alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2012379EN.01000502.xml

| 8.12.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 379/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.12.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 379/5

---

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 18 October 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Upravno sodišče Republike Slovenije — Slovenia) — Pelati d.o.o. v Republika Slovenija

(Case C-603/10) (1)

1

(Approximation of laws - Directive 90/434/EEC - Common system of taxation applicable to mergers, divisions, transfers of assets and exchanges of shares concerning companies of different Member States - Article 11(1)(a) - National legislation under which authorisation must be obtained for the grant of tax advantages - Application for authorisation to be made at least 30 days before the proposed operation is effected)

2012/C 379/08

Language of the case: Slovene

Referring court

Referring court

Upravno sodišče Republike Slovenije

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Pelati d.o.o.

Applicant:

Defendant: Republika Slovenija

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Upravno sodišče Republike Slovenije — Interpretation of Council Directive 90/434/EEC of 23 July 1990 on the common system of taxation applicable to mergers, divisions, transfers of assets and exchanges of shares concerning companies of different Member States (OJ 1990 L 225, p. 1) — Article 11(1)(a) — Tax advantages in connection with division — National legislation setting a time-limit for submitting applications for those advantages — Refusal of the tax advantages in question because of non-compliance with the time-limit — Compatibility of the refusal with the directive in question

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

Article 11(1)(a) of Council Directive 90/434/EEC of 23 July 1990 on the common system of taxation applicable to mergers, divisions, transfers of assets and exchanges of shares concerning companies of different Member States must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, under which the grant of the tax advantages applicable to a division in accordance with that directive is subject to the condition that the application relating to that operation is submitted within a specified period. However, it is for the national court to ascertain whether the details of the implementation of that period, and more particularly the determination of its starting-point of the period, are sufficiently precise, clear and foreseeable to enable taxpayers to ascertain their rights and to ensure that they are in a position to enjoy the tax advantages provided for by that directive.

---

(1)  OJ C 80, 12.3.2011.

1

---
Tarik HOOKS, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 16M71.

Supreme Court of the United States

Jan. 9, 2017.

Motion to direct the Clerk to file a petition for writ of certiorari out of time denied.
Ricardo HALL, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 17-7967.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 2, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the District of Columbia Court of Appeals denied.
WORLDWIDE OILFIELD MACHINE, INC., petitioner, v. AMERIFORGE GROUP, INC.

No. 17-1043.

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.
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



In connection with the Quarterly Report of PW Eagle, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), I, Scott Long, Chief
Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §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 Company.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Dated: June 28, 2005



/s/ Scott LongScott Long Chief Financial Officer
# C_2011211EN.01000601.xml

| 16.7.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 211/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.7.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 211/6

---

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 26 May 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Landesgericht Innsbruck — Austria) — Gebhard Stark v DAS Österreichische Allgemeine Rechtsschutzversicherung AG

(Case C-293/10) (1)

1

(Legal expenses insurance - Directive 87/344/EEC - Article 4(1) - Freedom of the insured person to choose his lawyer - Limitation of the reimbursement allowed in respect of the costs relating to representation of the insured person in judicial proceedings - Reimbursement limited to the amount corresponding to that claimed by a lawyer established in the judicial district of the court having jurisdiction at first instance)

2011/C 211/08

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Referring court

Landesgericht Innsbruck

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Gebhard Stark

Appellant:

Respondent: DAS Österreichische Allgemeine Rechtsschutzversicherung AG

Respondent:

Re:

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Landesgericht Innsbruck — Interpretation of Article 4(1) of Council Directive 87/344/EEC of 22 June 1987 on the coordination of laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to legal expenses insurance (OJ 1987 L 185, p. 77) — Insurance contract providing that, in accordance with national legislation, the person taking out legal expenses insurance is required to choose a lawyer established at the place of the court before which the proceedings are to be conducted

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

Article 4(1) of Council Directive 87/344/EEC of 22 June 1987 on the coordination of laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to legal expenses insurance must be interpreted as not precluding a national provision under which it may be agreed that a person covered by legal expenses insurance may select, in order to have his interests represented in administrative or judicial proceedings, only persons professionally authorised to represent parties who have their chambers at the place of the court or administrative authority having jurisdiction at first instance, on condition that, in order not to render meaningless the insured person’s freedom to choose the person instructed to represent him, that restriction relates only to the extent of the cover by the legal insurance provider in respect of costs linked to the involvement of a representative and that the reimbursement actually provided by that insurer is sufficient, this being a matter for the referring court to determine.

---

(1)  OJ C 274, 9.10.2010.

1

---
Terrence J. BARNETT, aka Terenece Barnett, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 17-6821.

Supreme Court of the United States

March 26, 2018.

Petition for rehearing denied.
Corbin L. YOUNG, petitioner, v. LIFE ESSENTIAL-RAFIKI, INC.

No. 17-1306.

Supreme Court of the United States

May 21, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals of Georgia denied.
Margaret Richek GOLDBERG, petitioner, v. BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., et al.

No. 16-1541.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 2, 2017.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit denied.
Paxton Jeffrey ANDERSON, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 17-7893.

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.
II-O0116

From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

Tom Frizell <thomasfrizell@sbcglobal.net>

Sunday, December 5, 2010 9:45 AM

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.

Tom Frizell

415 Coe Ave

East Haven, CT 6512
---

---

Exhibit 13.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In
connection with the Annual Report of Optiabse Ltd. (the Company) on Form 20-F
for the period ending December 31, 2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the undersigned hereby certify
that to the best of our knowledge:

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 Company.

Date: June 29, 2009

| |  | /s/ Amir PhilipsName: Amir PhilipsTitle: Chief Financial Officer
| |  | ----------------------------------------------------------------



---

---
II-01093

From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

kenton rhoades <rhoadeswood@gmail.com>

Thursday, December 2, 2010 8:18 AM

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.

kenton rhoades

285 massachusetts ave

arlington, MA 2474
Israel PEREZ-JIMENEZ, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 16-8453.

Supreme Court of the United States

May 14, 2018.

On petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed *in forma pauperis* and petition for writ of certiorari granted. Judgment vacated, and case remanded to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit for further consideration in light of *Sessions v. Dimaya,* 584 U.S. ----, 138 S.Ct. 1204, 200 L.Ed.2d 549 (2018).
Marne K. MITSKOG, petitioner, v. MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD.

No. 17-6479.

Supreme Court of the United States

March 26, 2018.

Petition for rehearing denied.
John HOULIHAN, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 16-9635.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 2, 2017.

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

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-7980

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

HECTOR VARGAS,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of North Carolina, at Wilmington. W. Earl Britt, 

Senior District Judge. (7:01-cr-00096-BR-1)

Submitted: February 18, 2010 Decided: February 25, 2010

Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Hector Vargas, Appellant Pro Se. J. Frank Bradsher, OFFICE OF 

THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Rudolf A. Renfer, Jr., Assistant 

United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Hector Vargas appeals the district court’s order 

denying his motion for a reduction of sentence pursuant to 18 

U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2006). We have reviewed the record and 

find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the 

reasons stated by the district court. United States v. Vargas, 

No. 7:01-cr-00096-BR-1 (E.D.N.C. Oct. 21, 2009). 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
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                          <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>            DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>               JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                 SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                           167,268
<SECURITIES>                           0
<RECEIVABLES>                  3,043,418
<ALLOWANCES>                     230,000
<INVENTORY>                      808,015
<CURRENT-ASSETS>               4,956,536
<PP&E>                         1,014,768
<DEPRECIATION>                   411,465
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                21,817,673
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>         14,912,604
<BONDS>                          101,148
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                  0
<PREFERRED>                    3,117,274
<COMMON>                           3,788
<OTHER-SE>                     3,037,192
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>  21,817,673
<SALES>                       28,922,733
<TOTAL-REVENUES>              28,922,733
<CGS>                         21,458,527
<TOTAL-COSTS>                  5,416,573
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                 912,715
<LOSS-PROVISION>                 129,355
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>             1,081,228
<INCOME-PRETAX>                   62,680
<INCOME-TAX>                      17,910
<INCOME-CONTINUING>            (374,630)
<DISCONTINUED>                         0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                        0
<CHANGES>                              0
<NET-INCOME>                   (374,630)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                     (0.10)
<EPS-DILUTED>                     (0.10)
        


</TABLE>
Dewayne Allen ROBERTS, petitioner, v. William J. BUCHANAH.

No. 17-5240.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 2, 2017.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit denied.
[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 71 (Wednesday, April 13, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 21879-21880]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-07874]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission


Combined Notice of Filings

    Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural 
Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:

Filings Instituting Proceedings

    Docket Numbers: RP22-786-000.
    Applicants: Dominion Energy Questar Pipeline, LLC.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: Change of Company Name to be 
effective 4/1/2022.
    Filed Date: 4/1/22.
    Accession Number: 20220401-5012.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 4/13/22.

    Docket Numbers: RP22-787-000.
    Applicants: White River Hub, LLC.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: Name Change Filing to be 
effective 4/1/2022.
    Filed Date: 4/1/22.
    Accession Number: 20220401-5013.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 4/13/22.

    Docket Numbers: RP22-812-000.
    Applicants: Adelphia Gateway, LLC.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: Adelphia Negotiated Rate 
statement April 2022 to be effective 4/8/2022.
    Filed Date: 4/6/22.
    Accession Number: 20220406-5183.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 4/18/22.

    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above 
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the 
Commission's

[[Page 21880]]

Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern 
time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but 
intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system 
(https://elibrary.ferc.gov/idmws/search/fercgensearch.asp) by querying 
the docket number.
    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing 
requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying 
facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call (866) 208-3676 
(toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

    Dated: April 7, 2022.
Debbie-Anne A. Reese,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2022-07874 Filed 4-12-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
II-00452

From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

Ellis Davis <Bubbledavis@aol.com>

Thursday, December 2, 2010 6:26 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.

Ellis Davis

25400 Euclid #366

Eucid, OH 44117
Ramona I. MORGAN, petitioner, v. KANSAS, et al.

No. 17-8043.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 23, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit denied.
6351-01-P

COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION

Sunshine Act Meetings

TIME AND DATE: 9:00 a.m. ET, Wednesday, February 15, 2023.

PLACE: Virtual meeting.

STATUS: Open.

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: The Commodity Futures Trading Commission 

(“Commission” or “CFTC”) will hold this meeting to consider the following matters:

• Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM) on Risk Management 

Program Regulations for Swap Dealers, Major Swap Participants, and Futures 

Commission Merchants; and

• Order Designating the Unique Product Identifier and Product Classification 

System to be Used in Recordkeeping and Swap Data Reporting.

The agenda for this meeting will be available to the public and posted on the 

Commission’s website at https://www.cftc.gov. Instructions for public access to the live 

feed of the meeting will also be posted on the Commission’s website. In the event that the 

time, date, or place of this meeting changes, an announcement of the change, along with the 

new time, date, or place of the meeting, will be posted on the Commission’s website.

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: Christopher Kirkpatrick, 

Secretary of the Commission, 202-418-5964.

Authority: 5 U.S.C. 552b.

Dated: February 8, 2023.

Christopher Kirkpatrick,

Secretary of the Commission.