alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 122 (Monday, June 25, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Page 33720]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-15830]


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

OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT


Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request for an Expiring 
Information Collection: OPM Form 1644

AGENCY: Office of Personnel Management.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Public 
Law 104-13, May 22, 1995), this notice announces that the Office of 
Personnel Management (OPM) submitted to the Office of Management and 
Budget a request for review of an expiring information collection. OPM 
Form 1644, Child Care Provider Information: Child Care Tuition 
Assistance Program for Federal Employees, is used to verify that child 
care providers are licensed and/or regulated by local and/or State 
authorities. Agencies need to know that child care providers to whom 
they make disbursements in the form of tuition assistance subsidies, 
are licensed and/or regulated by local and/or State authorities, in 
accordance with the specific requirements of their jurisdictions.
    Pub. L. 106-58, passed by Congress on September 29, 1999, permits 
Federal agencies to use appropriated funds to help their lower income 
employees with their costs for child care. It is up to the agencies to 
decide on whether to implement this law. This is a new law and the 
extent to which it will be implemented, including the number of 
providers that will be involved, cannot be easily predicted. We 
estimate approximately 3000-5000 OPM 1644 forms will be completed 
annually. The form will take approximately 10 minutes to complete by 
each provider. The annual estimated burden is 833 hours.
    For copies of this proposal, contact Mary Beth Smith-Toomey on 
(202) 606-8358, Fax at 202-418-3251 or E-mail <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#640906100b0b09011d240b14094a030b12"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="68050a1c0707050d1128071805460f071e">[email protected]</span></a>. Please 
include a mailing address with your request.

DATES: Comments on this proposal should be received within 30 calendar 
days from the date of this publication.

ADDRESSES: Send or deliver comments to:--
Patricia F. Kinney, Director, Office of Work/Life Programs, U.S. Office 
of Personnel Management, 1900 E St., NW., Room 7315, Washington, DC 
20415,
    and,
Joseph Lackey, OPM Desk Officer, Office of Information and Regulatory 
Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, New Executive Office 
Building, NW., Room 10235, Washington, DC 20503.

FOR INFORMATION REGARDING ADMINISTRATION COORDINATION CONTACT: Brooke 
L. Brewer, Work/Life Program Specialist, Office of Work/Life Programs, 
(202) 606-2012.

U.S. Office of Personnel Management.
Steven R. Cohen,
Acting Director.
[FR Doc. 01-15830 Filed 6-22-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6325-41-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
# C_2011232EN.01002602.xml

| 6.8.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 232/26 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.8.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 232/26

---

Judgment of the General Court of 28 June 2011 — ATB Norte v OHIM — Bricocenter Italia (BRICO CENTER Garden)

(Case T-479/09) (1)

(Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community figurative mark BRICO CENTER Garden - Earlier Community figurative marks ATB CENTROS DE BRICOLAGE Brico Centro and CENTROS DE BRICOLAGE BricoCentro - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

(2011/C 232/46)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: ATB Norte, SL (Burgos, Spain) (represented initially by P. López Ronda, G. Macias Bonilla, H. Curtis-Oliver and G. Marín Raigal, and subsequently by F. Brandolini Kujman, lawyers)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: O. Montalto and G. Mannucci, Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: Bricocenter Italia Srl (Rozzano, Italy) (represented by: G. Ghidini, M. Mergati and C. Signorini, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 24 September 2009 (Case R 1044/2008-4) relating to opposition proceedings between ATB Norte, SL and Bricocenter Italia Srl.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 24 September 2009 (Case R 1044/2008-4) inasmuch as it upheld the appeal of Bricocenter Italia Srl before the Board of Appeal regarding the services of ‘advertising’, ‘business management’ and ‘business administration’ covered by the Community trade mark application; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 24 September 2009 (Case R 1044/2008-4) inasmuch as it upheld the appeal of Bricocenter Italia Srl before the Board of Appeal regarding the services of ‘advertising’, ‘business management’ and ‘business administration’ covered by the Community trade mark application;

| 2. | Dismisses the remainder of the action; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Dismisses the remainder of the action;

| 3. | Orders ATB Norte, SL, Bricocenter Italia and OHIM each to bear their own costs incurred during the proceedings before the General Court. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders ATB Norte, SL, Bricocenter Italia and OHIM each to bear their own costs incurred during the proceedings before the General Court.

---

(1)  OJ C 24, 30.1.2010.

---
Gerald R. RISING, Jr., petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 15-9575.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 3, 2016.

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

                                                                    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 Quarterly Report of K & F Industries, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2004 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Bernard
L. Schwartz, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that:

      (1) The Report 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 Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.

/s/ BERNARD L. SCHWARTZ
-----------------------
Bernard L. Schwartz
Chief Executive Officer
May 7, 2004
Commodity Futures Trading Commission ♦ Office of Public Affairs ♦ 202-418-5080

Commodity Futures Trading Commission

Office of Public Affairs

Three Lafayette Centre

1155 21st Street, NW

Washington, DC 20581

www.cftc.gov

Q & A – Clearing Requirement Determination under Section 2(h) of the CEA

Some DCOs clear interest rate swaps in 17 different currencies, does the clearing requirement 

apply to all 17 currencies?

No, the proposed clearing requirement would apply to only four currencies: U.S. dollar, euro, British pound sterling, and 

Japanese yen. Examination of market data revealed the existence of significant outstanding notional amounts and trading 

liquidity in the seventeen currencies identified in the DCO submissions. However, the Commission notes that swaps using the 

four currencies listed above account for over ninety percent of both notional amounts outstanding and trading volumes for 

the overall interest rate swap market. For this reason and to avoid introducing too much required clearing too quickly, the 

Commission required clearing for only four currencies at this time.

Are tranched CDS required to be cleared?

No, tranched CDS are not required to be cleared. The Commission recognizes that there is a significant market for tranched 

swaps using the indices. In these transactions, parties to the CDS contract agree to address only a certain range of losses along 

the entire loss distribution curve. Other swaps such as first or “Nth” to default baskets, and options, also exist on the indices. 

However, these swaps are not being cleared currently and were not submitted by any DCO for consideration under § 39.5.

Will the clearing requirement apply to swaps entered into prior to 2012?

No. The rules codify statutory provisions that make clear that any swaps entered into prior to the enactment of the DoddFrank Act or prior to the application of the clearing requirement are not required to be cleared.

Will the implementation of the clearing requirement be phased?

Yes, the Commission has decided to phase compliance with the clearing requirement by type of market participant. To 

promote certainty for market participants, the Commission is setting specific compliance dates: Monday, March 11, 2013 for 

Category 1 Entities; Monday, June 10, 2013 for Category 2 Entities; and Monday, September 9, 2013 for Category 3 Entities.

Must swaps executed prior to the applicable compliance date be cleared?

No, a market participant must only clear those swaps executed on or after the applicable compliance date.

Is there a special compliance date for iTraxx swaps subject to the clearing requirement?

No, but if no eligible DCO has begun offering client clearing for iTraxx by February 11, 2013, then the Commission will delay

compliance for clearing those swaps until 60 days after the date on which an eligible DCO offers iTraxx indices for client 

clearing. Compliance will be phased for Category 2 and Category 3 Entities provided that client clearing is offered prior to

September 9, 2013.
In Re John E. RODARTE, petitioner.

No. 17-7485.

Supreme Court of the United States

Feb. 20, 2018.

Petition for writ of habeas corpus denied.
Holly NIOTTI-SOLTESZ, petitioner, v. Michael W. PIOTROWSKI, et al.

No. 17-1062.

Supreme Court of the United States

March 26, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals of Ohio, Trumbull County denied.
Exhibit 10.8
 2010 CASH AWARD AGREEMENT
THERMADYNE HOLDINGS CORPORATION
 
  
  Terms of Plan to Control
  Grant of Cash Award
 
 Restrictions
  Page 1 of 7




---



##### 



a.
    
    ROIOC for a fiscal year of the Company means Adjusted
Operating EBITDA for such year divided by Invested Operating Capital for such
year.b.
    
    Invested Operating Capital for a fiscal year of the Company
is the sum of the following items from the consolidated year end balance sheet
as shown on the Companys audited financial statement for such year:
 
 c.
    
    Adjusted Operating EBITDA for a fiscal year of the Company is
the sum of the following items from the consolidated year end statements of
operations as shown on the Companys audited financial statement for such year:
 
  Page 2 of 7




---



##### 



Termination of Employment
     Page 3 of 7




---



##### 



Non-Assignability
  Withholding Taxes
  Right of Discharge Reserved
  Nature of Payments
   Committee Determinations
  Section Headings
 Page 4 of 7




---



##### 



Notices
  Successors and Assigns
  Other Payments or Awards
  Governing Law and Venue
  Severability
  Page 5 of 7




---



##### 



Entire Agreement; Modification
  Authority to Receive Payments
  Counterparts
   THERMADYNE HOLDINGS
CORPORATION
    
    GRANTEEBy:Nick H. Varsam
    
    Grantees Name:General Counsel & Secretary
    
    Date of
Signature:Grantees Address:
 Page 6 of 7




---



##### 



2010 CASH AWARD AGREEMENT
THERMADYNE HOLDINGS CORPORATION
BENEFICIARY DESIGNATION
       Date of this Designation
    
    Signature of Participant
  Page 7 of 7
Yolanda BELL, petitioner, v. INOVA HEALTH CARE, dba Inova Fairfax Hospital.

No. 17-7880.

Supreme Court of the United States

March 26, 2018.

Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed *in forma pauperis* denied. Petitioner allowed *1345until April 16, 2018, within which to pay the docketing fee required by Rule 38(a) and to submit a petition in compliance with Rule 33.1 of the Rules of this Court.
Edward Jameson PURRY, II, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 17-7782.

Supreme Court of the United States

March 19, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.
PANEL 1:  The role of Examination Experts’ Reviews of SRO Examination Programs

   Name First Name Affiliation

1 Telzer Sam Pricewaterhouse Coopers

2 Palumbo Joe Ernst & Young

3 Jamroz Mike Deloitte & Touche

4 Flowers Rich Grant Thornton

5 Bagan Anne CME Group

6 Vogel Grace FINRA

7 Stevenson Michael Public Company Accounting Oversight Board

8 Thoele Regina National Futures Association

9 McIsaac Dan KPMG
PANEL 2:  Proposed Enhanced Firm Specific Disclosures and Financial Reporting

   Name First Name Affiliation

1 Horgan Richard Rosenthal Collins Group (Futures Industry Association)

2 Thum William C. The Vanguard Group  

3 Sexton Tom National Futures Association

4 Vogel Grace FINRA

5 Filler Ron New York Law School

6 Koutoulas James Commodity Customer Coalition

7 Greenberger Michael University of MD School of Law

8 Wolf Doug National Pork Producers Council

9 Tirrell Bill

Bank of America (Securities Industry and Financial

Markets Association)

10 Holloway Mark

Goldman Sachs (Securities Industry and Financial

Markets Association)

11 Kemp Todd National Grain and Feed Association

12 Cocco Alessandro J.P. Morgan
PANEL 3:  Requirements for Segregation and Secured Acknowledgement Letters

   Name First Name Affiliation

1 Murphy Kevin Barclays (Futures Industry Association)

2 Sexton Tom National Futures Association

3 Filler Ron New York Law School

4 Greenberger Michael University of MD School of Law

5 Ferris Scott BMO Harris Bank (Futures Industry Association)

6 Wolf Doug National Pork Producers Council

7 Kemp Todd National Grain and Feed Association

8 Roe John BTR Trading Group

9 Taylor Kim CME Group
PANEL 4:  Residual Interest Requirements

   Name First Name Affiliation

1 Thum William C. The Vanguard Group

2 Filler Ron New York Law School

3 Greenberger Michael University of Maryland School of Law

4 Corcoran Gerry RJ O’Brien & Associates, Inc.  

5 Wolf Doug National Pork Producers Council  

6 Dawley Michael Goldman Sachs (Futures Industry Association)

7 Thoele Regina National Futures Association

8 Koutoulas James Commodity Customer Coalition

9 Cohn Josh

Mayer Brown (International Swaps and Derivatives

Association)

10 Kemp Todd National Grain and Feed Association

11 Rogic Predrag T. Rowe Price (Investment Company Institute)

12 Holloway Mark

Goldman Sachs (Securities Industry and Financial Markets

Association)

13 Tirrell Bill

Bank of America (Securities Industry and Financial

Markets Association)

14 Spoljaric Dale Barclays Capital (Futures Industry Association)

15 Taylor Kim CME Group
# C_2012032EN.01000401.xml

| 4.2.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 32/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.2.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 32/4

---

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 8 December 2011 — KME Germany AG, formerly KM Europa Metal AG, KME France SAS, formerly Tréfimétaux SA, KME Italy SpA, formerly Europa Metalli SpA v European Commission

(Case C-272/09 P) (1)

1

(Appeal - Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Market for copper industrial tubes - Fines - Size of the market, duration of the infringement and cooperation capable of being taken into consideration - Effective judicial remedy)

2012/C 32/06

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Appellants: KME Germany AG, formerly KM Europa Metal AG, KME France SAS, formerly Tréfimétaux SA, KME Italy SpA, formerly Europa Metalli SpA (represented by: M. Siragusa, avvocato, A. Winckler, avocat, G. Rizza, avvocato, T. Graf, advokat, M. Piergiovanni, avvocato)

Appellants:

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: E. Gippini Fournier and J. Bourke, acting as Agents, C. Thomas, Solicitor)

Other party to the proceedings:

Re:

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Eighth Chamber) of 6 May 2009 in Case T-127/04 KME Germany and Others v Commission, in which the Court dismissed an action seeking reduction of the fine imposed on the applicants by Commission Decision 2004/421/EC of 16 December 2003, relating to a proceeding pursuant to Article 81 of the EC Treaty and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/E-1/38.240 — Industrial tubes) (OJ 2004 L 125, p. 50) — Price-fixing and market-sharing — Actual impact on the market — Guidelines for calculating the amount of fines

KME Germany and Others

Commission

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the appeal; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the appeal;

| 2. | Orders KME Germany AG, KME France SAS and KME Italy SpA to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders KME Germany AG, KME France SAS and KME Italy SpA to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 220, 12.9.2009.

1

---
# C_2011173EN.01000802.xml

| 11.6.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 173/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.6.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 173/8

---

Order of the President of the Court of 16 February 2011 (references for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Berlin — Germany) — Agrargenossenschaft Münchehof e.G. (C-18/10), Landwirtschaftliches Unternehmen e.G. Sondershausen (C-37/10) v BVVG Bodenverwertungs- und -verwaltungs GmbH

(Joined Cases C-18/10 and C-37/10) (1)

1

2011/C 173/17

Language of the case: German

The President of the Court has ordered that the cases be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 80, 27.3.2010.

1

OJ C 100, 17.4.2010.

---
Motion Granted; Order filed September 21 , 2017.

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________ NO. 14 - 17 - 00646 - CV NO. 14 - 17 - 00 721 - CV

____________ BRENDA PEABODY, M.D. , ST. LUKE'S LAKESIDE HOSP ITAL, LLC , CHARLES SIMS, M.D. , AND GREATER HOUSTON PHYSICIAN'S

MEDICAL ASSOCIATION, PLLC , Appellant s

V. CHRISTY MANCHAC, IND IVIDUALLY, AS NEXT F RIEND OF MEREDITH MANCHAC AND MALLORY MANCHAC, MIN ORS, AND REPRESENTATIVES OF THE ESTATE OF THAD MANCHAC, DECEDENT, P AT MANCHAC AND PATRI CIA

WATSON , Appellee s On Appeal from the 129th District Court

Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 2017 - 01332



### ORDEROn August 4, 2017 , Brenda Peabody, M.D. and St. Luke’s Lakeside Hospital,

LLC filed a notice of appeal from an order signed July 17, 2017 , and the appeal was assigned to this court under our appellate number 14

- 17

- 00 646

- CV. On September 8, 2017 , Charles Sims, M.D. and Greater Houston Physician’s Medical Association, PLLC filed a no tice of appeal from an order in the same trial court cause number , which was assigned to this court under our appellate number 14

- 17

- 00 721

- CV. On, September 13, 2017 , the parties filed an agreed motion to consolidate the related appeals. The motion is GRAN TED and we issue the following order: We order the appeals pending under our appellate case numbers 14

- 17

- 00646

- CV and 14

- 17

- 00721

- CV CONSOLIDATED. The record in cause number 14

- 17

- 00721

- CV is due on or before September 18, 2017. After the record is filed in cause number 14

- 17

- 00721

- CV, the existing filing deadlines for briefs in case number 14

- 17

- 00721

- CV will apply to both cases.

PER CURIAM Panel consists of Chief Justice Frost and Justices Boyce and Jewell.
II-00549

From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

James Massey <drmassey@gmail.com>

Thursday, December 2, 2010 3:13 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.

James Massey

3310 SW Vista Dr.

Portland, OR 97225
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

WESTERN DISTRICT

WILKINS TOWNSHIP,

Petitioner

v.

THE WAGE POLICY COMMITTEE OF

THE WILKINS TOWNSHIP POLICE
DEPARTMENT,

Respondent :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 234 WAL 2017

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from

the Order of the Commonwealth Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 21st day of November, 2017

, the Petition for Allowance of

Appeal is DENIED

.
# C_2010024EN.01002101.xml

| 30.1.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 24/21 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.1.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 24/21

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden, lodged on 29 October 2009 — Staatssecretaris van Financiën v X

(Case C-423/09)

2010/C 24/36

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Referring court

Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Staatssecretaris van Financiën

Appellant:

Respondent: X

Respondent:

Question referred

Question referred

What criteria are to be applied in order to determine whether vegetables (garlic bulbs) which have been dried to some degree, but from which not all, or not almost all, of the moisture has been removed, and which are imported in a chilled state, are to be classified under tariff subheading 0703 20 00 of the CN or under tariff subheading 0712 90 90 of the CN?

---