alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
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: CFA/AFR Letter
  
    



  The CFTC received the attached letter from CFA/AFR.
      
  When
              11/03/2011

  Rulemaking(s)
              III. Business Conduct Standards w/ Counterparties

  Organization(s)
              Consumer Federation of America (CFA)Americans for Financial Reform (AFR)


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
FRONT ROW TECHNOLOGIES, LLC, petitioner, v. MLB ADVANCED MEDIA, L.P., et al.

No. 17-1226.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 23, 2018.

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

THE CHIEF JUSTICE took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 95-6583

MONROE ROOSEVELT PARKER, JR.,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Graham C. Mullen, District

Judge. (CA-92-38-MU-3)

Submitted: November 21, 1995 Decided: May 13, 1996

Before WILKINSON, Chief Judge, and MURNAGHAN and HAMILTON, Circuit

Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Monroe Roosevelt Parker, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Clifford Carson

Marshall, Jr., OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Asheville,

North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
* Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of

Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971).

2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant, Rev. Monroe R. Parker, Jr., appeals the district

court's denial of Parker's motion to reinstate a 28 U.S.C. § 2241

(1988) petition for habeas corpus. The petition was dismissed

without prejudice in 1993 after the district court, having had no

contact with Parker for one year, failed in numerous attempts to

locate him. Eleven months later, Parker moved the district court to

reinstate the petition. Parker alleged that his mail had been interrupted at two institutions in which he had been confined during

that time. The motion to reinstate was referred to a magistrate

judge, who recommended that the motion be denied. The district

court, after considering Parker's objections to the magistrate

judge's recommendation, denied the motion and dismissed an independent Bivens* complaint which Parker had submitted.

We consider Parker's motion to be a motion for relief from

judgment under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). In re Burnley, 988 F.2d 1, 2-

3 (4th Cir. 1992). We review district court rulings on such motions

for abuse of discretion. Id. at 3. We do not review the merits of

the underlying order, only denial of the motion with respect to the

grounds set forth in Rule 60(b). Id. Having reviewed the record, we

conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in

denying the motion to reinstate. In addition, we affirm the court's
3

dismissal of the Bivens complaint, as venue does not lie in the

Western District of North Carolina. 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a) (1988).

We affirm the order of the district court. We dispense with

oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would

not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
I 

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 3944 

To amend the Water Resources Reform and Development Act of 2014 to 

modify the procedure for communicating certain emergency risks, and 

for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JULY 24, 2019 

Mr. KEVIN HERN of Oklahoma (for himself and Mr. MULLIN) introduced the 

following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Transportation 

and Infrastructure 

A BILL 

To amend the Water Resources Reform and Development 

Act of 2014 to modify the procedure for communicating 

certain emergency risks, and for other purposes. 

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

3 SECTION 1. EMERGENCY COMMUNICATION OF RISK. 

4 Section 3027(d) of the Water Resources Reform and 

5 Development Act of 2014 (33 U.S.C. 709c(d)) is amended 

6 by inserting ‘‘, or when the National Weather Service fore7 casts a possibility that precipitation or runoff will exceed,’’ 

8 after ‘‘when precipitation or runoff exceeds’’. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
Daniel Ryan NORTON, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 17-8394.

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.
#### ROWAN v. PEOPLE.

No. 9837.

Circuit Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.

Feb. 13, 1945.

Michael Rowan, in pro. per.

Herbert J. Rushton, of Escanaba, Mich., Edmund E. Shepherd, of Lansing, Mich., Ben H. Cole and Percival R. Piper, both of Detroit, Mich., and Daniel J. O’Hara, of Lansing, Mich., for appellee.

Before ALLEN, HAMILTON, and McALLISTER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Appellant, who is confined in the State prison at Jackson, Michigan, by virtue of an order committing him as a criminal sexual psychopathic person, in accordance with the provisions of Act 165 of the Public Acts of Michigan 1939, Comp.Laws Supp.1940, § 6991-1 et seq., Stat.Ann., Cum. Supp. § 2&.967(1)- et seq., sought to be released from confinement by petition for a writ of habeas corpus, which was denied by the District- Court, and thereafter, his appeal in forma pauperis was duly allowed.

Appellant, in the proceedings under the statute, was not charged with a crime; he was not tried for violation of the criminal laws; and he is not being held as a criminal. He attacks the constitutionality of the Michigan statute, by virtue of which he is confined. The Act is not open to any of the constitutional objections raised by appellant. In re Kemmerer, 309 Mich. 313, 15 N.W.2d 652; People v. Chapman, 301 Mich. 584, 4 N.W,.2d 18. See also, State of Minnesota v. Probate Court, 309 U.S. 270, *60*S.Ct. 523, 84 L.Ed. 744, *126*A.L.R. 530. With regard to his other complaints on appeal, he has not exhausted his remedies in the State courts.

The judgment of the District Court is affirmed.
Luis BUILES, petitioner, v. S.M. KUTA, WARDEN.

No. 17-8060.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 16, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit denied.
Juan Geraldo ARREDONDO, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 17-8379.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 30, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied.
### In The

Court of Appeals

Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana

______________________________

No. 06

- 0 9

- 00 220

- CR

______________________________

CHARLES HEARNE , Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 6th Judicial District Court

Lamar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 20502

Before Morriss, C.J., Carter and Moseley, JJ.

Memorandum Opinion by Justice Carter2 MEMORANDUM OPINION

C harles Hearne has filed a notice of appeal from the revocation of his community

supervision. We have now received the certification of Hearne ’ s right of appeal as required by

Rule 25.2 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 25.2. That

certification states that Hearne waived his right of appeal.

Unless a certification, showi ng that a defendant has the right of appeal, is in the record, we

must dismiss the appeal. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 25.2(d). Because the trial court ’ s certification

affirmatively shows that Hearne has waived his right of appeal, and because the record before us

does not reflect that the certification is incorrect, see Dears v. State , 154 S.W.3d 610, 615 (Tex.

Crim. App. 2005), we must dismiss the appeal.

We dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction.

Jack Carter

Justice

Date Submitted: February 2 3 , 2010

Date Decided: February 24 , 2010

Do Not Publish
# C_2011319EN.01000802.xml

| 29.10.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 319/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.10.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 319/8

---

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 15 September 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo (Spain)) — Unió de Pagesos de Catalunya v Administración del Estado

(Case C-197/10) (1)

1

(Common agricultural policy - Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 - Single payment scheme - Entitlements to payments from the national reserve - Conditions for granting - Farmers commencing an agricultural activity - Hypothetical nature of the question referred - Inadmissibility)

2011/C 319/13

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Referring court

Tribunal Supremo

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Unió de Pagesos de Catalunya

Applicant:

Defendant: Administración del Estado

Defendant:

Intervening party: Coordinadora de Organizaciones de Agricultores y Ganaderos — Iniciativa Rural del Estado Español

Intervening party:

Re:

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Tribunal Supremo — Interpretation of Article 42(3) of Council Regulation No 1782/2003 of 29 September 2003 establishing common rules for direct support schemes under the common agricultural policy and establishing certain support schemes for farmers and amending Regulations (EEC) No 2019/93, (EC) No 1452/2001, (EC) No 1453/2001, (EC) No 1454/2001, (EC) 1868/94, (EC) No 1251/1999, (EC) No 1254/1999, (EC) No 1673/2000, (EEC) No 2358/71 and (EC) No 2529/2001 (OJ 2003 L 270, p. 1) and of Article 22 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005 of 20 September 2005 on support for rural development by the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development EAFRD (OJ 2005 L 277, p. 1) — Integrated administration and control system for certain support schemes — Single payment scheme — Fixing of the reference amount — Entitlement to the payment not granted in certain situations — Young farmers

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The reference for a preliminary ruling made by the Tribunal Supremo (Spain) by decision of 18 March 2010 is inadmissible because the question referred is hypothetical.

---

(1)  OJ C 195, 17.7.2010.

1

---
UNILOC USA, INC., et al., petitioners, v. SEGA OF AMERICA, INC., et al.

No. 17-1018.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 30, 2018.

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

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT 

No. 09-6167

BILLY G. ASEMANI, 

 Plaintiff - Appellant, 

 v. 

S. SMITH, Case Management Specialist; TYLER, Captain, 

Mailroom Supervisor; KATHLEEN S. GREEN, Warden, ECI-East; 

STATE OF MARYLAND, 

 Defendants - Appellees. 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

Maryland, at Baltimore. Richard D. Bennett, District Judge. 

(1:08-cv-02952-RDB) 

Submitted: May 18, 2009 Decided: June 9, 2009 

Before KING and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior 

Circuit Judge. 

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

Billy G. Asemani, Appellant Pro Se. Stephanie Judith Lane 

Weber, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, 

Maryland, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 
2 

PER CURIAM: 

 Billy G. Asemani appeals the district courts denial of 

his motion for reconsideration of the dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. 

§ 1983 (2006) action alleging denial of access to courts. We 

review the denial of a motion for reconsideration for abuse of 

discretion. See Pacific Ins. Co. v. American Nat’l Fire Ins. 

Co., 148 F.3d 396, 402 (4th Cir. 1998). After reviewing the 

record, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its 

discretion in denying Asemani’s motion for reconsideration. 

Accordingly, we affirm the order of the district court. We 

dispense with oral argument as the facts and legal contentions 

are adequately expressed in the materials before the court and 

further argument would not aid the decisional process. 

AFFIRMED
BOSTON FINANCIAL QUALIFIED HOUSING TAX CREDITS L.P. V
                             (A Limited Partnership)



                                 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 Boston Financial Qualified Housing
Tax Credits, L.P. V (the "Partnership") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended
December 31, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the
date hereof (the "Report"), the undersigned, the Executive Vice President,
hereby 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 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
     Partnership.



                                                  /s/Jenny Netzer
                                                  Jenny Netzer
                                                  Executive Vice President
                                                  MMA Financial, LLC

                                                  Date:    February 14, 2005









A signed original of this written statement required by section 906 has been
provided to the Partnership and will be retained by the Partnership and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

<PAGE>
UNITED STATES, petitioner, v. Douglas D. JACKSON.

No. 17-651.

Supreme Court of the United States

May 14, 2018.

On petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. Petition for writ of certiorari granted. Judgment vacated, and case remanded to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit for further consideration in light of *Sessions v.*

*1984*Dimaya,* 584 U.S. ----, 138 S.Ct. 1204, 200 L.Ed.2d 549 (2018).
# C_2011211EN.01000802.xml

| 16.7.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 211/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.7.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 211/8

---

Order of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 28 March 2011 — Herhof-Verwaltungsgesellschaft mbH v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) — Stabilator sp. z o.o.

(Case C-418/10 P) (1)

1

(Appeal - Community trade mark - Regulation (EC) No 40/94 - Article 8(1)(b) - Opposition proceedings - Earlier mark STABILAT - Figurative sign ‘stabilator’ - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Absence of similarity of the goods and services)

2011/C 211/14

Language of the case: German

Parties

Parties

Appellant: Herhof-Verwaltungsgesellschaft mbH (represented by: A. Zinnecker and S. Müller, Rechtsanwälte)

Appellant:

Other parties to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: G. Schneider, Agent), Stabilator sp. z o.o. (represented by M. Kacprzak, radca prawny)

Other parties to the proceedings:

Re:

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) of 7 July 2010 in Case T-60/09 Herhof v OHIM — Stabilator, by which the General Court dismissed the action brought by the proprietor of the Community word mark STABILAT in respect of goods and services in Classes 1, 7, 11, 20, 37, 40 and 42, against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 16 December 2008, rejecting its opposition against registration of the figurative Community trade mark stabilator in respect of goods and services in Classes 19, 37 and 42 — Incorrect assessment of the similarity between the services covered by the marks at issue — Infringement of the right to be heard before a court

Herhof

OHIM

Stabilator

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The appeal is dismissed. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The appeal is dismissed.

| 2. | Herhof-Verwaltungsgesellschaft mbH shall pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Herhof-Verwaltungsgesellschaft mbH shall pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 288, 23.10.2010.

1

---
| 1)   | The                Quarterly Report on form 10-QSB for the three and six months ended                June                30, 2006 (the “Form 10-QSB”) of the Company fully complies with the                requirements of Section 13 (a) or 15 (d) of the Securities Exchange                Act of                1934 as amended; and |
|----------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| 2)   | The                information contained in the Form 10-QSB fairly presents, in all                material                respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the                Company. |
|----------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Date:                March 16, 2007                                                                             |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                                                                                                            |
|  /s/                J. Scott Tomer J.                  Scott TomerChief                  Executive Officer |

| Date:                March 16, 2007                                                                                 |
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                                                                                                                |
|  /s/                John D. Clagg John                  D. ClaggChief                  Financial Officer  |

----
Tara NIKOLAO, petitioner, v. Nick LYON, et al.

No. 17-1317.

Supreme Court of the United States

May 14, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit denied.
II-00145

From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

Rebecca Stratton <parstrat@gmail.com>

Saturday, December 4, 2010 3:33 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.

Rebecca Stratton

2620 NE Evans ST

McMinnville, OR 97128