alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
II-00431

From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

Emma Holbus <homesweethome29@peoplepc.com>

Thursday, December 2, 2010 7:52 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.

Emma Holbus

1614 Taylor Ave.

Racine, WI 53403
Carlos VELAZCO, petitioner, v. FLORIDA.

No. 16-6682.

Supreme Court of the United States

Jan. 9, 2017.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District denied.
II-00559

From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

Teresa Eaker <acre@centurytel.net>

Thursday, December 2, 2010 2:49 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.

Teresa Eaker

333 Orchard St.

Gillett, WI 54124
# C_2009167EN.01002601.xml

| 18.7.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 167/26 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.7.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 167/26

---

Action brought on 2 April 2009 — Visser-Fornt Raya v Europol

(Case F-35/09)

2009/C 167/49

Language of the case: Dutch

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Maria Teresa Visser-Fornt Raya (the Hague, the Netherlands) (represented by: P. de Casparis)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Police Office (Europol)

Defendant:

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Annulment of the decision of 12 June 2008 informing the applicant that it was impossible to offer her a permanent post, and the decision of 7 January 2009 rejecting the complaint brought against the first decision.

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Tribunal should:

| — | annul the decision of 12 June 2008 by which the defendant informed the applicant that it could not offer her a permanent post and the decision of 7 January 2009 in response to a complaint, stating that the objections which the applicant had raised to the decision of 12 June 2008 were unfounded; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of 12 June 2008 by which the defendant informed the applicant that it could not offer her a permanent post and the decision of 7 January 2009 in response to a complaint, stating that the objections which the applicant had raised to the decision of 12 June 2008 were unfounded;

| — | order Europol to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order Europol to pay the costs.

---
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.                  

###### Postal Service Board of Governors

# CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION:

David G. Hunter, Secretary of the Board, U.S. Postal Service, 475 L'Enfant Plaza, SW., Washington, DC. 20260-1000. Telephone (202) 268-4800.

David G. Hunter,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 01-16456  Filed 6-26-01; 2:06 pm]

BILLING CODE 7710-12-M
# C_2012049EN.01002301.xml

| 18.2.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 49/23 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.2.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 49/23

---

Judgment of the General Court of 12 January 2012 — Storck v OHIM — RAI (Ragolizia)

(Case T-462/09) (1)

1

(Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community word mark Ragolizia - Earlier Community word mark FAVOLIZIA - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Similarity of the signs - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

2012/C 49/40

Language of the case: German

Parties

Parties

Applicant: August Storck KG (Berlin, Germany) (represented by: I. Rohr, P. Goldenbaum and T. Melchert, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: G. Schneider, acting as Agent)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Radiotelevisione italiana SpA (RAI) (Rome, Italy)

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

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 8 September 2009 (Case R 1779/2008-4) concerning opposition proceedings between Radiotelevisione italiana SpA (RAI) and August Storck KG.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders August Storck KG to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders August Storck KG to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 11, 16.1.2010.

1

---
Terri L. SMYTH-RIDING, petitioner, v. SCIENCES AND ENGINEERING SERVICES, LLC, et al.

No. 17-879.

Supreme Court of the United States

Feb. 20, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied.
Certification of Chief Executive Officer

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C.  1350), the undersigned, Darren Holm, Chief Executive Officer of China Holdings, Inc., (the "Company"), does hereby certify, to his  knowledge, that:

The Annual Report Form 10-KSB for the year ended December 31, 2005 of  the Company (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of  Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and the  information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material  respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the  Company.

Date: September 6, 2007     

By /s/Darren Holm  ----------------------  Darren Holm  Chief Executive Officer

Certification of Chief Financial Officer

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C.  1350), the undersigned, Dempsey Mork, Chief Financial Officer of China Holdings, Inc., (the "Company"), does hereby certify, to his  knowledge, that:

The Annual Report Form 10-KSB for the year ended December 31, 2005 of  the Company (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of  Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and the  information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material  respects, the financial condition and results     perations of the  Company.

Date: September 6, 2007     

By /s/Dempsey Mork  ----------------------  Dempsey Mork  Chief Financial Officer
EXHIBIT
32.2





WRITTEN
STATEMENT


PURSUANT
TO


18
U.S.C. SECTION 1350





In
connection with Amendment No.3 to Annual Report of China 3C Group and its
subsidiaries (the “Company”) on Form 10-K/A for the period ended December 31,
2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
(the “Report”), the undersigned, Weidong Huang, Chief Financial Officer of the
Company certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:





(1) The
Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13a-14(b) or 15d-14(b) 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:
      December 18, 2008
                      By:
                      /s/
      Weidong HuangName:
                      Weidong
      HuangTitle:
                      Chief
      Financial
Officer
<PAGE>
EXHIBIT 23.01

                    CONSENT OF KPMG LLP, INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

The Board of Directors
Niku Corporation:

We consent to incorporation by reference in the registration statements (Nos.
333-31318, 333-44988, 333-50184, 333-54404, 333-56402, 333-69196, and 333-85918)
on Forms S-8 and S-3 of Niku Corporation of our report dated February 22, 2002,
except as to Note 14, which is as of April 15, 2002, relating to the
consolidated balance sheets of Niku Corporation and subsidiaries as of January
31, 2002 and 2001, and the related consolidated statements of operations and
comprehensive loss, stockholders' equity (deficit), and cash flows for each of
the years in the three-year period ended January 31, 2002, and the related
financial statement schedule, which report appears elsewhere herein.

/s/ KPMG LLP

Mountain View, California
April 18, 2002
Gerard DENAULT, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 16-152.

Supreme Court of the United States

Jan. 23, 2017.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit denied.
Abraham Jackson MPAKA, petitioner, v. Marydell GUEVARA.

No. 15-9471.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 3, 2016.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Florida denied.
# C_2009297EN.01002202.xml

| 5.12.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 297/22 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.12.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 297/22

---

Action brought on 25 September 2009 — RWE Transgas v Commission

(Case T-381/09)

2009/C 297/33

Language of the case: German

Parties

Parties

Applicant: RWE Transgas a.s. (Prague, Czech Republic) (represented by: W. Deselaers, D. Seeliger and S. Einhaus, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | Declare invalid the third sentence of Point 89(a) of Commission Decision C(2009) 4694 of 12 June 2009, insofar as it finds that the applicant and Gazprom — to be considered for this purpose jointly — may together account for no more than 50 % of capacity as long as substantial long-term gas supply agreements exist between them; |
| --- | --- |

—

Declare invalid the third sentence of Point 89(a) of Commission Decision C(2009) 4694 of 12 June 2009, insofar as it finds that the applicant and Gazprom — to be considered for this purpose jointly — may together account for no more than 50 % of capacity as long as substantial long-term gas supply agreements exist between them;

| — | in the alternative, annul the decision in its entirety; |
| --- | --- |

—

in the alternative, annul the decision in its entirety;

| — | order the Commission to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant, an importer of gas into the Czech Republic, has brought an action against the letter of 12 June 2009 sent by the Commission to the German energy regulator, the Bundesnetzagentur (Federal Network Agency) in which the Commission asks the Bundesnetzagentur to amend certain aspects of the exemption it has granted, pursuant to Article 22 of Directive 2003/55/EC, (1) for the gas pipeline project Ostseepipeline-Anbindungsleitung (Baltic Sea Pipeline Link) (‘OPAL’). The applicant complains that one of the Commission’s conditions would have the effect of restricting or, as the case may be, preventing the applicant’s access to OPAL’s transport/release capacities in the Czech Republic.

1

In support of its action, the applicant claims, first, that the defendant infringed its right to a fair hearing by denying it any opportunity to comment on the condition imposing a burden on it before it was adopted.

Second, the applicant contends that the defendant infringed the applicant’s right of access to documents, by denying it any access to the file of the proceedings.

Finally, the applicant complains that the defendant misapplied Article 22(4) of Directive 2003/55/EC and the principle of proportionality, the principle of equal treatment and the duty to state reasons (Article 253 EC).

---

(1)  Directive 2003/55/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2003 concerning common rules for the internal market in natural gas and repealing Directive 98/30/EC (OJ 2003 L 176, p. 57).

1

---
Exhibit 8.1

The following is a list of the significant subsidiaries of CEMEX, S.A.B. de C.V. as of December 31, 2010, including the name of each subsidiary and its country of incorporation.



|    |  |                                                 |  |              
|--- |  | ----------------------------------------------- |  | -------------
|1.  |  | CEMEX México, S.A. de C.V.                      |  | MEXICO       
|2.  |  | CEMEX, S.A.B de C.V.                            |  | MEXICO       
|3.  |  | CEMEX España, S.A.                              |  | SPAIN        
|4.  |  | CEMEX Construction Materials Florida, LLC       |  | UNITED STATES
|5.  |  | CEMEX Materials, LLC                            |  | UNITED STATES
|6.  |  | CEMEX Agregados, S.A. de C.V.                   |  | MEXICO       
|7.  |  | CEMEX Central, S.A. de C.V.                     |  | MEXICO       
|8.  |  | CEMEX Concretos, S.A. de C.V.                   |  | MEXICO       
|9.  |  | Proveedora Mexicana de Materiales, S.A. de C.V. |  | MEXICO       
|10. |  | Servicios Cemento CEMEX, S.A. de C.V.           |  | MEXICO       
|11. |  | Servicios Concreto CEMEX, S.A. de C.V.          |  | MEXICO       
|12. |  | Servicios CEMEX Mexico, S.A. de C.V.            |  | MEXICO       
|13. |  | CEMEX Finance LLC                               |  | UNITED STATES
|14. |  | CEMEX Colombia, S.A.                            |  | COLOMBIA     
|15. |  | Assiut Cement Company                           |  | EGYPT        
|16. |  | CEMEX, Inc.                                     |  | UNITED STATES
|17. |  | CEMEX Construction Materials Pacific, LLC       |  | UNITED STATES
# C_2011103EN.01000501.xml

| 2.4.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 103/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.4.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 103/5

---

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 17 February 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Rejonowy Warszawa — Republic of Poland) — Artur Weryński v Mediatel 4B Spółka z o.o.

(Case C-283/09) (1)

1

(Judicial cooperation in civil matters - Taking of evidence - Examination of a witness by the requested court upon application by the requesting court - Payment of witness expenses)

2011/C 103/06

Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Referring court

Sąd Rejonowy Warszawa

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Artur Weryński

Applicant:

Defendant: Mediatel 4B Spółka z o.o.

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Interpretation of Council Regulation (EC) No 1206/2001 of 28 May 2001 on cooperation between the courts of the Member States in the taking of evidence in civil or commercial matters (OJ 2001 L 174, p. 1) — Hearing of a witness by a court of a Member State at the request of a court of another Member State — Witness expenses — Possibility for the requested court to demand from the requesting court payment of an advance for the witness heard

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

Articles 14 and 18 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1206/2001 of 28 May 2001 on cooperation between the courts of the Member States in the taking of evidence in civil or commercial matters must be interpreted as meaning that a requesting court is not obliged to pay an advance to the requested court for the expenses of a witness or to reimburse the expenses paid to the witness examined.

---

(1)  OJ C 244, 10.10.2009.

1

---
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3724 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 3724

  To amend title 10, United States Code, to defer the deployment of a 
  member of the Armed Forces who gives birth for one year unless the 
  member elects to deploy with the approval of a health care provider 
                employed at a military medical facility.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             July 11, 2019

   Ms. Meng (for herself, Mr. Grijalva, Mr. Meeks, Mr. Serrano, Ms. 
  Houlahan, Mr. Case, and Ms. Porter) introduced the following bill; 
         which was referred to the Committee on Armed Services

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To amend title 10, United States Code, to defer the deployment of a 
  member of the Armed Forces who gives birth for one year unless the 
  member elects to deploy with the approval of a health care provider 
                employed at a military medical facility.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Equal Deferment Opportunity Act''.

SEC. 2. DEFERRED DEPLOYMENT FOR MEMBERS OF THE ARMED FORCES WHO GIVE 
              BIRTH.

    Section 701 of title 10, United States Code, is amended by adding 
at the end the following new subsection:
    ``(l) A member of the armed forces who gives birth may not be 
deployed during the period of 12 months beginning on the date of such 
birth except--
            ``(1) at the election of such member; and
            ``(2) with the approval of a health care provider employed 
        at a military medical treatment facility.''.
                                 <all>
```
EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Annual Report of GSI Group Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2009 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Michael E. Katzenstein, Principal 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, 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/    MICHAEL E. KATZENSTEINMichael E. KatzensteinPrincipal Executive Officer


October 1, 2010

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, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the
signature that appears in typed form with the electronic version 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.
Katrina HAYES, petitioner, v. CUMBERLAND COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION, et al.

No. 17-7777.

Supreme Court of the United States

March 26, 2018.

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