alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
|   | (1) | the                Annual Report on Form 10-KSB of Oconee Financial Corporation (the                “Company”) for the annual period ended December 31, 2006, as amended, (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 result of operations of the                Company. |
|--------|-----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | /s/                Jerry K.                Wages                                                          Jerry                K. WagesExecutive                Vice President and                Chief Financial Officer |
|--------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
Richard Andrew POPLAWSKI, petitioner, v. PENNSYLVANIA.

No. 15-9512.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 3, 2016.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, Eastern District denied.
[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 125 (Thursday, June 28, 2001)]
[Presidential Documents]
[Page 34355]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-16446]




                        Presidential Documents 



Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 125 / Thursday, June 28, 2001 / 
Presidential Documents

[[Page 34355]]


                Presidential Determination No. 2001-19 of June 11, 2001

                
Suspension of Limitations Under the Jerusalem 
                Embassy Act

                Memorandum for the Secretary of State

                Pursuant to the authority vested in me as President by 
                the Constitution and the laws of the United States, 
                including section 7(a) of the Jerusalem Embassy Act of 
                1995 (Public Law 104-45) (the ``Act''), I hereby 
                determine that it is necessary to protect the national 
                security interests of the United States to suspend for 
                a period of six months the limitations set forth in 
                sections 3(b) and 7(b) of the Act. My Administration 
                remains committed to beginning the process of moving 
                our embassy to Jerusalem.

                You are hereby authorized and directed to transmit this 
                determination to the Congress, accompanied by a report 
                in accordance with section 7(a) of the Act, and to 
                publish the determination in the Federal Register.

                This suspension shall take effect on June 15, 2001.

                    (Presidential Sig.)B

                THE WHITE HOUSE,

                    Washington, June 11, 2001.

[FR Doc. 01-16446
Filed 6-27-01; 8:45 am]
Billing code 4710-10-M
<TABLE> <S> <C>
 
 
<ARTICLE> 6 
<CIK> 0000744822
<NAME> Fidelity Investment Trust
<SERIES>
 <NUMBER> 221
 <NAME> Fidelity Nordic Fund
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>
<C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                year         
 
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>            oct-31-1998  
 
<PERIOD-END>                 oct-31-1998  
 
<INVESTMENTS-AT-COST>        89,156       
 
<INVESTMENTS-AT-VALUE>       101,259      
 
<RECEIVABLES>                1,343        
 
<ASSETS-OTHER>               0            
 
<OTHER-ITEMS-ASSETS>         0            
 
<TOTAL-ASSETS>               102,602      
 
<PAYABLE-FOR-SECURITIES>     364          
 
<SENIOR-LONG-TERM-DEBT>      0            
 
<OTHER-ITEMS-LIABILITIES>    380          
 
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES>          744          
 
<SENIOR-EQUITY>              0            
 
<PAID-IN-CAPITAL-COMMON>     98,631       
 
<SHARES-COMMON-STOCK>        6,266        
 
<SHARES-COMMON-PRIOR>        4,596        
 
<ACCUMULATED-NII-CURRENT>    179          
 
<OVERDISTRIBUTION-NII>       0            
 
<ACCUMULATED-NET-GAINS>      (9,052)      
 
<OVERDISTRIBUTION-GAINS>     0            
 
<ACCUM-APPREC-OR-DEPREC>     12,100       
 
<NET-ASSETS>                 101,858      
 
<DIVIDEND-INCOME>            1,571        
 
<INTEREST-INCOME>            274          
 
<OTHER-INCOME>               (235)        
 
<EXPENSES-NET>               1,406        
 
<NET-INVESTMENT-INCOME>      204          
 
<REALIZED-GAINS-CURRENT>     (9,029)      
 
<APPREC-INCREASE-CURRENT>    4,055        
 
<NET-CHANGE-FROM-OPS>        (4,770)      
 
<EQUALIZATION>               0            
 
<DISTRIBUTIONS-OF-INCOME>    302          
 
<DISTRIBUTIONS-OF-GAINS>     5,109        
 
<DISTRIBUTIONS-OTHER>        0            
 
<NUMBER-OF-SHARES-SOLD>      7,538        
 
<NUMBER-OF-SHARES-REDEEMED>  6,243        
 
<SHARES-REINVESTED>          375          
 
<NET-CHANGE-IN-ASSETS>       28,581       
 
<ACCUMULATED-NII-PRIOR>      436          
 
<ACCUMULATED-GAINS-PRIOR>    6,910        
 
<OVERDISTRIB-NII-PRIOR>      0            
 
<OVERDIST-NET-GAINS-PRIOR>   0            
 
<GROSS-ADVISORY-FEES>        767          
 
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>           5            
 
<GROSS-EXPENSE>              1,413        
 
<AVERAGE-NET-ASSETS>         104,259      
 
<PER-SHARE-NAV-BEGIN>        15.940       
 
<PER-SHARE-NII>              .030         
 
<PER-SHARE-GAIN-APPREC>      1.460        
 
<PER-SHARE-DIVIDEND>         .070         
 
<PER-SHARE-DISTRIBUTIONS>    1.180        
 
<RETURNS-OF-CAPITAL>         0            
 
<PER-SHARE-NAV-END>          16.260       
 
<EXPENSE-RATIO>              135          
 
<AVG-DEBT-OUTSTANDING>       0            
 
<AVG-DEBT-PER-SHARE>         0
II-00454

From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

Loren Loberg <lorenloberg@gmail.com>

Thursday, December 2, 2010 6:20 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.

Loren Loberg

5624 Wentworth Ave

Minneapolis, MN 55419
# C_2009297EN.01002201.xml

| 5.12.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 297/22 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.12.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 297/22

---

Action brought on 22 September 2009 — Sociedade Quinta do Portal SA v OHIM — Vallegre–Vinhos do Porto (PORTO ALEGRE)

(Case T-369/09)

2009/C 297/32

Language in which the application was lodged: Portuguese

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Sociedade Quinta do Portal SA (Lisbon, Portugal) (represented by: B. Belchior, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Vallegre–Vinhos do Porto SA (Sabrosa, Portugal)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 18 June 2009 in Case R 1012/2008–1, dismissing the appeal brought by the applicant against the decision of the Cancellation Division which declared the Community word mark PORTO ALEGRE invalid; and |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 18 June 2009 in Case R 1012/2008–1, dismissing the appeal brought by the applicant against the decision of the Cancellation Division which declared the Community word mark PORTO ALEGRE invalid; and

| — | Order OHIM to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order OHIM to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

Registered Community trade mark in respect of which a declaration of invalidity has been sought: word mark PORTO ALEGRE, for goods in Class 33

Registered Community trade mark in respect of which a declaration of invalidity has been sought:

Proprietor of the Community trade mark: the applicant

Proprietor of the Community trade mark:

Applicant for the declaration of invalidity: the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Applicant for the declaration of invalidity:

Trade mark right of applicant for the declaration: earlier Portuguese word mark VISTA ALEGRE, for goods in Class 33

Trade mark right of applicant for the declaration:

Decision of the Cancellation Division: Community word mark PORTO ALEGRE declared invalid

Decision of the Cancellation Division:

Decision of the Board of Appeal: appeal dismissed

Decision of the Board of Appeal:

Plea in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 in so far as the Board of Appeal misinterpreted that provision and, consequently, wrongly held that there was a likelihood of confusion between the marks in question.

Plea in law:

---
# C_2010080EN.01001501.xml

| 27.3.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 80/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 80/15

---

Action brought on 12 January 2010 — European Commission v Italian Republic

(Case C-19/10)

2010/C 80/27

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: P. Oliver and S. Mortoni, Agents)

Applicant:

Defendant: Italian Republic

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | Declare that, by failing to adopt the national measures for the implementation of Article 12 of Regulation (EC) No 273/2004 (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 on drug precursors, by failing to inform the Commission of those measures as required under Article 16 of that regulation, and by failing to adopt the national measures for the implementation of Article 31 of Council Regulation (EC) No 111/2005 (2) of 22 December 2004 laying down rules for the monitoring of trade between the Community and third countries in drug precursors, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under those regulations. |
| --- | --- |

—

Declare that, by failing to adopt the national measures for the implementation of Article 12 of Regulation (EC) No 273/2004 (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 on drug precursors, by failing to inform the Commission of those measures as required under Article 16 of that regulation, and by failing to adopt the national measures for the implementation of Article 31 of Council Regulation (EC) No 111/2005 (2) of 22 December 2004 laying down rules for the monitoring of trade between the Community and third countries in drug precursors, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under those regulations.

1

2

| — | Order the Italian Republic to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the Italian Republic to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

Regulation No 273/2004 entered into force on 18 August 2005; Regulation No 111/2005 entered into force on 15 February 2005 and has applied since 18 August 2005. Having received no notification of the provisions that Italy was required to adopt under Article 12 of Regulation No 273/2004 and under Article 31 of Regulation No 111/2005 and, in any event, having received no information from the Italian Republic which might indicate that the necessary measures have in fact been adopted, the Commission submits that the Italian Republic has failed to adopt such measures and that it has therefore failed to fulfil its obligations under Regulation No 273/2004 and Regulation No 111/2005.

---

(1)  OJ 2004 L 47, p. 1.

1

(2)  OJ 2005 L 22, p. 1.

2

---
(logo)
                                ERNST& YOUNG LLP
4200 One Shell Square
701 Poydras Street
New Orleans
Louisiana 70139-9869
Phone: 504 581 581-4200

  Report of Independent Auditors on Management's Assertion on Compliance with
                  Minimum Servicing Standards Set Forth in the
            Uniform Single Attestation Program for Mortgage Bankers

The Directors' Audit Committee
Hibernia Corporation

We have examined  management's  assertion,  included in the accompanying  report
titled Report of Management, that Hibernia National Bank (the Company), a wholly
owned subsidiary of Hibernia  Corporation,  complied with the minimum  servicing
standards set forth in the Mortgage  Bankers  Association  of America's  Uniform
Single  Attestation  Program for Mortgage  Bankers  (USAP) during the year ended
December 31, 1998.  Management is responsible for the Company's  compliance with
those requirements.  Our responsibility is to express an opinion on management's
assertion about the Company's compliance based on our examination.

Our  examination  was  made in  accordance  with  standards  established  by the
American  Institute of Certified Public Accountants and,  accordingly,  included
examining,  on a test basis,  evidence about the Company's compliance with those
requirements and performing such other procedures as we considered  necessary in
the circumstances.  We believe that our examination  provides a reasonable basis
for our opinion.  Our examination does not provide a legal  determination on the
Company's compliance with specified requirements.

In our  opinion,  management's  assertion  that the  Company  complied  with the
aforementioned  requirements  during the year ended December 31, 1998, is fairly
stated, in all material respects.

Ernst & Young LLP

March 18, 1999
In Re Edwin Eugene TROUT, petitioner.

No. 17-7665.

Supreme Court of the United States

March 5, 2018.

Petition for writ of habeas corpus denied.
NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.

mtntteb ~tate~ <!Court of ~peaI~

for tbe jfeberaI QCtrcutt

WILLIE STEPHENS, JR.,

Claimant-Appellant,

v.

ERIC K. SHINSEKI, SECRETARY OF VETERANS

AFFAIRS,

Respondent-Appellee.

2012-7157

Appeal from the United States Court of Appeals for

Veterans Claims in case no. 12-1173, Judge Lawrence B.

Hagel.

ON MOTION

ORDER

The Secretary moves for a 7-day extension of time,

until September 17, 2012, to file his response brief electronically with his brief attached. The court notes that

the Secretary's paper brief received on September 10,

2012 was rejected on September 13, 2012, and the SecreCase: 12-7157 Document: 15 Page: 1 Filed: 09/27/2012
WILLIE STEPHENS V. SHINSEKI 2

tary was given a due date of September 27, 2012 to file a

corrected brief.

Upon consideration thereof,

IT Is ORDERED THAT:

The motion is granted to the extent that the Secretary's corrected informal response brief is due no later

than September 27, 2012.

FOR THE COURT

SEP 21 2012

Date

cc: Willie Stephens, Jr.

Lauren S. Moore, Esq.

s21

/s/ Jan Horbaly

Jan Horbaly

Clerk

~m=JOR SEP 27 ZOlZ

JANHORBALY

ClERK

Case: 12-7157 Document: 15 Page: 2 Filed: 09/27/2012
Exhibit 99.4

Section 906 Certification



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 Annual Report on Form 40-F of Ballard Power Systems Inc., a corporation organized under the laws of Canada (the "Company") for the period
ending December 31, 2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), each of the undersigned officers 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, to such officer's knowledge and belief, that:

|Dated: May 18, 2004 | /s/DENNIS CAMPBELLDennis Campbell
President and Chief Executive Officer
|------------------- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------
|Dated: May 18, 2004 | /s/DAVID SMITHDavid Smith
Chief Financial Officer                      

---



QuickLinks
Oscar MORALES, petitioner, v. Anthony HEDGPETH, Warden.

No. 17-7669.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 16, 2018.

*1553Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.
* This order and judgment is not binding precedent, e xcept under the

doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and col lateral estoppel. The court generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3. 

## F I L E D United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### JAN 10 2003 

### PATRICK FISHER Clerk UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT JOHNNY LYNN STEIN, aka Johnny Stein, Petitioner - Appellant,
v. E. J. GALLEGOS, Warden,

Respondent - Appellee. No. 02-1390 D.C. No. 02-Z-1238 (D. Colorado)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
Before KELLY , BRISCOE , and MURPHY , Circuit Judges.

After examining the briefs and appellate record, th is panel has determined unanimously to grant the parties’ request for a dec ision on the briefs without oral argument. SeeFed. R. App. P. 34(f); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.The petitioner appeals the dismissal by the United States District Court for

the District of Colorado of his petition for writ o f habeas corpus filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. We affirm. In the petition filed in the district court, the petitioner challenged the legality of his conviction, following the entry of a guilty plea, for using and carrying a firearm during a drug trafficking offens e entered by the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas. He argued that his conviction is invalid under Bailey v. United States , 516 U.S. 137 (1995). Normally, “‘[a] petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 att acks the execution of a sentence rather than its validity and must be filedin the district where the prisoner is confined. A 28 U.S.C. § 2255 petition attacks the legality of detention, and must be filed in the district that imposed the sentence.’” Haugh v. Booker , 210 F.3d 1147, 1149 (10th Cir.2000) (quoting Bradshaw v. Story , 86 F.3d 164, 166 (10th Cir.1996)). Section 2241 “is n ot an additional, alternative, or supplemental remedy to 28 U.S.C. § 2255.” Bradshaw , 86 F.3d at 166. Only if the petitioner shows that § 2255 is “inadequate or ineffective” to challenge the validity of a judgment or sentence may a prisoner p etition for such a remedy under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Id . “Failure to obtain relief under § 2255 does not establish that the remedy so provided is either inadequate or ineffective.” Id
. (quotation omitted). The petitioner has not established the inadequacy o r ineffectiveness of 28U.S.C. § 2255.

Accordingly, the order of the district court is AFFIRMED . The mandate shall issue forthwith. Entered for the Court Per Curiam
II-00458

From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

Gail Cook <gcook21 @comcast.net>

Thursday, December 2, 2010 6:19 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.

Gail Cook

8605 Democracy Road NE

Albugquerque, NM 87109
Adan HERNANDEZ-NUNEZ, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 17-8023.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 16, 2018.

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