alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
II-00034

From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

Susan Sheinfeld <susans.3@juno.com>

Friday, December 10, 2010 9:15 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.

Susan Sheinfeld

930 Leavenworth St. #7

San Francisco, CA 94109
Exhibit 13.(a).1
     CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
     In connection with the Amendment No. 2 to the Annual Report of chinadotcomcorporation (the “Company”) on Form 20-F for the period ended December 31, 2002as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the“Form 20-F/A”), I, Peter Yip, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify,pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:
(1) The Amendment No. 2 to the Form 20-F 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 Amendment No. 2 to the Form 20-F fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition andresults of operations of the Company.
Date: May 7, 2004              /s/ Peter Yip   Peter Yip   Chief Executive Officer   
A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or otherdocument authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signaturethat appears in typed form within the electronic version of this writtenstatement required by Section 906, has been provided to chinadotcom corporationand will be retained by chinadotcom corporation and furnished to the Securitiesand Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
EXHIBIT 23.1


                            KYLE L. TINGLE, CPA , LLC








To Whom It May Concern:                                            June 30, 2005



The firm of Kyle L. Tingle, Certified Public Accountant, LLC hereby consents to
the inclusion of his report of August 5, 2004, accompanying the audited
financial statements of Sierra Resource Group, Inc., as at December 31, 2003 and
December 31, 2004, in the Form 10KSB.


Very truly yours,


/s/ KYLE L. TINGLE
____________________________
    Kyle L. Tingle, CPA, LLC

















P.O. Box 50141, Henderson, Nevada 89016, Phone: (702) 434-8452, Fax: (702)
436-4218, e-mail: ktingle@kyletinglecpa.com
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

October 14, 2005 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice
128342 Michael F. Cavanagh Elizabeth A. Weaver Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman, Justices

v SC: 128342 COA: 251405 Wayne CC: 03-006741-01 MICHAEL BAILEY, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, th e application for leave to appeal the March 8, 2005 judgment of the Court of Appeals is cons idered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.

l1010 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

October 14, 2005

Clerk
II-00946

From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

Sjoran Fitzpatrick <ravenwolf. forge@gmail.com>

Thursday, December 2, 2010 9:46 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.

Sjoran Fitzpatrick

4466 Parmalee Gulch Rd.

Indian Hills, CO 80454
# C_2010024EN.01006201.xml

| 30.1.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 24/62 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.1.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 24/62

---

Action brought on 23 November 2009 — Hellenic Republic v Commission

(Case T-469/09)

2010/C 24/109

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Hellenic Republic (represented by: I. Khalkias and S. Papaioannou)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | annul the contested Commission decision in its entirety; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested Commission 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

In its action contesting Commission Decision C(2009) 7044 final of 24 September 2009 excluding from Community financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF), under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) (OJ 2009 L 257, p. 28) in so far as the decision concerns financial corrections to its detriment, the Hellenic Republic puts forward the following two pleas for annulment.

By the first plea for annulment, concerning the fruit and vegetable (tomato) processing sector, the applicant pleads incorrect interpretation and application of Article 28(1)(f), Article 28(2), Article 31(1) and (2) and Article 3(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1535/2003 (1) and of the guidelines AGRI VI 5330/97, 17933/2000 and 63983/2002 concerning financial corrections, given that in that sector all the key controls were effected satisfactorily and there were deficiencies only in ancillary secondary controls.

1

By the second plea for annulment, concerning the public storage of rice, the applicant submits that there is no valid legal basis for imposing the correction, since the Commission misinterpreted Articles 4 and 6 of Regulation (EC) No 2148/1996, (2) or in the alternative that the principle of proportionality has been infringed.

2

---

(1)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 1535/2003 of 29 August 2003 laying down detailed rules for applying Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/96 as regards the aid scheme for products processed from fruit and vegetables (OJ 2003 L 218, p. 14).

1

(2)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 2148/96 of 8 November 1996 laying down rules for evaluating and monitoring public intervention stocks of agricultural products (OJ 1996 L 288, p. 6).

2

---
International Dial-In Numbers 

Three Lafayette Centre 

1155 21st Street, NW 

Washington, DC 20581 

Energy and Environmental Markets Advisory Meeting on 

October 16, 2020 

PASSCODE: 6927302 

Country Toll Numbers Freephone/ 

Toll Free Number 

ARGENTINA 0800-444-1896 

AUSTRALIA ADELAIDE: 61-8-8121-5055 1-800-010717 

AUSTRALIA BRISBANE: 61-7-3102-2044 1-800-010717 

AUSTRALIA CANBERRA: 61-2-6100-0106 1-800-010717 

AUSTRALIA MELBOURNE: 61-3-9010-0855 1-800-010717 

AUSTRALIA PERTH: 61-8-9467-5283 1-800-010717 

AUSTRALIA SYDNEY: 61-2-8209-1532 1-800-010717 

AUSTRIA 43-1-92-81-451 0800-005-806 

BELGIUM 32-2-400-9848 0800-3-8930 

CANADA 866-845-8494 

CHILE 1230-020-5992 

CHINA CHINA A: 86-400-810-4797 10800-712-2420 

CHINA CHINA B: 86-400-810-4797 10800-120-2420 

CROATIA 080-08-06-427 

CZECH REPUBLIC 420-2-25-98-56-30 800-700-242 

DENMARK 45-7014-0293 8088-2749 

EGYPT 0800000-9038 

ESTONIA 800-011-1105 

FINLAND 358-9-5424-7160 0-800-9-19768 

FRANCE LYON: 33-4-26-03-51-63 080-510-2765 

FRANCE MARSEILLE: 33-4-86-06-48-63 080-510-2765 

FRANCE PARIS: 33-1-72-25-40-66 080-510-2765 

GERMANY 49-69-2222-4865 0800-800-1421 

GREECE 30-80-1-100-0646 00800-12-8037 

HONG KONG 852-3001-3891 800-963-695 

HUNGARY 36-1-700-8830 06-800-11161 

INDONESIA 007-803-011-0174 

IRELAND 353-1-506-0476 1800-936-203 

ISRAEL 1-80-9212610 

ITALY MILAN: 39-02-3604-6280 800-977-455 

ITALY ROME: 39-06-8751-6069 800-977-455 

ITALY TORINO: 39-011-510-0169 800-977-455 

JAPAN OSAKA: 81-6-7878-2602 0066-33-812361 

JAPAN TOKYO: 81-3-6868-2602 0066-33-812361 

LATVIA 8000-3204 

LUXEMBOURG 352-27-000-1393 8002-9280 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Country Toll Numbers Freephone/ 

Toll Free Number 

MALAYSIA 1-800-81-4685 

MEXICO GUADALAJARA (JAL): 52-33-3208-7389 001-866-944-7679 

MEXICO MEXICO CITY: 52-55-5062-9189 001-866-944-7679 

MEXICO MONTERREY: 52-81-2482-0689 001-866-944-7679 

NETHERLANDS 31-20-716-8076 0800-020-0351 

NEW ZEALAND 64-9-970-4606 0800-456-270 

NORWAY 47-21-590-025 800-18093 

PANAMA 011-001-800-5072372 

PERU 0800-53731 

PHILIPPINES 63-2-8858-3760 1800-111-42436 

POLAND 00-800-1213476 

PORTUGAL 351-2-10054734 8008-14928 

ROMANIA 40-31-630-01-38 

RUSSIA 8-10-8002-5594011 

SINGAPORE 65-6517-0502 800-120-5213 

SLOVAK REPUBLIC 421-2-322-422-79 0800-002025 

SLOVENIA 0-800-81350 

SOUTH AFRICA 080-09-82158 

SOUTH KOREA 82-2-6744-1091 00798-14800-7797 

SPAIN 34-91-414-21-70 800-300-907 

SWEDEN 46-8-503-34-825 0200-899-946 

SWITZERLAND 41-44-580-4321 0800-001-427 

TAIWAN 886-2-2795-7391 00801-136-033 

THAILAND 001-800-1206-66639 

TURKEY 00-800-151-0818 

UNITED KINGDOM BIRMINGHAM: 44-121-210-9183 0808-238-9817 

UNITED KINGDOM GLASGOW: 44-141-202-0813 0808-238-9817 

UNITED KINGDOM LEEDS: 44-113-301-0013 0808-238-9817 

UNITED KINGDOM LONDON: 44-20-7950-1322 0808-238-9817 

UNITED KINGDOM MANCHESTER: 44-161-601-0113 0808-238-9817 

URUGUAY 000-413-598-3832 

USA 1-203-607-0666 877-951-7311 

VENEZUELA 0800-1-00-3644 

VIETNAM 120-11747
Shawn Trevell RAINER, petitioner, v. Wendy KELLEY, Director, Arkansas Department of Correction.

No. 17-944.

Supreme Court of the United States

Feb. 26, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eight Circuit denied.
Daryl Lee INGRAM, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 17-7598.

Supreme Court of the United States

Feb. 26, 2018.

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

Justice GORSUCH took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.
Charles K. WALLACE, petitioner, v. LOUISIANA, et al.

No. 15-9420.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 3, 2016.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied.
Andrew MARCH, petitioner, v. Janet T. MILLS, Individually and in Her Official Capacity as Attorney General of Maine, et al.

No. 17-689.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 16, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit denied.
Cory S. CASTETTER, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 17-6399.

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.
EX-10.4



 EXHIBIT 10.4 

NON-EMPLOYEE SUB-PLAN 

TO THE AUTOLUS THERAPEUTICS PLC 2018 EQUITY INCENTIVE PLAN 

This sub-plan (the “Non-Employee
Sub-Plan”) to the Autolus Therapeutics plc 2018 Equity Incentive Plan (the “Plan”) governs the grant of Awards to Consultants (defined below) and Directors who are not
Employees, and has been adopted in accordance with Section 10.5 of the Plan. The Non-Employee Sub-Plan incorporates all the provisions of the Plan except as
modified in accordance with the provisions of this Non-Employee Sub-Plan and was adopted by the Board on
[                ], 2018. 
 Awards granted pursuant to the Non-Employee Sub-Plan are not granted pursuant to an “employees’ share scheme” for the purposes of UK legislation. 

For the purposes of the Non-Employee Sub-Plan, the provisions of the Plan
shall operate subject to the following modifications: 
  

	1.	Eligibility 

  

	 	1.1	A definition of “Consultant” shall be included as follows: 


“Consultant” means any person, including any adviser, engaged by the Company or its parent or Subsidiary to render services to
such entity if the consultant or adviser: (i) renders bona fide services to the Company; (ii) renders services not in connection with the offer or sale of securities in a capital-raising transaction and does not directly or indirectly
promote or maintain a market for the Company’s securities; and (iii) is a natural person. 
  

	 	1.2	The definition of “Service Provider” set out in the Plan shall be read and construed as follows: 


“Service Provider” means a Consultant or Director.
Samuel David ALVARADO, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 17-7656.

Supreme Court of the United States

March 5, 2018.

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


Testing


Laboratory


 


Carbon
& Polymer Research,
Inc


3
Arvida Drive, Pennington
NJ 08534
(business office) BovineCollagenProducts.com,
(609) 730-0575


 


 


May
16, 2016


 


Randy
McCoy Regenicin Inc


 


 


Dear
Mr. McCoy,


Carbon
& Polymer Research,
Inc. is pleased
to provide this
quote for your
request of columnar
collagen pads. Upon receiving
payment for 1⁄2
of the initial
order estimated at
this time to
be 200 pads @$100/each
and a setup
fee (tbd), we
will upgrade/acquire a
facility to manufacture
the columnar collagen pads.
This represents our
lead pricing at
this time and
will be subject
to a Most
Favored Customer clause guaranteeing
Regenicin, for the
term of this
contract, prices equal
to lowest price,
of like product, sold
to any other
customer.


 


This
quotation reflects the
costs involved in
the procurement of
materials, production of
samples, and any related
engineering, service or
product involved to
Regenicin Inc. It
does not include
the transfer of technology
or specific process
details that are
considered proprietary by
Carbon & Polymer
Research, Inc.


 


	Terms:	An invoice will be generated upon completion. Net 30 days. 50% down payment required to initiate the project, and 50% due at the time of invoice.
	Lead Time:	Lead times are quoted based on current order backlog and delivery will be confirmed at the time your order is placed.
	
        Cancellation:

        
	This quotation is non-cancellable and product is non-returnable. All quoted prices are in US dollars and FOB Carbon & Polymer Research, Inc.
	Packaging:	Packaging to be provided and determined by us at no additional charge.


 


 


	/s/ J. Roy Nelson

        J.
        Roy Nelson, Ph.D.

        Material
        Testing Laboratory

        Carbon
        & Polymer
        Inc.
	/s/
                                         Randall E. McCoy

        Randal
        E. McCoy, CEO

        Regenicin Inc.



 


 


 


Disclaimer:


Dr.
Nelson is an
employee of Regenicin
Inc.


Dr.
Nelson is President
of Carbon &
Polymer Research, Inc.
an independent laboratory
servicing the pharmaceutical industries
since 1988 and
is FDA registered
& audited.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE BALANCE
SHEET AND STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS FOR THE PERIOD ENDING MARCH 29, 1998 AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FORM 10-Q QUARTERLY REPORT FILED
PURSUANT TO THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934 FOR THE PERIOD ENDED MARCH 29,
1998.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-29-1998
<CASH>                                       3,547,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                4,750,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                  6,012,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            15,672,000
<PP&E>                                       2,102,000
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              19,633,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        6,193,000
<BONDS>                                      1,793,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        72,000
<OTHER-SE>                                  11,575,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                19,633,000
<SALES>                                      7,900,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             7,900,000
<CGS>                                        6,350,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                6,350,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             2,688,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              71,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (1,174,000)
<INCOME-TAX>                                 (100,000)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (1,074,000)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (1,074,000)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.15)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.15)
        

</TABLE>
# C_2010011EN.01001402.xml

| 16.1.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 11/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.1.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 11/14

---

Appeal brought on 3 October 2009 by Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE against the order of the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 2 July 2009 in Case T-279/06: Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE v Banque centrale européenne BCE

(Case C-401/09 P)

2010/C 11/25

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Appellant: Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE (represented by: N. Korogiannakis and M. Dermitzakis, Δικηγόροι)

Appellant:

Other party to the proceedings: European Central Bank

Other party to the proceedings:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | Set aside the decision of the Court of First Instance; |
| --- | --- |

—

Set aside the decision of the Court of First Instance;

| — | Annul the decision of the European Central Bank to evaluate the applicant's bid as not successful and award the contract to the successful contractor; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of the European Central Bank to evaluate the applicant's bid as not successful and award the contract to the successful contractor;

| — | Order ECB to pay the applicant's legal and other costs and expenses incurred in connection with the initial procedure, even if the current Appeal is rejected as well as those of the current Appeal, in case it is accepted. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order ECB to pay the applicant's legal and other costs and expenses incurred in connection with the initial procedure, even if the current Appeal is rejected as well as those of the current Appeal, in case it is accepted.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

The appellant submits that the defendant's objection of inadmissibility, submitted together with the defence, should have been declared inadmissible due to the fact that it does not comply with article 114 of the rules of procedure of the CFI which expressly provides that such an objection must be submitted ‘by a separate document’. The appellant also submits that, by accepting the objection of inadmissibility and failing to comment on the appellant's arguments with respect to the objection, the CFI infringed article 36 of the Statute of the Court of Justice.

In the appellant's view the CFI was wrong when it held that European Dynamics, because its bid was unacceptable, had no legal interest in seeking review of the decision of the contracting authority. The appellant also argues that the CFI erred by considering that it was necessary for the appellant to obtain an Arbeitnehmerüberlassungsgenehmigung (AÜG) in order to offer its services lawfully.

Finally the appellant submits that the CFI failed to apply the relevant legal provisions concerning the duty of the contracting authority to provide reasons for its decision.

---
Travonn Leon BURTONS, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 17-7199.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 16, 2018.

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