alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
II-00966

From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

Robert Myers <jrr@dfn. com>

Thursday, December 2, 2010 9:37 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.

Robert Myers

5210 N. Eisenhower Rd

Roswell, NM 88201
Alvin Perry JORDAN, petitioner, v. MICHIGAN.

No. 17-7294.

Supreme Court of the United States

March 5, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals of Michigan denied.
Joshua Abraham TURNIDGE, petitioner, v. OREGON.

No. 16-6738.

Supreme Court of the United States

Jan. 9, 2017.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Oregon denied.
Maurice GATLING, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 16-6070.

Supreme Court of the United States

Jan. 9, 2017.

Petition for rehearing denied.
I 

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 3705 

To repeal the sugar program under the Federal Agriculture Improvement 

and Reform Act of 1996 and certain other programs relating to sugar, 

and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JULY 11, 2019 

Mr. PERRY (for himself, Mr. KELLY of Pennsylvania, Mr. JOYCE of Pennsylvania, and Mr. SMUCKER) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Agriculture 

A BILL 

To repeal the sugar program under the Federal Agriculture 

Improvement and Reform Act of 1996 and certain other 

programs relating to sugar, and for other purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Saving Workers by 

5 Eliminating Economic Tampering Act’’ or the ‘‘SWEET 

6 Act’’. 


pamtmann on DSKBFK8HB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 3705 IH

1 SEC. 2. REPEAL OF SUGAR PROGRAM. 

2 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 156 of the Federal Agri3 culture Improvement and Reform Act of 1996 (7 U.S.C. 

4 7272) is repealed. 

5 (b) FLEXIBLE MARKETING ALLOTMENTS FOR SUGAR

6 AND TARIFF RATE QUOTAS.—Part VII of the Agricultural 

7 Adjustment Act of 1938 (7 U.S.C. 1359aa et seq.) is re8 pealed. 

9 (c) FEEDSTOCK FLEXIBILITY PROGRAM.—Section 

10 9010 of the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 

11 2002 (7 U.S.C. 8110) is repealed. 

Æ 


pamtmann on DSKBFK8HB2PROD with BILLS
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.                  

###### Nuclear Regulatory Commission

          - [Docket Nos. 50-361 and 50-362]

In notice document 01-15370 beginning on page 32964, in the issue of Tuesday, June 19, 2001, make the following corrections: 

In the second full paragraph, in the third column, on page 32964, in line seven, the number “3448 MWt,” should be corrected to read “3438 MWt.” 

In the fourth full paragraph, in the third column, on page 32964, in line three, the number “3448 MWt,” should be corrected to read “3438 MWt.” 

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 19th day of June 2001.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Joseph E. Donoghue,

Senior Project Manager, Section 2, Project Directorate IV, Division of Licensing Project Management, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.

[FR Doc. 01-15968 Filed 6-25-01; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
James TYLER, III, petitioner, v. LOUISIANA.

No. 15-8114.

Supreme Court of the United States

Dec. 12, 2016.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Louisiana denied.
II-00366

From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

David Schroeder <fischerdedog@sopris.net>

Thursday, December 2, 2010 10:55 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 Schroeder

468 Silverhorn Dr

New Castle, CO 81647
Lazaro SOLIZ, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 17-6684.

Supreme Court of the United States

Feb. 20, 2018.

Petition for rehearing denied.
II-00631

From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

Terry Baker <terrybakee@netscape.net>

Thursday, December 2, 2010 1:10 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.

Terry Baker

1111 Wylie Road #2

Norman, OK 73069
II-00655

From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

john johnson <rockfordj6@aol.com>

Thursday, December 2, 2010 12:53 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.

john johnson

1109 grant ave.

rockford, IL 61103
II-00269

From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

Bud See <king 16x@excite.com>

Thursday, December 2, 2010 7:07 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.

Bud See

4118 Woodland Ct.

Grapevine, TX 76051
Alicia A. WILLIAMS, petitioner, v. Nancy A. BERRYHILL, Acting Commissioner of Social Security.

No. 17-5550.

Supreme Court of the United States

Feb. 20, 2018.

Petition for rehearing denied.
Nakey Demetruis WHITE, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 17-6668.

Supreme Court of the United States

March 19, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit denied.
Robert VON GOETZMAN, petitioner, v. JEFF'S TRANSMISSIONS, INC.

No. 16-407.

Supreme Court of the United States

Nov. 7, 2016.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District denied.
Daniel B. BALTIERRA, petitioner, v. ILLINOIS.

No. 17-1016.

Supreme Court of the United States

March 26, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Appellate Court of Illinois, Fourth District denied.
In the Matter of DISBARMENT OF Richard H. HOCH.

No. D-3000.

Supreme Court of the United States

Feb. 20, 2018.

Disbarment order entered.
**Judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) of 9 September 2010 – adp Gauselmann v OHIM – Maclean (Archer Maclean’s Mercury)**

**(Case T-106/09)**

Community trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for the Community figurative mark Archer Maclean’s Mercury – Earlier national word mark Merkur – Relative ground for refusal – No likelihood of confusion – Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

Community trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark – Relative grounds for refusal – Opposition by the proprietor of an earlier identical or similar mark registered for identical or similar goods or services
– Likelihood of confusion with the earlier mark (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 20, 39-40)

**Re:**

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 12 January 2009 (Case R 1266/2007-1), relating to opposition proceedings between adp Gauselmann GmbH and Archer Maclean. |

**Information relating to the case**

| | |
| --- | --- |
| Applicant for the Community trade mark: | Archer Maclean |
| Community trade mark sought: | Figurative mark Archer Maclean’s Mercury, for goods in Classes 9, 16 and 28 – Application No 4290227 |
| Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: | adp Gauselmann GmbH |
| Mark or sign cited in opposition: | German trade mark registration of the word mark Merkur for goods and services in Classes 6, 9, 28, 35, 37, 41 and 42 |
| Decision of the Opposition Division: | Opposition dismissed |
| Decision of the Board of Appeal: | Appeal dismissed |

**Operative part**

The Court:

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 1. | | Dismisses the action; |

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 2. | | Orders adp Gauselmann GmbH to pay the costs. |
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                      13,951,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                               53,102,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                   253,000
<INVENTORY>                                 75,696,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                           147,811,000
<PP&E>                                     154,906,000
<DEPRECIATION>                              85,866,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             437,183,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       78,584,000
<BONDS>                                    447,000,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         7,000
<OTHER-SE>                               (170,887,000)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               437,184,000
<SALES>                                    262,153,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                           262,153,000
<CGS>                                      145,236,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                              145,236,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            13,711,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 2,000
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                          30,721,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             44,079,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                   600,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                         44,679,000
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                44,679,000
<EPS-BASIC>                                          0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 1776 Engrossed in House (EH)]

H. Res. 1776

                In the House of Representatives, U. S.,

                                                     December 17, 2010.
    Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it shall be in order to 
consider in the House the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 105) making further 
continuing appropriations for fiscal year 2011, and for other purposes. All 
points of order against consideration of the joint resolution are waived except 
those arising under clause 10 of rule XXI. The joint resolution shall be 
considered as read. All points of order against provisions in the joint 
resolution are waived. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on 
the joint resolution to final passage without intervening motion except: (1) one 
hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority 
member of the Committee on Appropriations; and (2) one motion to recommit.
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```
# C_2009282EN.01003101.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

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Corte suprema di cassazione (Italy) lodged on 25 September 2009 — Gennaro Curia v Ministero dell’Economia e delle Finanze, Agenzia delle Entrate

(Case C-381/09)

2009/C 282/53

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Referring court

Corte suprema di cassazione

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Gennaro Curia

Appellant:

Respondent: Ministero dell’Economia e delle Finanze, Agenzia delle Entrate

Respondent:

Question referred

Question referred

In accordance with the Community law principles set out in the Sixth VAT Directive of the neutrality of VAT and exemption from VAT, under conditions laid down by the Member States, for transactions entailing the granting and the negotiation of credit and the management of credit by the person granting it, can exorbitant lending activities, which are a criminal offence under national law, be subject to VAT where, in economic terms, they may be envisaged as being in competition with the corresponding lawful activities of granting money loans, which fall within the scope of VAT under national law but are deemed exempt thereunder whenever they may be regarded as ‘finance transactions’?

---
Donald Lewis SYKES, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR the MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA.

No. 16-5655.

Supreme Court of the United States

Jan. 23, 2017.

Petition for rehearing denied.
II-00877

From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

Betsy Germanotta <betsydanteg@gmail.com>

Thursday, December 2, 2010 10:25 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.

Betsy Germanotta

175 Harvey St. #2

Cambridge, MA 0
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>	6

<CIK>	0000744822

<NAME>	Fidelity Investment Trust

<SERIES>

	<NUMBER>	231

	<NAME>	Fidelity United Kingdom Fund

<MULTIPLIER>	1,000



<S>

<C>

<PERIOD-TYPE>
year
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>
oct-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>
oct-31-1999
<INVESTMENTS-AT-COST>
5,673
<INVESTMENTS-AT-VALUE>
6,417
<RECEIVABLES>
200
<ASSETS-OTHER>
20
<OTHER-ITEMS-ASSETS>
0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>
6,637
<PAYABLE-FOR-SECURITIES>
161
<SENIOR-LONG-TERM-DEBT>
0
<OTHER-ITEMS-LIABILITIES>
46
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES>
207
<SENIOR-EQUITY>
0
<PAID-IN-CAPITAL-COMMON>
5,677
<SHARES-COMMON-STOCK>
439
<SHARES-COMMON-PRIOR>
495
<ACCUMULATED-NII-CURRENT>
34
<OVERDISTRIBUTION-NII>
0
<ACCUMULATED-NET-GAINS>
(25)
<OVERDISTRIBUTION-GAINS>
0
<ACCUM-APPREC-OR-DEPREC>
744
<NET-ASSETS>
6,430
<DIVIDEND-INCOME>
166
<INTEREST-INCOME>
5
<OTHER-INCOME>
0
<EXPENSES-NET>
134
<NET-INVESTMENT-INCOME>
37
<REALIZED-GAINS-CURRENT>
61
<APPREC-INCREASE-CURRENT>
704
<NET-CHANGE-FROM-OPS>
802
<EQUALIZATION>
0
<DISTRIBUTIONS-OF-INCOME>
69
<DISTRIBUTIONS-OF-GAINS>
412
<DISTRIBUTIONS-OTHER>
0
<NUMBER-OF-SHARES-SOLD>
115
<NUMBER-OF-SHARES-REDEEMED>
205
<SHARES-REINVESTED>
34
<NET-CHANGE-IN-ASSETS>
(486)
<ACCUMULATED-NII-PRIOR>
99
<ACCUMULATED-GAINS-PRIOR>
545
<OVERDISTRIB-NII-PRIOR>
0
<OVERDIST-NET-GAINS-PRIOR>
0
<GROSS-ADVISORY-FEES>
49
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>
0
<GROSS-EXPENSE>
240
<AVERAGE-NET-ASSETS>
6,729
<PER-SHARE-NAV-BEGIN>
13.960
<PER-SHARE-NII>
 .080
<PER-SHARE-GAIN-APPREC>
1.560
<PER-SHARE-DIVIDEND>
 .140
<PER-SHARE-DISTRIBUTIONS>
 .830
<RETURNS-OF-CAPITAL>
0
<PER-SHARE-NAV-END>
14.640
<EXPENSE-RATIO>
200





</TABLE>