dealers and major swap participants to become and remain members of a registered futures association; 

• Subject Push-Out Affiliates to the foregoing requirements (while not proposing any specific rules with respect to their 

activities); and 

• Prohibit a swap dealer or major swap participant from permitting to associate with it a person who is subject to a 

statutory disqualification. 

Commodity Futures Trading Commission ♦ Office of Public Affairs ♦ 202-418-5080
Vanessa BISHOP, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 17-7405.

Supreme Court of the United States

Feb. 20, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.
Ivan TELEGUZ, petitioner, v. David ZOOK, Warden.

No. 15-1450.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 3, 2016.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied.
Hamid MAHJOR, petitioner, v. GREENPOINT MORTGAGE FUNDING, INC., et al.

No. 17-7236.

Supreme Court of the United States

Feb. 26, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied.
Brian Anthony DAVIS, aka Stamma Unknown, petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS, III, Attorney General.

No. 17-7583.

Supreme Court of the United States

March 26, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit denied.
#### Roberto Escobar ALVARENGA, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 05-71425.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Dec. 4, 2006.*

Filed Dec. 12, 2006.

*727Frank P. Sprouls, Esq., Law Office of Ricci and Sprouls, San Francisco, CA, for Petitioner.

Ronald E. Lefevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Rhonda M. Dent, Esq., U.S. Department of Justice Civil Rights/Disability Rights Section, Washington, DC, for Respondent.

Before: GOODWIN, RYMER and FISHER, Circuit Judges.

*

 This panel unanimously finds this case suit*727able for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Roberto Escobar Alvarenga, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) decision dismissing his appeal from an Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) denial of his application for asylum and withholding of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence and will uphold the BIA’s and IJ’s decisions unless the evidence compels a contrary conclusion. *INS v. Elias-Zacarias,*502 U.S. 478, 481, 483-84, 112 S.Ct. 812, 117 L.Ed.2d 38 (1992). We deny the petition.

Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s and IJ’s conclusion that Escobar Alvarenga did not establish eligibility for asylum. The record indicates that the two threats guerillas made against Escobar Alvarenga were attempts at recruitment, and not motivated by his political opinion or on account of another protected ground. *See id.*at 482-83, 112 S.Ct. 812. His asylum claim therefore fails.

Because Escobar Alvarenga failed to establish eligibility for asylum, he necessarily failed to meet the more stringent standard for withholding of removal. *See Fisher v. INS,*79 F.3d 955, 960-61 (9th Cir.1996) (en banc).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM FORM 10-Q
FOR THE QUARTERLY PERIOD ENDED MARCH 31, 1999 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY
BY REFERENCE TO SUCH QUARTERLY REPORT.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0000850660
<NAME> THERMADYNE HOLDINGS CORPORATION
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                           5,672
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   81,391
<ALLOWANCES>                                     2,901
<INVENTORY>                                    121,159
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               214,202
<PP&E>                                          99,118
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 411,262
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           91,283
<BONDS>                                        717,967
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                           55,810
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            36
<OTHER-SE>                                   (505,204)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   411,262
<SALES>                                        130,234
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               130,234
<CGS>                                           83,635
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   83,635
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                29,507
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              17,742
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  (694)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     (358)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              (336)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     (336)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.60)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.60)
        

</TABLE>
# C_2014175EN.01004401.xml

| 10.6.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 175/44 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.6.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 175/44

---

Order of the General Court of 2 April 2014 — Intercéréales and Grossi v Commission

(Case T-314/09) (1)

1

((State aid - Framework system of actions able to be undertaken by the recognised French agricultural interprofessional organisations in favour of members of the agricultural sectors represented - Financing by voluntary levies made compulsory - Decision declaring the aid scheme compatible with the common market - Withdrawal of the decision - No need to adjudicate))

2014/C 175/60

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Intercéréales (Paris, France); and Alain Grossi (Nimes, France) (represented initially by: B. Le Bret and L. Olza Moreno, and subsequently by: B. Le Bret and C. Renner, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission (represented initially by: B. Stromsky and C. Urraca Caviedes, subsequently by: B. Stromsky and S. Thomas, and finally by: B. Stromsky, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Application for annulment of Commission Decision C(2008) 7846 final of 10 December 2008 concerning State aid No 561/2008, on the framework system of actions able to be undertaken by the recognised French agricultural interprofessional organisations in favour of members of the agricultural sectors represented

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

| 1. | There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the present action. |
| --- | --- |

1.

There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the present action.

| 2. | The European Commission shall pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The European Commission shall pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 244, 10.10.2009.

1

---
[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 121 (Friday, June 22, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Page 33545]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-15720]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. 01N-0219]


Serono, Inc.; Withdrawal of Approval of a New Drug Application; 
Breokinase<Register>

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is withdrawing, without 
prejudice, approval of a new drug application (NDA) for 
Breokinase<Register> (Urokinase for Injection) held by Serono, Inc., 
100 Longwater Circle, Norwell, MA 02061. Serono, Inc., notified the 
agency in writing that it does not intend to introduce 
Breokinase<Register> into the U.S. market or export 
Breokinase<Register> from the United States, and voluntarily requested 
that the approval of the application be withdrawn and thereby waived 
its opportunity for a hearing.

DATES: Effective July 23, 2001.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael D. Anderson, Center for 
Biologics Evaluation and Research (HFM-17), Food and Drug 
Administration, 1401 Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD 20852-1448, 301-827-
6210.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In a letter to FDA dated October 10, 2000, 
Serono, Inc., voluntarily requested the withdrawal of NDA 17-873 for 
Breokinase<Register> (Urokinase for Injection). Serono, Inc., neither 
intends to market the product in the United States nor export it from 
the United States. The firm voluntarily requested that FDA withdraw NDA 
17-873, and therefore has waived its opportunity for a hearing. In a 
December 13, 2000, letter to the firm, FDA acknowledged receipt of the 
request and stated it would proceed (to publish a Federal Register 
notice) withdrawing the NDA.
    Therefore, under section 505(e) of the Federal Food, Drug, and 
Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 355(e)) and under authority delegated to the 
Director, Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (21 CFR 5.82), 
approval of the application listed in this document, and all amendments 
and supplements thereto, is hereby withdrawn, as of July 23, 2001.

    Dated: May 18, 2001.
Kathryn C. Zoon,
Director, Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research.
[FR Doc. 01-15720 Filed 6-21-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-01-S
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                           1,201
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 1,201
<PP&E>                                          27,026
<DEPRECIATION>                                  (4,304)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  29,256
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            1,515
<BONDS>                                         19,386
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                       8,290
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    29,256
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 1,573
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    1,233
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 357
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       (17)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
Stephen ROBERTS, petitioner, v. NEW YORK.

No. 15-9447.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 3, 2016.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Appellate Division, Supreme Court of New York, Second Judicial Department denied.
# C_2009282EN.01003102.xml

| 21.11.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 282/31 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.11.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 282/31

---

Action brought on 6 October 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

(Case C-394/09)

2009/C 282/54

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

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

Applicant:

Defendant: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

Defendant:

The applicant claims that the Court should:

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to transpose Directive 2005/33/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 July 2005 amending Directive 1999/32/EC as regards the sulphur content of marine fuels for Gibraltar and, by failing to adopt all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to transpose all the ‘marine based’ elements of the Directive for England, Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland or, in any event, by failing to communicate them to the Commission, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 2 of that Directive; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to transpose Directive 2005/33/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 July 2005 amending Directive 1999/32/EC as regards the sulphur content of marine fuels for Gibraltar and, by failing to adopt all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to transpose all the ‘marine based’ elements of the Directive for England, Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland or, in any event, by failing to communicate them to the Commission, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 2 of that Directive;

1

| — | order United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

The period within which the Directive had to be transposed expired on 11 August 2006.

---

(1)  OJ L 191, p. 59

1

---
John Louis VISCIOTTI, petitioner, v. Ronald DAVIS, Warden.

No. 17-6937.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 16, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.
Ralph HALE, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 17-7415.

Supreme Court of the United States

Feb. 20, 2018.

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