alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
II-O0201

From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

Kristin Russell <youbigcat@aol.com>

Friday, December 3, 2010 6:28 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.

Kristin Russell

5108 NE Killingsworth St

Portland, OR 97218
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

FRANK ANTONIO SIMONETTI,

 Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

 State.

'

'

'

'

'

'

No. 08-13-00330-CR

Appeal from the

34th District Court

of El Paso County, Texas 

(TC# 20110D02096)

O R D E R

The Court GRANTS the Appellant’s third motion for extension of time to file the brief 

until May 3, 2014. NO FURTHER MOTIONS FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE 

THE APPELLANT’S BRIEF WILL BE CONSIDERED BY THIS COURT.

It is further ORDERED that the Hon. Brock Benjamin, the Appellant’s Attorney, 

prepare the Appellant’s brief and forward the same to this Court on or before May 3, 2014.

IT IS SO ORDERED this 9th day of April, 2014.

PER CURIAM

Before McClure, C.J., Rivera and Rodriguez, JJ.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 18-7526

TEON JAMELL WILLIAMS,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

BRAD PERRITT,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, 

at Statesville. Frank D. Whitney, Chief District Judge. (5:18-cv-00074-FDW)

Submitted: April 4, 2019 Decided: April 10, 2019

Before NIEMEYER and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and SHEDD, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Teon Jamell Williams, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Teon Jamell Williams seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing his 

28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition as an unauthorized, successive petition over which it 

lacked subject matter jurisdiction. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or 

judge issues a certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (2012). A 

certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a 

constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012). When the district court denies 

relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable 

jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is 

debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller-El v. 

Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003). When the district court denies relief on 

procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural 

ruling is debatable, and that the petition states a debatable claim of the denial of a 

constitutional right. Slack, 529 U.S. at 484-85. 

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Williams has not 

made the requisite showing. Specifically, Williams’ failure to challenge the district 

court’s jurisdictional ruling in his informal brief forecloses our consideration of that 

dispositive holding on appeal. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b); Jackson v. Lightsey, 775 F.3d 170, 

177 (4th Cir. 2014) (“The informal brief is an important document; under Fourth Circuit 

rules, our review is limited to issues preserved in that brief.”). Accordingly, we deny a 

certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument 
3

because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before 

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. 

DISMISSED
Carlos Dewayne NASH, petitioner, v. Brad CAIN, Superintendent, Snake River Correctional Institution.

No. 17-7643.

Supreme Court of the United States

March 5, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.
Greg ABBOTT, Governor of Texas, et al., appellants, v. Shannon PEREZ, et al.

No. 17-626.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 13, 2018.

Motion of the Solicitor General for divided argument and the motion of appellees for enlargement of time for oral argument and for divided argument is granted, and the time is divided as follows: 25 minutes for appellants, 10 minutes for the Solicitor General in support of appellants, 15 minutes for appellees in No. 17-586, and 20 minutes for appellees in No. 17-626.
Niche KNIGHT, petitioner, v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEAL BOARD (Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Norristown State Hospital).

No. 16-9650.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 2, 2017.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania denied.
Mustafa Rafeeq Barazahi SADDIQ, petitioner, v. Charles L. RYAN, Director, Arizona Department of Corrections, et al.

No. 17-7789.

Supreme Court of the United States

March 26, 2018.

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

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3761 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 3761

 To amend the Higher Education Act of 1965 to prohibit institutions of 
higher education from denying students access to transcripts because of 
                             loan default.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             July 15, 2019

  Mrs. Lee of Nevada (for herself, Ms. Finkenauer, Ms. Sherrill, Ms. 
  Wilson of Florida, and Mr. Rodney Davis of Illinois) introduced the 
 following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Education and 
                                 Labor

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend the Higher Education Act of 1965 to prohibit institutions of 
higher education from denying students access to transcripts because of 
                             loan default.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Protecting Access to Student 
Transcripts Act of 2019''.

SEC. 2. PROHIBITION ON LOSS OF ACCESS TO TRANSCRIPTS FOR LOAN DEFAULT.

    (a) In General.--Section 487(a) of the Higher Education Act of 1965 
(20 U.S.C. 1094(a)) is amended by adding at the end the following:
            ``(30)(A) The institution will not prohibit a student from 
        accessing the student's transcripts, degree scrolls, or other 
        certifications of coursework or educational attainments at the 
        institution because the student is in default on a loan made, 
        insured, or guaranteed under this title.
            ``(B) For purposes of this paragraph, the term `student' 
        includes former students.''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) shall 
take effect with respect to academic year 2019-2020 and each succeeding 
academic year.
                                 <all>
```
In Re Kerry SANDERS, petitioner.

No. 17-5585.

Supreme Court of the United States

March 19, 2018.

Petition for rehearing denied.
ANIMAL SCIENCE PRODUCTS, INC., et al., petitioners, v. HEBEI WELCOME PHARMACEUTICAL CO. LTD., et al.

No. 16-1220.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 13, 2018.

Motion of the Solicitor General for leave to participate in oral argument as *amicus curiae* and for divided argument granted. Joint motion of respondents and the Ministry of Commerce of the People's Republic of China for leave to allow the Ministry of Commerce of the People's Republic of China to participate in oral argument as *amicus curiae* and for divided argument granted.
NOT RECOMMENDED FOR PUBLICATION

File Name: 20a0097n.06

Case No. 19-2372

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT

IN RE JOHN DOE,

Petitioner.

)

)

)

)

ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF 

MANDAMUS

BEFORE: GILMAN, GIBBONS, and THAPAR, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM. John Doe petitions for a writ of mandamus. He claims that the district 

court misapplied our circuit’s mandate in Doe v. Baum, 903 F.3d 575 (6th Cir. 2018), and

committed legal error by denying him partial summary judgment and granting defendants qualified 

immunity. Because Doe’s claims do not satisfy the requirements for mandamus, we deny the 

petition. 

Mandamus is an extraordinary remedy. Cheney v. U.S. Dist. Court for D.C., 542 U.S. 367, 

380 (2004). To satisfy the test, John Doe must (1) have no other adequate means of obtaining 

relief, (2) demonstrate a right to issuance that is clear and indisputable, and (3) show that issuance 

of the writ is appropriate under the circumstances. Id. at 380–81. Mandamus is appropriate to 

remedy a clear abuse of discretion or judicial usurpation of power. Id. at 380.

The extraordinary remedy is not appropriate here. Doe challenges a partial denial of 

summary judgment and a grant of qualified immunity. Even assuming that he is right about his 

claimed legal error (and that it rises to a clear abuse of discretion), Doe can raise those issues on 

direct appeal. Thus, he is not without remedy, as required for mandamus. 

We DENY the petition.
Jordan JIM, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 16-6023.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 31, 2016.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied.
Brian W. JUSTICE, petitioner, v. WELLS FARGO BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, on Behalf of the Registered Holders of Bear Stearns Asset Backed Securities, I, L.L.C., Asset-Backed Certificates, Series 2007-AC2, et al.

No. 16-1460.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 2, 2017.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied.
EXHIBIT
      32.2




CERTIFICATION
      PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED


PURSUANT
      TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002




I,
      David
      J. Surette, the Chief Financial Officer of Global Axcess Corp. (the "Company"),
      certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C.
      Section 1350, that to the best of my knowledge:




(1)
      the
      Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of the Company for the fiscal quarter ended
      June
      30, 2005 (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of Section 13
      (a)
      or 15 (d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d));
      and




(2)
      the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
      respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.




Dated:
      May 24, 2006




/s/
                David J. Surette
              ------------------
              Name:
                David J. Surette
              Title:
                Chief Financial Officer
              and
                Chief
                Accounting Officer
'ESS 

Hess Incorporated was founded in 1933 by Leon Hess 

with 1 truck for residual fuel oil deliveries to homes near 

Asbury Park, NJ. 

Hess Corporation is now a global integrated energy 

company engaged in the exploration and production of 

crude oil and natural gas, as well as the refining and 

marketing of petroleum products, natural gas and 

electricity. Its 6 operations are: 

> Exploration 

> Gulf of Mexico, Brazil, West Africa, North 

Africa, Australia 

>- Production 

> North Dakota, Texas, Gulf of Mexico, 

Northwest Europe, West Africa, Asia 

Pacific 

> Refining 

> New Jersey and St. Croix 

> Supply and Terminals 

> Eastern Seaboard, USA and St. Lucia 

> Energy Marketing 

> More then 22,000 commercial, industrial 

and institutional end user customers 

through 18 states from the Ohio Valley to 

New England down to the Carolinas 

> Retail 

> More then 1 ,350 branded gasoline 

stations located in 16 states in Eastern 

USA 

Hess Energy Trading Company, LLC was founded in 

1997 separately from Hess as a limited liability 

company and is managed on a day to day basis 

separately as a full-service energy trading company, 

offering its clients and partners extensive access to 

the global physical and financial energy markets with 7 

Trading Desks in: 

! ~'-.. 

>New York 

>Boston 

>Houston 

>London 

>Singapore 

>- Dubai 

>Paris 

Focusing on: 

> Energy Trading 

> Market Making 

> Risk Management 

> Consultancy 

Utilizing: 

> Crude oil, petroleum products, natural gas and 

power; using storage facilities in many locations 

in the world as regional physical supply hubs 

> Futures, swaps and options across the energy 

spectrum and additionally in shipping, weather 

and energy-equity related derivatives 

October 25, 201 0
1180.

#### Croy *v.*The State.

Accusation of riot, from city court of Dalton — Judge Longley. April 13, 1908.

Submitted June 9,

Decided June 18, 1908.

The accusation charged the plaintiff in error with the offense of .riot, in that he did, in violent and tumultuous manner, and jointly with four other named persons, and in execution of a common intent, obstruct, resist, and oppose the marshal of the city of Dalton in making an arrest, and did unlawfully assault the marshal, and did otherwise act in a violent and tumultuous manner. The evidence introduced by the State shows, that the marshal, acting upon information that a brother of the defendant had committed an offense against a law of the State, attempted to arrest the. brother, and was resisted in making the arrest, not by the defendant, but by his brothers and his father; and that thereupon the marshal went off and summoned a posse, and returned for the purpose of effecting the arrest, and was again resisted by the father and brothers, and finally arrested them. The defendant-was not present when the marshal went to make the arrest alone, or when he returned with the posse, and took no part in the resistance on either occasion. After the arrest was made,- the defendant came upon the scene and attempted to take his own gun from a member of the posse; a scuffle ensued between them for the possession of the gun, and the defendant was knocked down by other members of the *458posse.- -Neither his father nor his brothers, who are jointly- accused with him, participated in this act of violence. When he took hold of the gun he said to the man who had it, “What, are you doing with my gun?” and the struggle then ensued for its possession, between these two alone.

*457Hill, C. J.

To constitute tlie offense of riot, tliere must be two or more persons acting jointly and in execution of a common intent, in the commission of an unlawful act of violence, or of some other act in a violent and tumultuous manner. Where the evidence shows that the act committed by the accused, whether an unlawful act of violence or otherwise, was not done in execution of a common intent with any other person, and not done, jointly with another, but by him alone, a verdict finding him guilty of riot was contrary to law, and a new trial should have been, granted. Penal Code, § 354; *Stanfield*v. *State,*1 *Ga. App.*532 (57 S. E. 953) ; *Robinson*v. *State,*84 *Ga.*680 (11 S. E. 544).

*Judgment reversed.*

*458
      *George G.*Glenn, for plaintiff in error.

*Samuel P. Maddox, solicitor-general,*contra.
BLUE CROSS BLUE SHIELD OF NORTH CAROLINA, v. JEMSEK CLINIC, P.A., et al.

No. 17-161 (R46-027/OT 2017).

Supreme Court of the United States

April 26, 2018.

The petition for writ of certiorari was dismissed today pursuant to Rule 46.1 of the Rules of this Court.
# C_2010051EN.01002902.xml

| 27.2.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 51/29 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.2.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 51/29

---

Order of the President of the Court of 7 December 2009 — European Commission v Slovak Republic

(Case C-207/09) (1)

1

2010/C 51/54

Language of the case: Slovak

Language of the case: Slovak

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

---

(1)  OJ C 205, 29.8.2009.

1

---
Donald FELL, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 17-6261.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 16, 2018.

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

Justice SOTOMAYOR and Justice KAGAN took no part in the consideration of this petition.
Darlene ANORUO, petitioner, v. TENET HEALTHSYSTEM HAHNEMANN, dba Hahnemann University Hospital.

No. 17-7811.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 23, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit denied.
Cedric CARTER, petitioner, v. Charlotte JENKINS, Warden.

No. 16-6467.

Supreme Court of the United States

Jan. 9, 2017.

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

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3945 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 3945

Making supplemental appropriations for the Army Corps of Engineers for 
  flood control projects and storm damage reduction projects in areas 
  affected by flooding in the city of Jacksonville, Florida, and for 
                            other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             July 24, 2019

Mr. Lawson of Florida introduced the following bill; which was referred 
to the Committee on Appropriations, and in addition to the Committee on 
the Budget, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, 
 in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the 
                jurisdiction of the committee concerned

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
Making supplemental appropriations for the Army Corps of Engineers for 
  flood control projects and storm damage reduction projects in areas 
  affected by flooding in the city of Jacksonville, Florida, and for 
                            other purposes.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,  That the following 
sums are appropriated, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise 
appropriated, for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2019:

                         DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY

                       Corps of Engineers--Civil

                              construction

    For an additional amount for ``Construction'' for flood control 
projects and storm damage reduction projects in areas affected by 
flooding in the city of Jacksonville, Florida, that have received a 
major disaster declaration pursuant to the Robert T. Stafford Disaster 
Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, $116,968,000, to remain available 
through fiscal year 2028: Provided, That upon approval of the 
Committees on Appropriations of the House of Representatives and the 
Senate these funds may be used to construct any project by the Corps 
for reducing flooding and storm damage risks in the city of 
Jacksonville, Florida, that the Secretary determines is technically 
feasible, economically justified, and environmentally acceptable: 
Provided further, That projects using these funds shall be at full 
Federal expense with respect to such funds: Provided further, That such 
amount is designated by the Congress as being for disaster relief 
pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(D) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency 
Deficit Control Act of 1985.
    This Act may be cited as the ``Flood Water Relief Act of 2019''.
                                 <all>
```
Patricio GUZMAN-ORTIZ, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 17-8356.

Supreme Court of the United States

May 14, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit denied.
# C_2009220EN.01002401.xml

| 12.9.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 220/24 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.9.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 220/24

---

Action brought on 10 July 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

(Case C-259/09)

2009/C 220/48

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: A. Marghelis, P. Van den Wyngaert, Agents)

Applicant:

Defendant: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

Defendant:

The applicant claims that the Court should:

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | Declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2006/21/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 March 2006 on the management of waste from extractive industries, or in any event, by failing to communicate them to the Commission, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under the Directive; |
| --- | --- |

—

Declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2006/21/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 March 2006 on the management of waste from extractive industries, or in any event, by failing to communicate them to the Commission, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under the Directive;

1

| — | order the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

The period within which the directive had to be transposed expired on 1 May 2008.

---

(1)  OJ L 102, p. 15

1

---