alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 32.3





CERTIFICATION


In connection with the Annual Report of Acacia Research Corporation (the “Company”) on Form 10-K/A for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2017 , as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 2, 2018 (the “Report”), I, Robert Stewart, President of the Company, certify, pursuant to Rule 13a-14(b) or Rule 15d-14(b) under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 780(d)) and 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that to the best of my 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.























By:/s/ Robert StewartRobert StewartPresidentApril 2, 2018











This certification accompanies this Report pursuant to Rule 13a-14(b) or Rule 15d-14(b) under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 and shall not be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
II-00351

From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

Professor Ochs <oh9hk@mac.com>

Thursday, December 2, 2010 11:42 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:

I am writing in support of Bankster. Please act to create a secure financial market for the United States, and its role in

international communities.

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:

It is a serious error to allow trade in essentials of human life.If it is allowed, then regulations should guarantee a sound

system.

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.

Professor Ochs

PO Box 507

Saguache, CO 81149
**Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 21 December 2011 – Haltergemeinschaft LBL v Hauptzollamt Düsseldorf**

**(Case C-250/10)**

Directive 2003/96/EC – Taxation of energy products and electricity – Article 14(1)(b) – Exemption of energy products used as fuel for air navigation – Fuel provided by the owner of an aircraft used by the charterers of that aircraft for their flights for purposes other than
the provision of a service for consideration

Tax provisions – Harmonisation of laws – Taxation of energy products and electricity – Exemption of energy products supplied for use as fuel for the purposes of air navigation other than private tourism – Extent – Leasing or chartering of an aircraft by an undertaking for its own commercial purposes other than the provision of a service
for consideration – Excluded (Council Directive 2003/96, Art. 14(1)(b)) (see paras 25-26, operative part)

**Re:**

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | Reference for a preliminary ruling – Finanzgericht Düsseldorf – Interpretation of Article 14(1)(b) of Council Directive 2003/96/EC of 27 October 2003 restructuring the Community framework for the taxation of energy products and electricity (OJ 2003 L 283, p. 51) – Extent of the exemption envisaged for energy products supplied for use as fuel for the purpose of air navigation – Exemption of fuel provided by the owner or lessor of an aircraft, not being an airline, used by the charterers of the aircraft for their flights for commercial purposes. |

**Operative part**

The Court:

Declares that Article 14(1)(b) of Council Directive 2003/96/EC of 27 October 2003 restructuring the Community framework for
the taxation of energy products and electricity must be interpreted as meaning that the tax exemption of energy products supplied
for use as fuel for the purpose of air navigation other than private tourism provided for by that provision cannot apply in
the case of a company, such as the applicant in the main proceedings, when it leases or hires out under a charter an aircraft
belonging to it with fuel to undertakings whose air navigation operations are not directly used for the supply, by those undertakings,
of air services for consideration.
Michael TAYLOR, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 17-8211.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 23, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied.
No. D-526.

#### In re Disbarment of Dobbs.

Disbarment entered. [For earlier order herein, see 474 U. S. 917.]
**Judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) of 20 September 2011 – Evropaïki Dynamiki v Commission**

**(Case T-298/09)**

Public service contracts – Community tendering procedure – Supply of external services for educational programmes – Award of the contract to several tenderers – Tenderer’s ranking – Action for annulment – Duty to state reasons – Grounds for exclusion from the contract award procedure – Article 93(1)(f) of the Financial Regulation – Tender validity period – Non-contractual liability

1.                     *Acts of the institutions – Statement of reasons – Obligation – Scope – Decision to give no further consideration to a tenderer
in the award procedure for a public service contract – Assessment having regard to information at the applicant’s disposal
at the time the action was brought – No infringement of the duty to state reasons (Art. 296 TFEU; Council Regulation No 1605/2002,
Art. 100(2); Commission Regulation No 2342/2002, Art. 149(2) and (3)) (see paras 27-31, 54)*

2.                     *European Union public contracts – Tender procedure – Award of contracts – Principle of equal treatment of tenderers – Scope
(Art. 18 TFEU; Council Regulation No 1605/2002, Art. 89(1)) (see para. 73)*

3.                     *Non-contractual liability – Conditions – Unlawfulness – Damage – Causal link – One of those conditions lacking – Claim for
compensation dismissed in its entirety (Art. 340, second para., TFEU) (see paras 100-103)*

**Re:**

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | APPLICATION, first, for annulment of two Commission decisions, communicated in two separate letters of 12 May 2009 ranking the applicant, for its tenders in response to the open call for tenders EAC/01/2008 for external service provision for educational programmes (ESP-ISEP) (OJ 2008/S 158-212752), for Lot No 1 (IS (information system) Development and Maintenance) and for Lot No 2 (IS (information system) Studies, Testing, Training and Support), as second contractor for each of those lots and, secondly, for damages. |

**Operative part**

The Court:

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 1. | | Dismisses the action; |

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 2. | | Orders Evropaïki Dynamiki – Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission. |
**Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 29 March 2012 —
Commission v Italy

(Case C‐243/10)**

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — State aid — Aid in favour of the hotel industry in Sardinia — Recovery

1.                     *State aid — Recovery of unlawful aid — Obligation — Duty to carry out immediately and effectively the Commission’s decision
(Art. 108(2) TFEU) (see paras 35, 36)*

2.                     *Actions for failure to fulfil obligations — Failure to fulfil the obligation to recover unlawful aid — Defences — Absolute
impossibility of performance (Art. 4(3) TEU; Art. 108(2) TFEU) (see paras 40, 41, 45, 55)*

3.                     *Actions for failure to fulfil obligations — Failure to fulfil the obligation to recover unlawful aid — Defences — Legitimate
expectations entertained by the recipients — Not included (Arts 107 TFEU and 108 TFEU) (see para. 47)*

4.                     *State aid — Recovery of unlawful aid — Application of national law — Adoption by the national court of provisional suspensory
measures — Whether lawful — Conditions — An action before the General Court against a decision ordering the recovery of aid
producing no suspensory effect (Council Regulation No 659/1999, Art. 14(3)) (see paras 48-50)*

**Re:**

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Failure to adopt, within the prescribed period, all the measures necessary to comply with Articles 2, 3 and 4 of Commission Decision 2008/854/EC of 2 July 2008 on a State aid scheme (C 1/04 (ex NN 158/03 and CP 15/2003)): Misuse of aid measure N 272/98, Regional Act No 9 of 1998 (notified under document number C(2008) 2997) (OJ 2008 L 302, p. 9). |

**Operative part**

The Court:

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 1. | | Declares that, by not taking within the prescribed period all the measures necessary to recover from the recipients the aid granted under the aid scheme considered unlawful and incompatible with the common market by Commission Decision 2008/854/EC of 2 July 2008 on a State aid scheme (C 1/04 (ex NN 158/03 and CP 15/2003)): Misuse of aid measure N 272/98, Regional Act No 9 of 1998, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 2 and 3 of that decision; |

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 2. | | Orders the Italian Republic to pay the costs. |
# C_2010288EN.01007202.xml

| 23.10.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 288/72 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.10.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 288/72

---

Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 9 July 2010 — Marcuccio v Commission

(Case F-91/09) (1)

(Public service - Officials - Reasonable time-limits for bringing a claim for damages - Out of time)

(2010/C 288/135)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Luigi Marcuccio (Tricase, Italy) (represented by: G. Cipressa, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: J. Currall and C. Berardis-Kayser, Agents, and A. Dal Ferro, lawyer)

Re:

Rejection by the Commission of the applicant’s request for compensation for damage purportedly suffered as a result of a letter by which the Commission asked a doctor to carry out a medical examination in order to determine whether the applicant was genuinely unfit for work.

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The action is dismissed as being in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly unfounded. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The action is dismissed as being in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly unfounded.

| 2. | Mr Marcuccio is to pay the costs in their entirety. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Mr Marcuccio is to pay the costs in their entirety.

---

(1)  OJ C 11 of 16.1.2010, p. 41.

---
Dominick T. JOHNSON, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 17-6567.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 23, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit denied.
Jacobi PICKETT, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 17-7764.

Supreme Court of the United States

March 19, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit denied.
EXHIBIT 99.1
 
       (a)
    
    SEO compensation plans that could lead SEOs to take unnecessary
and excessive risks that could threaten the value of Central Bancorp, Inc.;(b)
    
    Employee compensation plans that unnecessarily expose Central
Bancorp, Inc. to risks; and(c)
    
    Employee compensation plans that could encourage the
manipulation of reported earnings of Central Bancorp, Inc. to enhance the
compensation of an employee;




---



##### 



Date:  June 17, 2011
    /s/ John D. DohertyJohn D. DohertyChairman and Chief Executive Officer

(Principal Executive Officer)
Commodity Futures Trading Commission

1155 21st Street, N.W. Washington, DC 20581

Agricultural Advisory Committee (AAC) Meeting Agenda

April 5, 2023

9:00 am – 12:00 pm Eastern Time

9:00 am – 9:30 am Welcome and Opening 

Remarks

• Rostin Behnam, Chairman, CFTC, and AAC 

Sponsor 

• Kristin N. Johnson, Commissioner, CFTC 

• Christy Goldsmith Romero, 

Commissioner, CFTC 

• Summer K. Mersinger, Commissioner, 

CFTC 

• Caroline D. Pham, Commissioner, CFTC

9:30 am – 10:00 am Presentation: Agricultural Data and Analytics

• Sara Menker, Gro Intelligence

Q&A and AAC Member Discussion

10:00 am – 10:45 am Panel: Sustainable Biofuels Production

• Tom Haag, Kathy Bergren and Wayne 

Stoskopf, National Corn Growers 

Association

• Michelle Mapes and Devin Mogler,

Green Plains

• Jered Hooker and Alexa Combelic,

American Soybean Association 

• John Duff, National Sorghum Producers 

Q&A and AAC Member Discussion

10:45 am – 11:00 am Break

11:00 am – 11:30am Presentation: Maritime Issues Impacting the 

Agricultural Economy 

• Chairman Daniel Maffei, Federal 

Maritime Commission 

Q&A and AAC Member Discussion

11:30 am – 11:55 am Member Discussion: 2023 AAC Agenda

11:55 am – 12:00 pm Closing Remarks

12:00 pm Meeting Adjourns
# C_2011347EN.01003103.xml

| 26.11.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 347/31 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.11.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 347/31

---

Order of the General Court of 28 September 2011 — UCAPT v Council

(Case T-96/09) (1)

1

(Action for annulment - Common agricultural policy - Support schemes for farmers - Production aid for tobacco - Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 - Not of individual concern - Inadmissible)

2011/C 347/52

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Union des coopératives agricoles des producteurs de tabac de France (UCAPT) (Paris, France) (represented by: B. Peignot and D.F. Garreau, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Moore and P. Mahnič Bruni, Agents)

Defendant:

Intervener in support of the defendant: European Commission (represented by: K. Banks and G. von Rintelen, Agents)

Intervener in support of the defendant:

Re:

Re:

Action for annulment of Council Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 of 19 January 2009 establishing common rules for direct support schemes for farmers under the common agricultural policy and establishing certain support schemes for farmers, amending Regulations (EC) No 1290/2005, (EC) No 247/2006, (EC) No 378/2007 and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 (OJ 2009 L 30, p. 16)

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The action is dismissed as inadmissible. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

| 2. | Union des coopératives agricoles des producteurs de tabac de France shall bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the Council of the European Union, including the costs of the proceedings for interim measures. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Union des coopératives agricoles des producteurs de tabac de France shall bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the Council of the European Union, including the costs of the proceedings for interim measures.

| 3. | The European Commission shall bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

The European Commission shall bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 90, 18.4.2009.

1

---
II-00322

From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

cath kraft <cathkraft@yahoo.com>

Friday, December 3, 2010 2:35 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.

cath kraft

333 HAMILTON AVE

glen rock, NJ 07452
# C_2010024EN.01002702.xml

| 30.1.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 24/27 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.1.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 24/27

---

Action brought on 11 November 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Austria

(Case C-441/09)

2010/C 24/50

Language of the case: German

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: D. Triantafyllou and B.-R. Killmann, Agents)

Applicant:

Defendant: Republic of Austria

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | declare that, by applying a reduced rate of value added tax (VAT) to the supply, importation and intra-Community acquisitions of certain live animals, in particular horses, not intended for use in the preparation of foodstuffs for human or animal consumption, the Republic of Austria has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 96 and 98 in conjunction with Annex III of the Directive on the VAT system (1); |
| --- | --- |

—

declare that, by applying a reduced rate of value added tax (VAT) to the supply, importation and intra-Community acquisitions of certain live animals, in particular horses, not intended for use in the preparation of foodstuffs for human or animal consumption, the Republic of Austria has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 96 and 98 in conjunction with Annex III of the Directive on the VAT system (1);

1

| — | order the Republic of Austria to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Republic of Austria to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

The Commission is of the opinion that Austrian law on VAT infringes Article 96 and 98 in conjunction with Annex III of the Directive on the VAT system, by also applying a reduced rate of VAT to the supply of certain live animals (in particular horses), where those animals are not intended for the production of foodstuffs.

The expression ‘live animals’ in point 1 of Annex III to the Directive on the VAT system is not a separate category but encompasses only those animals which are normally used as foodstuffs for human or animal consumption. That interpretation is supported by the Spanish, French, English, Italian, Dutch, Portuguese and Swedish versions of that provision. In addition the fact that that provision is an exception requires according to settled case-law that it be interpreted strictly.

Particularly animals of the family of equids are clearly used principally as pack or riding animals (and not as foodstuffs for human or animal consumption).

---

(1)  Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1).

1

---
I 

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 3971 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to repeal the inclusion in 

gross income of Social Security benefits. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JULY 25, 2019 

Mr. MASSIE (for himself, Mr. FITZPATRICK, Mr. WEBSTER of Florida, Mr. 

GOHMERT, Mr. MOONEY of West Virginia, Mr. PERRY, Mr. GOSAR, Mr. 

BIGGS, Mr. STEUBE, Mr. COOK, Mr. MEADOWS, Mr. VAN DREW, Mr. 

GAETZ, Mr. BALDERSON, Mr. SMITH of Missouri, Mr. ROY, and Mr. 

GRIFFITH) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to repeal 

the inclusion in gross income of Social Security benefits. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Senior Citizens Tax 

5 Elimination Act’’. 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
2 

•HR 3971 IH

1 SEC. 2. REPEAL OF INCLUSION IN GROSS INCOME OF SO2 CIAL SECURITY BENEFITS. 

3 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 86 of the Internal Rev4 enue Code of 1986 (relating to social security benefits) 

5 is amended by adding at the end the following new sub6 section: 

7 ‘‘(g) TERMINATION.—This section shall not apply to 

8 any taxable year beginning after the date of the enactment 

9 of this subsection.’’. 

10 (b) SOCIAL SECURITY TRUST FUNDS HELD HARM11 LESS.— 

12 (1) IN GENERAL.—There are hereby appro13 priated (out of any money in the Treasury not other14 wise appropriated) for each fiscal year to each fund 

15 under the Social Security Act or the Railroad Re16 tirement Act of 1974 an amount equal to the reduc17 tion in the transfers to such fund for such fiscal 

18 year by reason of section 86(g) of the Internal Rev19 enue Code of 1986. 

20 (2) NO TAX INCREASES.—It is the sense of the 

21 Congress that tax increases will not be used to pro22 vide the revenue necessary to carry out paragraph 

23 (1). 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
Abdifatah Gaas QORANE, aka Qorane Abdifatah Gaas, applicant, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS, III, Attorney General.

No. 17A980.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 16, 2018.

Application for stay addressed to Justice GINSBURG and referred to the Court denied.