alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
II-00863

From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

John Crotty <jmcrotty1467@gmail.com>

Thursday, December 2, 2010 10:36 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.

John Crotty

1467 Cherry Creek

Manchester, MO 63021
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                       5,923,954
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  222,631
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             6,146,585
<PP&E>                                       8,559,805
<DEPRECIATION>                               (104,097)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              14,602,293
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          138,511
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        59,728
<OTHER-SE>                                  14,404,054
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                14,602,293
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               639,608
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             3,164,776
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (2,525,168)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (2,525,168)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (2,525,168)
<EPS-BASIC>                                          0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
Alfred William LaSURE, petitioner, v. SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF MENTAL HEALTH, et al.

No. 17-5045.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 2, 2017.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied.
Pietro Ernest TERRELL, petitioner, v. Bonita J. HOFFNER, Warden.

No. 17-6307.

Supreme Court of the United States

Feb. 26, 2018.

Petition for rehearing denied.
# C_2010100EN.01001702.xml

| 17.4.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 100/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.4.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 100/17

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Linköpings tingsrätt (Sweden) lodged on 19 January 2010 — Lotta Andersson v Staten genom Kronofogdemyndigheten i Jönköping, Tillsynsmyndigheten

(Case C-30/10)

2010/C 100/26

Language of the case: Swedish

Referring court

Referring court

Linköpings tingsrätt

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Lotta Andersson

Applicant:

Defendant: Staten genom Kronofogdemyndigheten i Jönköping, Tillsynsmyndigheten

Defendant:

Question referred

Question referred

Is a national provision which excludes an employee from a preferential right on the basis that he, on his own or together with his close relatives, more recently than six months before the application for a declaration of insolvency, was the owner of an essential part of the employer’s undertaking or business and had a considerable influence on its activities compatible with Article 10(c) of Directive 2002/74/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 September 2002 (1) amending Council Directive 80/987/EEC on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the protection of employees in the event of the insolvency of their employer? (2)

more recently than six months before the application for a declaration of insolvency

1

2

---

(1)  OJ L 270, p. 10.

1

(2)  OJ L 283, p. 23.

2

---
Flordeliza HAWKINS, petitioner, v. SUNTRUST BANK.

No. 16-584.

Supreme Court of the United States

Jan. 9, 2017.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeal of California, Second Appellate District denied.
Jesus Enrique MORENO, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 17-6861.

Supreme Court of the United States

March 19, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit denied.
In re Brandon LEE, petitioner.

No. 17-7976.

Supreme Court of the United States

May 14, 2018.

Petition for writ of mandamus denied.
Anthony DOVE, petitioner, v. Imelda J. PATE, et al.

No. 16-6708.

Supreme Court of the United States

Jan. 9, 2017.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                           2,259
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                          34,455
<DEPRECIATION>                                   4,795
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  32,380
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                       8,258
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    32,380
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 2,191
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    1,653
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 474
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                     64
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                 64
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                        64
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     3.40
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     3.40
        

</TABLE>
Timothy Wesley HALL, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 16-7074.

Supreme Court of the United States

Jan. 9, 2017.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit denied.
James Edward WHITNEY, petitioner, v. ARKANSAS.

No. 17-8436.

Supreme Court of the United States

May 21, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Arkansas denied.
II-00988

From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

Red Taylor <redt@surewest.net>

Thursday, December 2, 2010 9:23 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.

Red Taylor

100 Southern Cross Ct.

Roseville, CA 95747
Ralph Patrick MARTIN, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 17-8152.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 23, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit denied.
# C_2009233EN.01000901.xml

| 26.9.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 233/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.9.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 233/9

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Corte d’appello di Roma (Italy) lodged on 24 July 2009 — Luigi Ricci v Istituto nazionale della previdenza sociale (INPS)

(Case C-286/09)

2009/C 233/14

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Referring court

Corte d’appello di Roma

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Luigi Ricci

Applicant:

Defendant: Istituto nazionale della previdenza sociale (INPS)

Defendant:

Question referred

Question referred

The Court of Justice is asked to give a preliminary ruling under Article 234 EC as to whether Articles 17, 39 and 42 EC, and the relevant provisions of Regulation No 1408/71, must be interpreted as meaning that the principle that all insurance periods must be aggregated for the purposes of entitlement to the right to benefits, and of the acquisition and maintenance of that right — a principle implemented through the adoption, by the Council, of Regulation No 1408/71 — applies in all cases where the aggregation and pro rata mechanism must be used for the purposes of recognising the right to a given benefit, with the result that account must be taken to that end both of the insurance periods completed under the legislation of each Member State, and of those completed under the social insurance scheme applicable to employees of the Community institutions.

---
# C_2011232EN.01003902.xml

| 6.8.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 232/39 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.8.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 232/39

---

Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 7 June 2011 — Emmanuel Larue and Olivier Seigneur v European Central Bank

(Case F-84/09) (1)

(Staff case - Staff of the ECB - Pay - General adjustment to salaries - Disregard of the method of calculation)

(2011/C 232/67)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Emmanuel Larue and Olivier Seigneur (Frankfurt-am-Main, Germany) (represented by L. Levi, lawyer)

Defendant: European Central Bank (represented by G. Nuvoli and N. Urban, Agents, and B. Wägenbaur, lawyer)

Re:

Application for annulment of pay-slips for January 2009.

Operative part of the judgment

The Tribunal:

| 1. | Annuls Mr Larue and Mr Seigneur’s pay-slips for the month of January 2009; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls Mr Larue and Mr Seigneur’s pay-slips for the month of January 2009;

| 2. | Dismisses the remainder of the action; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Dismisses the remainder of the action;

| 3. | Orders the European Central Bank to bear all the costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the European Central Bank to bear all the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 312 of 19.12.09, p. 44.

---
In Re LeRon Everett EASLEY, petitioner.

No. 17-7629.

Supreme Court of the United States

Feb. 26, 2018.

Petition for writ of habeas corpus denied.
**Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 1 March 2012 —
Commission v Greece

(Case C-354/10)**

Failure to fulfil obligations — State aid — Tax-exempt reserve fund — Incompatibility with the common market — Recovery — Failure to execute

1.                     *Procedure — Rules on languages — Production of procedural documents in a language other than that of the case — Conditions
for admissibility (Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 29(2)(a)(3) (see paras 33, 34)*

2.                     *State aid — Recovery of unlawful aid — Obligation — Duty to execute, immediately and effectively, the Commission’s decision
(Arts 108(2) TFEU and 288 TFEU; Council Regulation 659/1999, Art. 14(3)) (see paras 56-61, 65)*

3.                     *Actions for failure to fulfil obligations — Failure to comply with a Commission decision concerning State aid — Defences —
Absolute impossibility of implementation — Criteria for assessment — Difficulties in implementing — Duty of the Commission
and the Member State to work together in seeking a solution consistent with the Treaty (Arts 4(3) TFEU and 108(2) TFEU) (see
paras 68-70, 73)*

4.                     *State aid — Recovery of unlawful aid — Application of national law — Conditions — Putting in hand a procedure ensuring immediate,
effective execution of the Commission’s decision (Arts 108(2) TFEU and 288 TFEU; Council Regulation No 659/1999, Art. 14(3)
(see paras 75, 77)*

**Re:**

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Failure to take, within the period prescribed, the measures necessary for recovery of the aid found to be unlawful and incompatible with the internal market by Article 1(1) (excepting the aid referred to in Article 1(2) and Articles 2 and 3) of the Commission decision of 18 July 2007 (C(2007) 3251) concerning the tax-exempt reserve fund (State aid C 37/05). |

**Operative part**

The Court:

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 1. | | Declares that, by failing to adopt, within the period prescribed, all the measures necessary for recovery, in accordance with Article 1(1) of Commission Decision 2008/723/EC of 18 July 2007 on State aid C 37/05 (ex NN 11/04) implemented by Greece — tax-exempt reserve fund, of the aid held unlawful and incompatible with the internal market, excepting the aid referred to in Article 1(2) and Articles 2 and 3 of that decision, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 4 to 6 of that decision; |

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 2. | | Orders the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs. |
Richard Alan DAVIS, petitioner, v. Wendy KELLEY, Director, Arkansas Department of Correction.

No. 16-9721.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 2, 2017.

Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed *in forma pauperis* denied, and petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Arkansas dismissed. See Rule 39.8.
# C_2012025EN.01002303.xml

| 28.1.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 25/23 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.1.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 25/23

---

Order of the Court of 20 September 2011 — Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE v European Commission

(Case C-561/10 P) (1)

(Appeal - Public service contracts - Invitation to tender - Computing services for the maintenance of the SEI-BUD/AMD/CR systems - Rejection of the tender - Inadequate statement of reasons - Incorrect assessment of the facts and evidence)

(2012/C 25/41)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE (represented by: N. Korogiannakis, dikigoros)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: S. Delaude and N. Bambara, acting as Agents)

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) of 9 September 2010 in Case T-387/08 Evropaïki Dynamiki v Commission dismissing an application (i) for annulment of the decision of the Publications Office of the European Union of 20 June 2008 rejecting the tender submitted by the appellant in Call for Tender for computing services — maintenance of the SEI-BUD/AMD/CR systems and related services (AO 10185) (OJ 2008/S 43-058884) and of the decision to award the contract to another tenderer, and (ii) for damages.

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The appeal is dismissed. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The appeal is dismissed.

| 2. | Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE shall pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE shall pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 72, 5.3.2011.

---
Arthur J. BRYANT, petitioner v. Richard BROWN, Superintendent, Wabash Valley Correctional Facility.

No. 17-8193.

Supreme Court of the United States

May 14, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit denied.
**Exhibit 99.1**

 

**AMERICANRESTAURANT GROUP, INC.**

 

**Certification Pursuant to Section906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

**(18 U.S.C. Section 1350)**

 

 

Pursuant to the requirementsof Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. Sections 1350(a)and (b)), the undersigned hereby certify as follows:

 

1.             Ralph S. Roberts is the ChiefExecutive Officer of American Restaurant Group, Inc. (the “Company”).

 

2.             William G. Taves is the ChiefFinancial Officer of the Company.

 

3.             Each of the undersigned hereby certifies,to the best of his knowledge, that:

 

(A)                              The Company’sForm 10-Q/A accompanying this Certification, in the form filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”), fully complies with therequirements of Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the“Exchange Act”); and

 

(B)                                The informationin the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financialcondition and results of operations of the Company.

 

 
| Dated:  March 28, 2003 |   |                     |
|------------------------|--------|--------------------------|
|                   |   |                     |
|                   |   |                     |
|                   |   | /s/  Ralph S. Roberts    |
|                   |   | Ralph  S. Roberts        |
|                   |   | Chief  Executive Officer |
|                   |   |                     |
|                   |   |                     |
|                   |   | /s/  William G. Taves    |
|                   |   | William  G. Taves        |
|                   |   | Chief  Financial Officer |

 

----
Ronald N. COOKE, petitioner, v. VIRGINIA.

No. 17-797.

Supreme Court of the United States

March 19, 2018.

Petition for rehearing denied.
# C_2009312EN.01002401.xml

| 19.12.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 312/24 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.12.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 312/24

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Višje sodišče v Mariboru (Republic of Slovenia) lodged on 20 October 2009 — Jasna Detiček v Maurizio Sgueglia

(Case C-403/09)

2009/C 312/39

Language of the case: Slovene

Referring court

Referring court

Višje sodišče v Mariboru

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Jasna Detiček

Applicant:

Defendant: Maurizio Sgueglia

Defendant:

Questions referred for a preliminary ruling

Questions referred for a preliminary ruling

| 1. | Does a court of the Republic of Slovenia (a Member State of the European Communities) have jurisdiction under Article 20 of Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 (1) to take protective measures in a situation in which a court of another Member State, having by virtue of that regulation jurisdiction as to the substance, has already taken a protective measure declared enforceable in the Republic of Slovenia? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Does a court of the Republic of Slovenia (a Member State of the European Communities) have jurisdiction under Article 20 of Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 (1) to take protective measures in a situation in which a court of another Member State, having by virtue of that regulation jurisdiction as to the substance, has already taken a protective measure declared enforceable in the Republic of Slovenia?

1

If the answer to the first question is in the affirmative:

| 2. | May a Slovene court, pursuant to national law (as permitted by Article 20 of the regulation), take a protective measure under Article 20 of the regulation amending or rendering inoperative a final and enforceable protective measure taken by a court of another Member State which under that regulation has jurisdiction as to the substance? |
| --- | --- |

2.

May a Slovene court, pursuant to national law (as permitted by Article 20 of the regulation), take a protective measure under Article 20 of the regulation amending or rendering inoperative a final and enforceable protective measure taken by a court of another Member State which under that regulation has jurisdiction as to the substance?

---

(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 of 27 November 2003 concerning jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in matrimonial matters and the matters of parental responsibility, repealing Regulation (EC) No 1347/2000 (OJ 2003 L 338, p. 1).

1

---