alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2011030EN.01003106.xml

| 29.1.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 30/31 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.1.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 30/31

---

Order of the President of the Court of 11 November 2010 — European Commission v Republic of Austria

(Case C-146/10) (1)

1

()

2011/C 30/54

Language of the case: German

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

---

(1)  OJ C 148, 5.6.2010.

1

---
II-01199

From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

Lynne Gillooly <lgillooly@aol.com>

Wednesday, December 1, 2010 4:39 PM

dfadefinitions <dfadefinitions@CFTC.gov>

Re: No loopholes in Dodd-Frank

1) Securities and Exchange Commission/Commodities Futures Trading Commission, Re: Commercial Risk (CFTC PIN

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 (PIN 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.

Lynne Gillooly

18218 Harbor Light Blvd

Cornelius, NC 28031
# C_2012366EN.01000901.xml

| 24.11.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 366/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.11.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 366/9

---

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 27 September 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof (Germany)) — Vogtländische Straßen-, Tief- und Rohrleitungsbau GmbH Rodewisch (VSTR) v Finanzamt Plauen

(Case C-587/10) (1)

1

(Taxation - Value-added tax - Supply of goods - Taxation of chain transactions - Refusal to exempt on grounds of failure to produce the VAT identification number of the person acquiring goods)

2012/C 366/14

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Referring court

Bundesfinanzhof

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Vogtländische Straßen-, Tief- und Rohrleitungsbau GmbH Rodewisch (VSTR)

Applicant:

Defendant: Finanzamt Plauen

Defendant:

Intervener in support of the defendant(s): Bundesministerium der Finanzen

Intervener in support of the defendant(s):

Re:

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Bundesfinanzhof — Interpretation of the Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment (OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1) — Supply of goods — Taxation of chain transactions — Purchase of goods by a company established in a Member State from another company, established in a third State and which is not registered for VAT purposes, which obtains its supplies from a company established in another Member State, the goods being dispatched directly by the supplier to the acquiring company — Situation where the supplier submits the acquirer’s VAT identification number

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The first subparagraph of Article 28c(A)(a) of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment, as amended by Council Directive 98/80/EC of 12 October 1998, should be interpreted as not precluding the tax authority of a Member State from making the exemption from VAT of an intra-Community supply subject to the provision by the supplier of the VAT identification number of the person acquiring the goods, with the proviso that the grant of that exemption should not be refused on the sole ground that that requirement was not fulfilled where the supplier, acting in good faith and having taken all the measures which can reasonably be required of him, is unable to provide that identification number but provides other information which is such as to demonstrate sufficiently that the person acquiring the goods is a taxable person acting as such in the transaction at issue.

---

(1)  OJ C 80, 12.3.2011.

1

---
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<CIK>                         0001076700
<NAME>                        VIRILITEC INDUSTRIES, INC.

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              JUL-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                                 AUG-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                   JUL-31-1999
<CASH>                                         300
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  0
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               300
<PP&E>                                         3,600
<DEPRECIATION>                                 1,200
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 11,200
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          1,350
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       467
<OTHER-SE>                                     9,383
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   11,200
<SALES>                                        0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               24
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               172,378
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                172,354
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            172,354
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   172,354
<EPS-BASIC>                                    0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  0



</TABLE>
Timothy A. JACKSON, petitioner, v. COLORADO.

No. 17-947.

Supreme Court of the United States

Feb. 20, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals of Colorado denied.
PETTER INVESTMENTS, dba Riveer, petitioner, v. HYDRO ENGINEERING.

No. 17-1055.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 2, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit denied.
David Wayne SIMS, petitioner, v. LOUISIANA.

No. 17-7002.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 23, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Third Circuit denied.
EXH31.1

                  CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE
                           SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


I, Michael Y. Brent, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Rezconnect
Technologies, Inc.

2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any untrue
statement of a material fact or omit to make the statements made, in light of
the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with
respect to the period covered by this quarterly report;


3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this quarterly report, fairly present in all material
respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the
registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this quarterly report;


4. The registrant's other certifying officer and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and we have:
      1. designed such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure that
   material information relating to the registrant, is made known to us by
   others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this
   quarterly report is being prepared;
      2. evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and
   procedures as of a date within 90 days prior to the filling date of this
   quarterly report ("Evaluation Date") ;and
      3. presented in this quarterly report our conclusions about the
   effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures based on our
   evaluation as of the Evaluation Date.

5. The registrant's other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our
most recent evaluation, to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of
registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent function):
      1. All significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal
   control which could adversely affect the registrant's ability to record,
   process, summarize and report financial data and have identified for the
   registrant's auditors any material weakness in internal controls; and
      2. Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
   employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal controls;
   and

6. The registrant's other certifying officer and I have indicated in this
quarterly report whether or not there were significant changes in internal
controls or in other factors that could subsequently affect internal controls
subsequent to the date of our most recent evaluation, including any corrective
actions with regard to significant deficiencies and material weaknesses.


Date May 24, 2004


                          /s/  Michael Y. Brent
                          ---------------------
                          Michael Y. Brent,
                          Chief Executive Officer, Rezconnect Technologies, Inc.
Gary CREDDILLE, petitioner, v. MTA NEW YORK CITY TRANSIT, et al.

No. 15-9538.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 3, 2016.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit denied.
Julian R. HOOD, Jr., petitioner, v. Megan J. BRENNAN, Postmaster General.

No. 17-66.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 2, 2017.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit denied.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

Before the 

COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION 

In the Matter of 

Globalbitasset, 

Respondent. 

CFTC Docket No. 

COMPLAINT AND NOTICE OF HEARING PURSUANT TO SECTION 6(d) OF THE 

COMMODITY EXCHANGE ACT 

The Commodity Futures Trading Commission ("Commission") has received 

information from its staff that tends to show, and the Commission's Division of Enforcement 

("Division") alleges that: 

I. 

SUMMARY 

1. From at least August 2023 and through the present (the "relevant time"),

Globalbitasset ("Respondent"), has operated a website with a URL address of globalbitasset.com 

(the "website"). On the website, Respondent offers a variety of services to its customers in 

connection with trading a variety of products including futures, options, forex, and digital assets 

that are commodities in interstate commerce ("digital assets") like Bitcoin. Respondent further 

advertises that it is a registered FCM and RFED and a member of the National Futures 

Association ("NF A"), and provides an NF A ID number, thus attempting to create a false 

perception of legitimacy in connection with soliciting customers. However, in truth, Respondent 

is not a registered FCM or RFED nor has it been assigned the stated NF A ID number. Thus, 

Respondent has violated and is violating Section 6(c)(l) of the Act, 7 U.S.C. § 9(1), and 

Commission Regulation 180. l(a)(l )-(3), 17 C.F.R. § 180. l(a)(l)-(3) (2022). 

23-48
No. 205.

#### Simms et al. *v.*Elyria Savings & Trust Co.

October 14, 1935.

Petition for writ of certiorari *597to the Supreme Court of Ohio denied.

*Mr. Miles E. Evans*for petitioners.

*Mr. Frank H. Myers*for respondent.
Edmundo CERDA-ANIMA, petitioner, v. Darrel VANNOY, Warden.

No. 17-8410.

Supreme Court of the United States

May 14, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied.
CRANE CO., petitioner, v. Jeanette G. POAGE.

No. 17-900.

Supreme Court of the United States

March 26, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals of Missouri, Eastern District denied.
Chamma BRANDON v. Glenn SCHROYER, et al.

No. 17-7797 (R46-026 / OT 2017).

Supreme Court of the United States

April 5, 2018.

The petition for writ of certiorari was dismissed today pursuant to Rule 46 of the Rules of this Court.
# C_2011252EN.01002803.xml

| 27.8.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 252/28 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.8.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 252/28

---

Order of the President of the Court of 16 February 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Administratif de Rennes (France)) — L’Océane Immobilière SAS v Direction de contrôle fiscal Ouest

(Case C-487/10) (1)

1

2011/C 252/62

Language of the case: French

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

---

(1)  OJ C 346, 18.12.2010.

1

---
Jermaine COLEMAN, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 17-5330.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 2, 2017.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit denied.
Matthew Manville PERRY, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 17-6611.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 2, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit denied.
# C_2012258EN.01001502.xml

| 25.8.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 258/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.8.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 258/15

---

Judgment of the General Court of 22 May 2012 — Evropaïki Dynamiki v Commission

(Case T-17/09) (1)

1

(Public services contracts - Tender procedure - Provision of informatics services for an electronic exchange of social security information project (EESSI project) in the field of the coordination of social security for persons mobile in Europe - Rejection of bid submitted by a tenderer - Award of the contract - Obligation to state the reasons on which the decision is based - Transparency - Equal treatment - Manifest error of assessment - No interest in bringing proceedings - Non contractual liability)

2012/C 258/24

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE (Athens, Greece) (represented by: N. Korogiannakis and P. Katsimani, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: N. Bambara and E. Manhaeve, Agents, and initially by W. Sparks, Solicitor, subsequently by E. Petritsi, lawyer, and latterly by O. Graber-Soudry, Solicitor)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Application, first, for annulment of the Commission’s decision rejecting the tender submitted by the applicant in respect of the call for tenders VT/2008/019 EMPL EESSI for the provision of informatics products and services for the EESSI project (OJ 2008/S 111–148 213) and of the decision to award the contract to another tenderer and, secondly, for damages.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 82, 4.4.2009.

1

---
# C_2012126EN.01000201.xml

| 28.4.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 126/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.4.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 126/2

---

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 8 March 2012 — European Commission v Portuguese Republic

(Case C-524/10) (1)

1

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Common system of value added tax - Directive 2006/112/EC - Articles 296 to 298 - Common flat-rate scheme for farmers - Flat-rate compensation percentage set at nil rate)

2012/C 126/02

Language of the case: Portuguese

Parties

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: M. Afonso, acting as Agent)

Applicant:

Defendant: Portuguese Republic (represented by: L. Inez Fernandes and R. Laires, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Infringement of Articles 296 to 298 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1) — Flat-rate scheme designed to offset the VAT levied on the purchases of goods and services by flat-rate farmers — Flat-rate compensation percentage set at nil rate

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Declares that by applying to farmers a special scheme which does not comply with the scheme established by Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax, because it exempts farmers from payment of value added tax and involves the application of a flat-rate compensation percentage at a nil rate, the Portuguese Republic failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 296 to 298 of that directive; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Declares that by applying to farmers a special scheme which does not comply with the scheme established by Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax, because it exempts farmers from payment of value added tax and involves the application of a flat-rate compensation percentage at a nil rate, the Portuguese Republic failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 296 to 298 of that directive;

| 2. | Dismisses the action as to the remainder; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

| 3. | Orders the European Commission and the Portuguese Republic to bear their own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the European Commission and the Portuguese Republic to bear their own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 30, 29.1.2011.

1

---
Created with Sketch.Menu Transparency
	Contact Us Search
Search
 Main navigation

      
      About the CFTC
                          The Commission
                        Chairman & Commissioners
                        CFTC Organization
                        Advisory Committees
                        Budget & Performance
                        Privacy at the CFTC
                        Careers
                        Diversity and Inclusion at the CFTC
                        Industry Oversight
                          Industry Filings
                        Trading Organizations
                        Clearing Organizations
                        Data Repositories
                        Intermediaries
                        Market Surveillance
                        Contracts & Products
                        Rules & Rule Amendments
                        Anti-Money Laundering
                        Law & Regulation
                          Commodity Exchange Act & Regulations
                        How Rules Are Made
                        Holding Wrongdoers Accountable
                        Federal Register
                        Public Comments
                        CFTC Staff Letters
                        Office of Technology Innovation
                        Market Data & Economic Analysis
                          Data at CFTC
                        Commitments of Traders
                        Bank Participation Reports
                        Cotton On-Call
                        Financial Data for FCMS
                        Net Position Changes Data
                        Staff Reports
                        Weekly Swaps Report
                        Cleared Margin Reports
                        Office of the Chief Economist
                        Forms & Submissions
                        Learn & Protect
                          Check Registration & Disciplinary History
                        Submit a Tip
                        Reparations Program
                        RED List
                        Advisories & Articles
                        Videos
                        Publications
                        News & Events
                          Press Releases
                        Public Statements & Remarks
                        Events Carousel Rotation On
              On


External Meetings: Call with NFA
  
    



  Participants discussed SEF compliance issues.
      
  When
              03/20/2012

  Rulemaking(s)
              XIII. SEF Registration

  CFTC Staff
              Bella Rozenberg, Amir Zaidi

  Visitor(s)
              Ed Dasso (NFA), Jane Croessmann (NFA)

  Organization(s)
              NFA


Resources

CFTC Regulations
	Commodity Exchange Act
	Privacy Policy
	Web Policy
	FOIA
	EEO Statement
	No Fear Act
	Accessibility Statement
	Procurement
	USA.gov
	Glossary

Actions

Search Public Comments
	Submit Tips & Complaints
	Search Industry FilingsWhistleblower.gov
	Office of Technology InnovationInspector GeneralSitemap

HomeCFTC Headquarters
Three Lafayette Centre
1155 21st Street, NW
Washington, DC 20581
202.418.5000
Marvin BELSER, petitioner, v. Heidi E. WASHINGTON, Director, Michigan Department of Corrections, et al.

No. 17-7799.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 23, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit denied.
Bryan Joseph MINCEY, petitioner, v. Ron DAVIS, Warden.

No. 17-8407.

Supreme Court of the United States

May 21, 2018.

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

No. 16-8997.

Supreme Court of the United States

May 14, 2018.

On petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed *in forma pauperis* and petition for writ of certiorari granted. The judgments is vacated, and case is remanded to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit for further consideration in light of *Sessions v. Dimaya,**1980584 U.S. ----, 138 S.Ct. 1204, 200 L.Ed.2d 549 (2018).
Dean Paul STITZ, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 17-8048.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 16, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied.
Charles A. WILLIAMS, petitioner, v. Jennifer FOLSOM, Warden.

No. 17-5042.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 2, 2017.

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