alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
II-00617

From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

Peter Craig <PETERJCRAIG@gmail.com>

Thursday, December 2, 2010 1:29 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.

Peter Craig

2610 Salado St. Apt. 208

Austin, TX 78705
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3924 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 3924

    To provide for the treatment of a pharmacy counter refusal as a 
             coverage determination under Medicare part D.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             July 23, 2019

 Mr. Suozzi (for himself and Mr. Reed) introduced the following bill; 
  which was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and in 
    addition to the Committee on Ways and Means, for a period to be 
subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration 
  of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee 
                               concerned

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
    To provide for the treatment of a pharmacy counter refusal as a 
             coverage determination under Medicare part D.

    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 ``Streamlining Part D Appeals Process 
Act''.

SEC. 2. PROVIDING FOR THE TREATMENT OF A PHARMACY COUNTER REFUSAL AS A 
              COVERAGE DETERMINATION UNDER MEDICARE PART D.

    Section 1860D-4(g) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395w-
104(g)) is amended by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
            ``(3) Treatment of pharmacy counter refusal as coverage 
        determination.--For plan years beginning on or after January 1, 
        2020, the refusal by a pharmacy to fill a prescription for a 
        covered part D drug under a prescription drug plan shall be 
        treated as a coverage determination subject to reconsideration 
        and appeal pursuant to this subsection and subsection (h).''.
                                 <all>
```
Juan Manuel CASTRO, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 17-7681.

Supreme Court of the United States

March 19, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.
David C. TABB, petitioner, v. COUNTY COMMISSION OF JEFFERSON COUNTY, WEST VIRGINIA.

No. 17-7.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 2, 2017.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia denied.
Richard Tommy GORDON, petitioner, v. Wendy KELLEY, Director, Arkansas Department of Correction.

No. 16-9711.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 2, 2017.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit denied.
James E. TRIMBLE, petitioner, v. Charlotte JENKINS, Warden.

No. 15-8826.

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.
BOSTON FINANCIAL QUALIFIED HOUSING TAX CREDITS L.P. V


(A Limited Partnership)


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 Boston Financial Qualified Housing Tax Credits L.P. V (the “Partnership”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2011 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), the undersigned, the Principal Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer, hereby certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 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 Partnership.











/s/Kenneth J. Cutillo


Kenneth J. Cutillo


Principal Executive Officer and


Principal Financial Officer


Arch Street VIII, Inc., as


Managing General Partner of


Boston Financial Qualified


Housing Tax Credits L.P. V





Date:     August 15, 2011








A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Partnership and will be retained by the Partnership and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
SYSTEMS, INC., petitioner, v. NORDOCK, INC.

No. 15-978.

Supreme Court of the United States

Dec. 12, 2016.

On petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Petition for writ of certiorari granted. Judgment vacated, and case remanded to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit for further consideration in light of *Samsung Electronics Co. v. Apple Inc.,* 580 U.S. ----, 137 S.Ct. 429, --- L.E.2d ---- (2016).
# C_2012217EN.01000202.xml

| 21.7.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 217/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.7.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 217/2

---

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 5 June 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Najwyższy — Poland) — Criminal proceedings against Łukasz Marcin Bonda

(Case C-489/10) (1)

1

(Common agricultural policy - Single area payment scheme - Regulation (EC) No 1973/2004 - Article 138(1) - Exclusion from receiving aid if the area declared is not correct - Administrative or criminal nature of that penalty - Rule against the overlapping of criminal penalties - Ne bis in idem principle)

2012/C 217/03

Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Referring court

Sąd Najwyższy

Party to the main criminal proceedings

Party to the main criminal proceedings

Łukasz Marcin Bonda

Re:

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Sąd Najwyższy — Interpretation of Article 138 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1973/2004 of 29 October 2004 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 as regards the support schemes provided for in Titles IV and IVa of that Regulation and the use of land set aside for the production of raw materials (OJ 2004 L 345, p. 1) — Single area payment — Grant of aid excluded if the area declared is incorrect — Administrative or criminal nature of that penalty

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

Article 138(1) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1973/2004 of 29 October 2004 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 as regards the support schemes provided for in Titles IV and IVa of that regulation and the use of land set aside for the production of raw materials must be interpreted as meaning that the measures provided for in the second and third subparagraphs of that provision, consisting in excluding a farmer from receiving aid for the year in which he made a false declaration of the eligible area and reducing the aid he can claim within the following three calendar years by an amount corresponding to the difference between the area declared and the area determined, do not constitute criminal penalties.

---

(1)  OJ C 13, 15.1.2011.

1

---
# C_2010328EN.01000901.xml

| 4.12.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 328/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.12.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 328/9

---

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 7 October 2010 — European Commission v Republic of Slovenia

(Case C-49/10) (1)

1

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Environment - Directive 2008/1/EC - Integrated pollution prevention and control - Requirements for the granting of permits for existing installations - Failure to transpose within the prescribed period)

2010/C 328/13

Language of the case: Slovenian

Parties

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: A. Alcover San Pedro, acting as Agent)

Applicant:

Defendant: Republic of Slovenia (represented by: N. Pintar Gosenca, acting as Agent)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Infringement of Article 5(1) of Directive 2008/1/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 January 2008 concerning integrated pollution prevention and control (OJ 2008 L 24, p. 8) — Requirements for the granting of permits for existing installations — Obligation to ensure that such installations operate in accordance with the requirements of the directive

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Declares that, by failing to adopt, within the prescribed period, all the measures necessary as far as concerns permits for industrial installations, in accordance with Article 5(1) of Directive 2008/1/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 January 2008 concerning integrated pollution prevention and control, the Republic of Slovenia has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Declares that, by failing to adopt, within the prescribed period, all the measures necessary as far as concerns permits for industrial installations, in accordance with Article 5(1) of Directive 2008/1/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 January 2008 concerning integrated pollution prevention and control, the Republic of Slovenia has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

| 2. | Orders the Republic of Slovenia to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the Republic of Slovenia to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 80, 27.3.2010.

1

---
Hedging Climate Risks

Stefano Giglio

Yale School of Management

June 10, 2019

1 / 5
Hedging climate change risks: conceptual issues

What’s unique about hedging climate risks?

1. It’s hard to specify the right target of the hedge

I Given a target, it’s easy to design a product

I Climate variables, or the economic damages that result?

2. Obstacles to market participation and development

I Very long horizons and counterparty risk

I Generally limited knowledge about the dynamics of climate change

3. Limits to quantitative analysis of risks

I Structural analysis (models): complex predictions, model uncertainty

I Reduced-form analysis: little data on extreme scenarios

2 / 5
Hedging climate change risks: operational issues

1. How do we hedge such long-term risks?

I Can we use short-term portfolios to hedge long-term climate change?

2. What instruments to use? Specialized derivatives or more easily available

assets like equities?

3. What is the cost of the hedge?

I What are the risk premia associated with climate change?

3 / 5
A first step: Engle et al. 2018

I Target: climate change news extracted from newspaper articles

I Instruments: large cross-section of equities; data on ESG scores

I Horizon: basic principle from option pricing: replicate payoff of ideal

long-term security with a sequence of short-term portfolios

Figure 2: WSJ Climate Change News Index

Note: Figure shows the WSJ Climate Change News Index climate change news index from 1984–2017, annotated with climate-relevant news announcements.

adoption of global climate treaties (e.g., the UNFCCC or the Kyoto protocol), or important

global conferences to battle climate change (e.g., the 2009 UN Climate Change Conference

in Copenhagen).

3.1.2 Crimson Hexagon’s Negative Sentiment Climate Change News Index

I Results: obtain out-of-sample correlations up to 30% with the target

I Identify firms (within and across industry) most important for the hedge

4 / 5
Designing a global derivative market

I Benefit: precise targeting not achievable with equity markets

I Features unique to a derivatives market for climate change

I Markets need difference of exposures and views: exploit geographic

heterogeneity (global market)

I Multiplicity of products: climate change is a multi-faceted phenomenon,

reduce basis risk

I Policy: can climate insurance markets exacerbate the tragedy of the

commons problem inherent with climate change?

5 / 5
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                           5,633
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                               0
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                 4,000
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                     46,649
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                               0
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                                 0
<LOANS>                                        104,653
<ALLOWANCE>                                      2,971
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 160,106
<DEPOSITS>                                     127,719
<SHORT-TERM>                                         0
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                              1,566
<LONG-TERM>                                      9,500
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        13,209
<OTHER-SE>                                       8,112
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                 160,106
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                  7,039
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                2,220
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                   209
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                 9,468
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                               4,737
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               4,755
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                            4,713
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                        0
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                  (2)
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                  3,383
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  2,042
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                       2,042
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,950
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .88
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .88
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    4.14
<LOANS-NON>                                        857
<LOANS-PAST>                                         0
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                    134
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                 3,034
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                      449
<RECOVERIES>                                       386
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                2,971
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                             1,991
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                            980
        

</TABLE>
Yasith CHHUN, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 17-8127.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 16, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.
Antonio MOULTRIE, petitioner, v. Randall WILLIAMS, Warden.

No. 17-7319.

Supreme Court of the United States

March 19, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied.
Eglan YOUNGE, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 17-7660.

Supreme Court of the United States

March 19, 2018.

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

Justice KAGAN took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5

       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                    MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                              220,626
<SECURITIES>                                              0
<RECEIVABLES>                                     3,020,571
<ALLOWANCES>                                        250,000
<INVENTORY>                                         976,463
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                  4,930,382
<PP&E>                                              585,340
<DEPRECIATION>                                      482,285
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   21,171,404
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            13,837,655
<BONDS>                                             957,372
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                     0
<PREFERRED>                                       3,117,274
<COMMON>                                              3,788
<OTHER-SE>                                        2,493,315
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     21,171,404
<SALES>                                           9,771,749
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                  9,771,749
<CGS>                                             7,497,342
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                     1,853,351
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                          0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     14,099
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  308,598
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   (189,245)
<INCOME-TAX>                                       (62,842)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                               (266,203)
<DISCONTINUED>                                            0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                           0
<CHANGES>                                                 0
<NET-INCOME>                                      (266,203)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        (0.07)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        (0.07)
        


</TABLE>
Exhibit 32.1


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


In connection with the Annual Report of RPM Advantage Inc. (the "Company")
on Form 10-KSB for the period ended December 31, 2007 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
I, David R. Pressler, President and Chief Executive Officer, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 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.

Date: July 15, 2011




/s/ DAVID R. PRESSLER



David R. Pressler
Chief Executive Officer and President
|
|

|                                                        |  |  | EXHIBIT
      23.2 | 
|------------------------------------------------------- |  |  | ------------------ | 
|                                                        |  |  |                    | 
|CONSENT
      OF BDO SEIDMAN, LLP, INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

The Board of DirectorsPacific Magtron International
  Corp.

We hereby consent
  to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement on Form S-8
  (No. 333-97823) of our report dated March 6, 2002 relating to the consolidated
  financial statements and schedule of Pacific Magtron International Corp. appearing
  in the Companys Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December
  31, 2003.

/s/  BDO
  Seidman, LLP

San Francisco,
  CaliforniaMarch 30, 2004

|
|
|
S.C., petitioner, v. COLORADO.

No. 17-7290.

Supreme Court of the United States

March 19, 2018.

*1288Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals of Colorado denied.
Jacson MOORE, petitioner, v. LOUISIANA.

No. 16-590.

Supreme Court of the United States

Jan. 9, 2017.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeal of Louisiana, First Circuit denied.
Exhibit 99.1


      CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

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


     I,  Michael  J.  Dodak,  certify,  pursuant  to  18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as
adopted  pursuant  to  Section  906  of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the
Quarterly  Report  of Global Axcess Corp on Form 10-QSB for the quarterly period
ended  June  30,  2002, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
15(d)  of  the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in
such  Quarterly  Report  fairly  presents in all material respects the financial
condition  and  results  of  operations  of  Global  Axcess  Corp.

                                   By:   /s/ Michael  J.  Dodak
                                         -------------------------------
                                   Name:  Michael  J.  Dodak
                                   Title: Chief Executive Officer




     I,  Michael  J.  Dodak,  certify,  pursuant  to  18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as
adopted  pursuant  to  Section  906  of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the
Quarterly  Report  of Global Axcess Corp on Form 10-QSB for the quarterly period
ended  June  30,  2002, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
15(d)  of  the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in
such  Quarterly  Report  fairly  presents in all material respects the financial
condition  and  results  of  operations  of  Global  Axcess  Corp.

                                   By:   /s/ Michael  J.  Dodak
                                         -------------------------------
                                   Name:  Michael  J.  Dodak
                                   Title: Chief Financial Officer


<PAGE>
James E. CHAMBLIN, petitioner, v. Charlotte JENKINS, Warden.

No. 17-5200.

Supreme Court of the United States

Feb. 20, 2018.

Petition for rehearing denied.