alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2010024EN.01002001.xml

| 30.1.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 24/20 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.1.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 24/20

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Landesgericht für Zivilrechtssachen Wien (Austria) lodged on 28 October 2009 — Humanplasma GmbH v Republic of Austria

(Case C-421/09)

2010/C 24/34

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Referring court

Landesgericht für Zivilrechtssachen Wien

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Humanplasma GmbH

Applicant:

Defendant: Republic of Austria

Defendant:

Question referred

Question referred

Does Article 28 (in conjunction with Article 30) EC preclude the application of a national provision under which the importation of erythrocyte concentrates from Germany is permitted only where the blood was donated without any payment having been made (not even coverage of expenses), that being a condition which is also applicable to the obtaining of erythrocyte concentrates within Austria?

---
ETIHAD AIRWAYS P.J.S.C., petitioner, v. Jane DOE, et vir.

No. 17-977.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 16, 2018.

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

This Memorandum of Understanding is between VSOP, a Nevada Corporation and
Anonymous Data Corporation, a Nevada Corporation (hereinafter "ADC").

Whereas VSOP is a software development company and has developed a
biometric technology for purposes of identification, and

Whereas ADC is in the business of identification of individuals in relation
to storing and retrieving that individuals' records in particular  analysis
data for drug test results, and other purposes,

Now therefore VSOPand ADC agree as follows:

1. VSOP and ADC will cooperate together in a project to develop a
biometrics-based system for the identification, storage and retrieval of
drug test results under terms herein specified.

2. Compensation for VSOP and the third party associate of VSOP shall be as
follows:

a.   Upon the signing of the contract for services VSOP to receive
     $25,000.00 and 50,000 shares of ADC common stock.
b.   Upon the signing of the contract for services VSOP's third party
     associate to receive 62,500 shares of ADC common stock.
c.   Upon the satisfactory completion of the contract VSOP to receive
     $25,000.00 and additional 50,000 shares of ADC common stock.
d.   Upon the satisfactory completion of the contract VSOP's third party
     associate to receive an additional 62,500 shares of ADC common stock.

3. VSOP and ADC agree that all right title and interest in the system
developed under the contract shall be the exclusive property of ADC.

4. VSOP and ADC agree that each party will act in good faith to negotiate
and sign the development contract.

IN  WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement on the
day and year first written below.
          ANONYMOUS DATA              VSOP
             CORPORATION              CORPORATION

By:                                   By:_____________________
James E. Beecham, MD                    RobertVerhagen
 President                              President Date:____________________
Date: __________________
----

            DECISION OF THE EEA JOINT COMMITTEE         

No 73/2004

of 8 June 2004         

amending Annex IX (Financial services) to the EEA Agreement

THE EEA JOINT COMMITTEE,

Having regard to the Agreement on the European Economic Area, as amended by the Protocol adjusting the Agreement on the European Economic Area, hereinafter referred to as ‘the Agreement’, and in particular Article 98 thereof,

Whereas:

HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:

Article 1

Annex IX to the Agreement is amended as follows:

Article 2

The texts of Directive 2003/71/EC in the Icelandic and Norwegian languages, to be published in the EEA Supplement to the Official Journal of the European Union, shall be authentic.

Article 3

This Decision shall enter into force on 9 June 2004, provided that all the notifications pursuant to Article 103(1) of the Agreement have been made to the EEA Joint Committee (*1).

Article 4

This Decision shall be published in the EEA Section of, and in the EEA Supplement to, the Official Journal of the European Union.

Done at Brussels, 8 June 2004.

For the EEA Joint Committee

The President

S. GILLESPIE            

----

(1)OJ L 130, 29.4.2004, p. 3.

(2)OJ L 345, 31.12.2003, p. 64.

(*1)  Constitutional requirements indicated.

----
# C_2010037EN.01004601.xml

| 13.2.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 37/46 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.2.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 37/46

---

Action brought on 7 December 2009 — Italy v Commission

(Case T-500/09)

2010/C 37/66

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Italian Republic (represented by: L. Ventrella, avvocato dello Stato)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | Annul in part Decision C (2009) 7044 of 24 September 2009, notified on 25 September 2009, excluding from Community financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF), insofar as it applied to Italy, for the financial years 2005 and 2006:






  — | fixed-rate financial corrections (5 %) on account of various alleged weaknesses in controls in the fruit and vegetables sector — citrus processing — totalling EUR 3 539 679,81. |
| --- | --- | --- |

—

Annul in part Decision C (2009) 7044 of 24 September 2009, notified on 25 September 2009, excluding from Community financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF), insofar as it applied to Italy, for the financial years 2005 and 2006:

—

fixed-rate financial corrections (5 %) on account of various alleged weaknesses in controls in the fruit and vegetables sector — citrus processing — totalling EUR 3 539 679,81.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of its challenge, the Italian Republic pleads breach of an essential procedural requirement (Article 253 EC), on account of a failure to state adequate reasons, and breach of the principle of proportionality.

The applicant submits in that connection that the Commission corrected certain aid for citrus processing and, in implementing those corrections, failed to ensure that adequate checks had been carried out as to whether the product delivered to the producers’ organisations tallied with the product delivered to the processors and as to whether the product delivered for processing tallied with the finished product. According to the Italian Government, in the course of the procedure it had emerged that the checks had been carried out satisfactorily, in particular as regards both administrative/accounting checks and physical checks, at both the Organizzazione di Produttori (Producers’ Organisation) and the processors; the checks were unannounced (without prior notice to the industry as to the date of the checks) and, in any event, were greater in number than that provided for in the relevant legislation. The essential point which the Commission should have addressed by stating adequate reasons in its decision was therefore whether the risk of loss to the Fund was ‘significant’, such as to justify a fixed-rate correction of 5 %, which appears, in any event, to be disproportionate.

---
# L_2005339EN.01001001.xml

| 22.12.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 339/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.12.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 339/10

---

DECISION OF THE EEA JOINT COMMITTEE

No 112/2005

of 30 September 2005

amending Annex II (Technical regulations, standards, testing and certification) to the EEA Agreement

THE EEA JOINT COMMITTEE,

Having regard to the Agreement on the European Economic Area, as amended by the Protocol adjusting the Agreement on the European Economic Area, hereinafter referred to as ‘the Agreement’, and in particular Article 98 thereof,

Whereas:

| (1) | Annex II to the Agreement was amended by Decision of the EEA Joint Committee No 76/2005 of 10 June 2005 (1). |
| --- | --- |

(1)

Annex II to the Agreement was amended by Decision of the EEA Joint Committee No 76/2005 of 10 June 2005 (1).

| (2) | Commission Directive 2005/11/EC of 16 February 2005 amending, for the purposes of its adaptation to technical progress, Council Directive 92/23/EEC relating to tyres for motor vehicles and their trailers and to their fitting (2) is to be incorporated into the Agreement, |
| --- | --- |

(2)

Commission Directive 2005/11/EC of 16 February 2005 amending, for the purposes of its adaptation to technical progress, Council Directive 92/23/EEC relating to tyres for motor vehicles and their trailers and to their fitting (2) is to be incorporated into the Agreement,

HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:

Article 1

The following indent shall be added in point 45d (Council Directive 92/23/EEC) of Chapter I of Annex II to the Agreement:

| ‘— | 32005 L 0011: Commission Directive 2005/11/EC of 16 February 2005 (OJ L 46, 17.2.2005, p. 42).’ |
| --- | --- |

‘—

32005 L 0011: Commission Directive 2005/11/EC of 16 February 2005 (OJ L 46, 17.2.2005, p. 42).’

Article 2

The text of Directive 2005/11/EC in the Icelandic and Norwegian languages, to be published in the EEA Supplement to the Official Journal of the European Union, shall be authentic.

Article 3

This Decision shall enter into force on 1 October 2005, provided that all the notifications under Article 103(1) of the Agreement have been made to the EEA Joint Committee (*1).

Article 4

This Decision shall be published in the EEA Section of, and in the EEA Supplement to, the Official Journal of the European Union.

Done at Brussels, 30 September 2005.

For the EEA Joint Committee

The President

HSH Prinz Nikolaus von LIECHTENSTEIN

---

(1)  
  OJ L 268, 13.10.2005, p. 5.

1

(2)  
  OJ L 46, 17.2.2005, p. 42.

2

(*1)  No constitutional requirements indicated.

*1

---
DENY and Opinion Filed February 9 , 2022

In The 

### Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05 - 21 - 00219 - CV IN RE TEKIN & ASSOCIATES, LLC , Relator Original Proceeding from the County Court at Law No. 2

Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. CC - 20 - 01986 - B MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Osborne, Pedersen, III, and Goldstein

Opinion by Justice Pedersen, III Relator’s petition for writ of mandamus challenges the trial court’s August 31, 2020 order denying relator’s Rule 91a motion to dismiss. See T EX . R. C IV . P . 91a. A writ of mandamus issues to correct a clear abuse of discretion when no adequate remedy by appeal exists. Walker v. Packer , 827 S.W.2d 833, 839

– 40 (Tex. 1992) (orig. proceeding). Although mandamus is not an equitable remedy, its issuance is largely controlled by equitable principles. Rivercenter Assocs. v. Rivera , 858 S.W.2d 366, 367 (Tex. 1993) (orig. proceeding). One such principle is that “equity aids the diligent and not those who slumber on their rights .” Id . (internal brackets and quotation marks omitted). Thus, delaying the filing of a petition for mandamus relief– 2

–

may waive the right to mandamus unless the relator can justify the delay. In re Int’l Profit Assocs., Inc ., 274 S.W.3d 672, 676 (Tex. 2009) (orig. proceeding). Under prior holdings of this court and others, an unexplained delay of four months or more can constitute laches and result in denial of mandamus relief. See Rivera , 858 S.W.2d at 366 (unexplained delay of more than four months); In re Wages & White Lion Investments , No. 05

- 21

- 00650

- CV, 2021 WL 3276875 (Tex. App.

— Dallas, July 30, 2021, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.) (unexplained delay of over four months from oral ruling and three months from date order was signed); Int’l Awards, Inc. v. Medina , 900 S.W.2d 934, 936 (Tex. App.

— Amarillo 1995, orig. proceeding) (unexplained delay of more than four months and waited until eve of trial); Furr’s Supermarkets, Inc. v. Mulanax , 897 S.W.2d 442, 443 (Tex. App.

— El Paso 1995, no writ) (unexplained fou r - month delay in challenging discovery orders). Here, relator’s April 6, 2021 petition for mandamus was filed seven months and six days after the trial court’s August 31, 2020 order denying the motion to dismiss. We conclude that relator’s unexplained delay bars his right to mandamus relief. Accordingly, we deny the petition for w rit of mandamus. See T EX . R. A PP . P. 52.8(a).
210219f.p05 /Bill Pedersen, III/ / BILL PEDERSEN, III JUSTICE
Douglas WEISSERT, petitioner, v. Carmen PALMER, Warden.

No. 17-7278.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 30, 2018.

Petition for rehearing denied.
H.K.V., petitioner, v. FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES, et al.

No. 17-6547.

Supreme Court of the United States

March 19, 2018.

Petition for rehearing denied.
BANKNORTH MORTGAGE COMPANY, INC.
1998 ANNUAL CERTIFICATION


In accordance with our Servicing Agreement, we certify that:

1) All funds received in your behalf are properly credited and segregated in
established custodial accounts;

2) All mortgaged  properties serviced in your behalf are fully covered by hazard
insurance  policies  that are in full force and contain the  standard  mortgagee
clause;

3) Accurate  records are maintained  regarding funds received in your behalf and
mortgagors are provided  accounting records for their respective loans, at least
annually;

4) All mortgaged properties serviced in your behalf requiring FHA or MI premiums
are paid  promptly  upon receipt of billing and the  appropriate  coverage is in
full force and effect;

5) All appropriate  Federal,  State,  IRS and Regulatory  legislation  have been
complied  with,  including  but not  limited  to: the  reporting  of interest to
mortgagors and on  abandonments  or  foreclosures  for all mortgaged  properties
serviced in your behalf;

6) The paid status of all taxes and  assessments  is maintained  relative to all
mortgaged properties in your behalf;

7) Due diligence and standard acceptable  collection  practices are exercised to
collect  past  due  loans,  inspections  of  abandoned,  REO  or  properties  in
foreclosure are performed routinely on all loans serviced in your behalf;

8) All mortgaged  loans serviced in your behalf  requiring  interest rate and/or
payment  changes  are  changed  in a  timely  fashion  in  accordance  with  the
provisions  of the  mortgage,  relative  to timely  notices  to the  mortgagors,
accounting  records,  proper index and other items  specified in the controlling
documents;

9) All other  provisions of the  Servicing  Agreement not specified in the above
certifications are complied with on all loans serviced in your behalf.

David S. Miner, Senior Vice President
Servicing
Eric GARDNER, petitioner, v. Jeffrey WOODS, Warden.

No. 15-9441.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 3, 2016.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit denied.
II-00425

From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

Raj an Karunakaran <rkaran@hotmail.com>

Thursday, December 2, 2010 8:09 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.

Rajan Karunakaran

93 Richards Ave

Norwalk, CT 6854
Terry Dale LOMACK, Petitioner v. Jim FARRIS, Warden

No. 17-6872.

Supreme Court of the United States

May 14, 2018.

Petition for rehearing denied.
William Anthony BROWN, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 16-9545.

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.
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3920 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 3920

  To prohibit agreements between employers that directly restrict the 
             current or future employment of any employee.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             July 23, 2019

  Mr. Nadler (for himself and Mr. Cicilline) introduced the following 
       bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To prohibit agreements between employers that directly restrict the 
             current or future employment of any employee.

    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 ``End Employer Collusion Act''.

SEC. 2. UNFAIR METHODS OF COMPETITION AND AGREEMENTS IN RESTRAINT OF 
              TRADE RELATING TO RESTRICTIVE EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENTS.

    (a) Definitions.--In this section:
            (1) Employ; employer; employee.--The terms ``employ'', 
        ``employer'', and ``employee'' have the meanings given such 
        terms in section 3 of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (29 
        U.S.C. 203).
            (2) Restrictive employment agreement.--The term 
        ``restrictive employment agreement'' means any agreement that--
                    (A) is between 2 or more employers, including 
                through a franchise agreement or a contractor-
                subcontractor agreement; and
                    (B) prohibits, restricts, or in any way limits one 
                employer from employing, soliciting, enticing, or 
                hiring another employer's employees or former 
                employees.
    (b) Conduct Prohibited.--It shall be unlawful for any entity to--
            (1) enter into a restrictive employment agreement; or
            (2) enforce or threaten to enforce a restrictive employment 
        agreement.
    (c) Violation.--An entity who engages in the conduct described in 
subsection (b) not later than the date which is 6 months after the date 
of enactment of this Act shall be liable for--
            (1) entering into a contract in restraint of trade or 
        commerce under section 1 of the Sherman Act (15 U.S.C. 1); and
            (2) engaging in an unfair method of competition under 
        section 5(a)(1) of the Federal Trade Commission Act (15 U.S.C. 
        45(a)(1)).
    (d) Restrictive Employment Agreements.--Nothing in this Act may be 
construed to reduce the amount of damages available to a plaintiff in a 
case involving a restrictive employment agreement that is between 2 or 
more employers that are not affiliated with each other through a 
franchise agreement or contractor-subcontractor agreement.
                                 <all>
```
Dale V. NOLLEN, petitioner, v. NEBRASKA.

No. 16-9609.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 2, 2017.

*166Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Nebraska denied.
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: Meeting with JP Morgan
  
    



  Discussions concerning the cross-border guidance and exemptive order.
      
  When
              06/06/2013

  Rulemaking(s)
              Cross-Border

  CFTC Staff
              Mark WetjenScott Reinhart

  Visitor(s)
              Katherine ChildressJeremy BarnumDon Thompson

  Organization(s)
              JP Morgan


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
Lowell T. JOHNSON, petitioner, v. Robert Lee STINSON.

No. 17-749.

Supreme Court of the United States

March 26, 2018.

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