alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### THE CUTLER. THE JULIUS H. BARNES. THE CALATCO No. 2. SOUTHERN TRANSP. CO. v. THE JULIUS H. BARNES. ERIE & ST. LAWRENCE CORPORATION v. THE CALATCO NO. 2 et al.

Nos. 210, 211.

Circuit Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.

Jan. 22, 1945.

Dow & Symmers, of New York City (Wilbur E. Dow, Jr., of New York City, of counsel), for appellant.

Foley & Martin, of New York City (James A. Martin and Christopher E. Heckman, both of New York City, of counsel), for appellee.

Before HUTCHESON, SIMONS and CLARK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

These appeals are from interlocutory decrees in admiralty entered in suits filed because of a collision in New York Bay between the Tug Calateo No. 2 and the M/V Barnes.

The district judge, of the opinion that both vessels were at fault and that damages should be divided, made findings of fact and conclusions of law, and wrote an opinion accordingly. His opinion fully and carefully marshals and determines the effect of the evidence.

We are unable to agree with libellant that the decision incorrectly adjudged the facts or is in conflict with any applicable legal principle. It will serve no useful purpose for us to do again what the district judge has already done so well, retell the story of the collision, trace and point out wherein its actors were at fault. It is sufficient for us to say that we approve both what the district judge did and the way he did it, and that on his opinion and for the reasons that he gave, we affirm his decrees.
<PAGE>
                                       
                                 EXHIBIT 21.1 

     All subsidiaries listed below were in existence as of June 15, 1997

     Direct Subsidiaries of the Company (Delaware)

     1.  Cosmar Corporation (Delaware)
     2.  Renaissance Guarantor, Inc. (Delaware)
     3.  RCI China, Inc.

     Direct Subsidiaries of Cosmar Corporation

     1.  Dana Perfumes Corp. (Delaware)
     2.  Great American Cosmetics, Inc. (New York)

     Direct Subsidiaries of Dana Perfumes Corp.

     1.  Marcafin S.A. (Switzerland)
     2.  Estalvi S.A. (Switzerland)
     3.  Financiera de Perfumeria S.A. (Panama)
     4.  Perfumes Dana S.A.I.C. (Argentina)
     5.  Perfumes Dana do Brasil, S.A. (Brazil)
     6.  Dana S.A. (Spain)
     7.  Dana Perfumes (Pty), Ltd. (South Africa)
     8.  Dana U.K. Limited (U.K.)
     9.  MEM Company, Inc. (New York)
     10. Houbigant (1995) Limited (Canada)
     11. RSH 149 S.A.R.L. (France)

     Direct Subsidiaries of Estalvi S.A.

     1.  C.O.M.I.N.S.A. (Panama)
     2.  Parfums Dana Export Corp. (New York)

     Direct Subsidiary of C.O.M.I.N.S.A.

     1.  Perfumes and Cosmetics Importers, Inc. (Puerto Rico)

     Direct Subsidiary of Financiera de Perfumeria S.A.

     1.  Dana Perfumes (Canada) Limited (Canada)

<PAGE>

     Direct Subsidiaries of MEM Company, Inc.

     1.  Tinkerbell, Inc. (New York)
     2.  MEM Company (Canada) Ltd. (Canada)
     3.  St. Thomas Leatherworks Limited (Jamaica)
     4.  Alliance Trading Co., Inc. (Puerto Rico)
     5.  Tom Fields (U.K.) Ltd. (U.K.)
     6.  St. Thomas Holdings Inc. (Delaware)
**EXHIBIT 21.1**

**LIST OF SUBSIDIARIES OFREGISTRANT**

**Subsidiaries of DeCraneHoldings Co.**

DECRANE AIRCRAFT HOLDINGS, INC., a Delaware corporation.

**Subsidiaries of DeCraneAircraft Holdings, Inc.**

AEROSPACE DISPLAY SYSTEMS, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company.

AUDIO INTERNATIONAL, INC., an Arkansas corporation.

AVTECH CORPORATION, a Washington corporation.

CARL F. BOOTH & CO., LLC, a Delaware limited liability company.

COLTECH, INC., a Texas corporation.

CUSTOM WOODWORK & PLASTICS, LLC, a Delaware limited liabilitycompany.

DAH–IP HOLDINGS, INC., a Delaware corporation.

DAH–IP INFINITY, INC., a Delaware corporation.

DECRANE AIRCRAFT FURNITURE CO., LP, a Texas limited partnership.

DETTMERS INDUSTRIES, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company.

ERDA, INC., a Wisconsin corporation.

HOLLINGSEAD INTERNATIONAL, INC., a California corporation.

PATS, INC., a Maryland corporation.

PCI NEWCO, INC., a Delaware corporation.

PPI HOLDINGS, INC., a Kansas corporation.

PRECISION PATTERN, INC., a Kansas corporation.

THE INFINITY PARTNERS, LTD., a Texas limited partnership.

TRI–STAR ELECTRONICS EUROPE S.A., a Swiss company.

TRI–STAR ELECTRONICS INTERNATIONAL, INC., a Californiacorporation.

TRI–STAR TECHNOLOGIES, a California general partnership.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Environmental Protection Agency

          - [OPP-34226B; FRL-6788-1]

# AGENCY:

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

# ACTION:

Notice.

# SUMMARY:

                         In the                         **Federal Register**                         of May 23, 2001 (66 FR 28469) (FRL-6775-9), EPA announced the availability and start of a 60-day public comment period on the Reregistration Eligibility Decision document for the pesticide active ingredient triallate.  On page 28469, second column, under the                         **DATES**                         caption, the date provided for the receipt of comments was inadvertently listed as May 20, 2001.  The correct date is July 23, 2001. This notice announces the correct comment period.                     

# DATES:

Comments, identified by docket control number OPP-34226A, must be received on or before July 23, 2001. 

# ADDRESSES:

                        For detailed instructions concerning the submission of comments, refer to Unit I.C. of the                         **Federal Register**                         of May 23, 2001.                    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

By mail: Carol Stangel, Special Review and Reregistration Division (7508C), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: (703) 308-8007; and e-mail address: stangel.carol@epa.gov.

For technical questions on the RED, contact:   Michael Goodis, Special Review and Reregistration Division (7508C),  Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC  20460; telephone number:  (703) 308-8157; and e-mail address:  goodis.michael@epa.gov.

# List of Subjects 

        - Environmental protection
        - Pesticides

Dated: June 7, 2001.

Lois Rossi,

Director, Special Review and Reregistration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.

[FR Doc. 01-15889 Filed 6-22-01 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-S
Exhibit 32.1

AMENDED CERTIFICATION OF PERIODIC REPORT

I, Robert Klein, President and Chief Executive Officer of Golden Spirit Mining
Ltd., a Delaware Corporation (the "Company"), certify, pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes- Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:

(1) the amended Annual Report on Form 10-KSB/A of the Company for the year ended
December 31, 2004 (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of Section
13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d));
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: April 20, 2005

/s/ Robert Klein
-------------------
Robert Klein
President and Chief Executive Officer
**Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 8 September 2011 – Commission v Portugal**

**(Case C-220/10)**

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Directive 91/271/EEC – Pollution and nuisances – Treatment of urban waste water – Articles 3, 5 and 6 – Failure to identify sensitive areas – Failure to introduce more stringent treatment of discharges in sensitive areas

1.                     *Environment – Urban waste-water treatment – Directive 91/271– Derogations – Less stringent treatment of less sensitive areas
– Conditions – Carrying out of studies indicating that there will be no adverse effect on the environment – Communication
to the Commission of all relevant information on that subject (Council Directive 91/271, Arts 2 and 6(1) and (2), second indent)
(see paras 43-44)*

2.                     *Actions for failure to fulfil obligations – Examination of the merits by the Court – Situation to be taken into consideration
– Situation on expiry of the period laid down in the reasoned opinion (Art. 258 TFEU) (see para. 45)*

3.                     *Environment – Urban waste-water treatment – Directive 91/271 – More stringent treatment of discharges of urban waste water
from agglomerations of more than 10 000 population equivalent – Lack – Partial collection and treatment – Failure to fulfil
obligations (Council Directive 91/271, Arts 3(2), 4 and 5(2)) (see paras 49-50, 52)*

**Re:**

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Infringement of Council Directive 91/271/EEC of 21 May 1991 concerning urban waste water treatment (OJ 1991 L 135, p. 40). |

**Operative part**

The Court:

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 1. | | Declares that, |

–        by identifying as less sensitive areas all the coastal waters of the Island of Madeira and of the Island of Porto Santo;

–        by subjecting to treatment less stringent than that prescribed in Article 4 of Council Directive 91/271/EEC of 21 May 1991
concerning urban waste water treatment, urban waste water from agglomerations with a population equivalent of more than 10
000, such as the agglomerations of Funchal and Câmara de Lobos, discharged into the coastal waters of the Island of Madeira;

–        by failing to ensure, with regard to an agglomeration along the estuary of the River Tagus, namely, Quinta do Conde, the provision
of collecting systems for urban waste water in accordance with Article 3 of the directive;

–        by failing to ensure, with regard to the agglomerations of Albufeira/Armação de Pêra, Beja, Chaves and Viseu and four agglomerations
discharging on the left bank of the Tagus estuary, Barreiro/Moita, Corroios/Quinta da Bomba, Quinta do Conde and Seixal, treatment
more stringent than that prescribed in Article 4 of the directive;

the Portuguese Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 3, 5 and 6 of Directive 91/271;

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 2. | | Orders the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs. |
In the Matter of DISCIPLINE OF Stephen Howard SACKS.

No. D-3028.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 16, 2018.

Stephen Howard Sacks, of Baltimore, Maryland, is suspended from the practice of law in this Court and a rule will issue, returnable within 40 days, requiring him to show cause why he should not be disbarred form the practice of law in this court.
<PAGE>

                                                                Exhibit 13.(a).2

 CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER 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 Annual Report of CDC Corporation (the "Company") on
Form 20-F for the period ended December 31, 2004 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Form 20-F"), I, Keith Oliver,
chief financial officer of the Company, certify that:

(1) The Form 20-F 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 Form 20-F fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

Date: June 30, 2005

                                                         /s/ Keith Oliver
                                                    ----------------------------
                                                      Chief Financial Officer

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other
document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that
appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement
required by Section 906, has been provided to CDC Corporation and will be
retained by CDC Corporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission or its staff upon request.
Adam MAIN, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 17-8107.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 16, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied.
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 17
- 1013

BANK OF AMERICA NA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,

v. JOHNSON D. KOOLA , Defendant

- Appellant

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina , at Charleston

. Richard M

. Gergel , District Judge. ( 2:16

- cv
- 01634

- RMG )

Submitted : May 30, 2017 Decided: June 6, 2017

Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and MOTZ , Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion

.

Johnson D. Koola, Appellant Pro Se. Theodore von Keller, CRAWFORD & VON KELLER, LLC, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Johnson D. Koola seeks to appeal the district court’s orde r adopting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and remanding this case to the South Carolina Court of Appeals, from which it was removed. Bank of America has moved to dismiss the appeal

. Generally, “[a]n order remanding a case to the State court fr om which it was removed is not reviewable on appeal or otherwise.” 28 U.S.C. § 1447(d) (2012). The Supreme Court has instructed that “§ 1447(d) must be read in pari materia with [28 U.S.C.] § 1447(c), so that only remands based on grounds specified in § 1447(c) are immune from review under § 1447(d).” Things Remembered, Inc. v. Petrarca , 516 U.S. 124, 127 (1995). Thus, § 1447(d) is tightly circumscribed to cover only remand orders within the scope of

. . . § 1447(c), based on (1) a district court ’ s lack of subject matter jurisdiction or (2) a defect in removal other than lack of subject matter jurisdiction that was raised by the motion of a party within 30 days after the notice of removal was filed.
Doe v. Blair , 819 F.3d 64, 66 (4th Cir. 2016) (internal quotation marks omitted).
“Whether a district court ’ s remand order is reviewable under § 1447(d) is not determined by whether the order explicitly cites § 1447(c) or not.” Borneman v. United States , 213
F.3d 81 9, 824 (4th Cir. 2000). Bank of America moved to remand within 30 days of Koola’s notice of removal, and the district court remanded on the basis that removal was untimely. The district court also concluded that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction. Und er the cited authorities, we are without jurisdiction to review the remand order. We therefore grant Bank of3 America’s motion to dismiss and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately present ed in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
Samuel Gasca DURAN, petitioner, v. Lorie DAVIS, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division

No. 17-8102.

Supreme Court of the United States

May 14, 2018.

*1998Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied.
Neil NAVARRO, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 16-9755.

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.
Leila Robinson Lewis SMITH, petitioner, v. ASSOCIATED CREDIT UNION, INC.

No. 17-1296.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 16, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Georgia denied.
Thomas Joseph CLOSE, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 16-9461.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 2, 2017.

On petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh 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 Eleventh Circuit in light of the position asserted by the Solicitor General in his memorandum for the United States filed on June 30, 2017.
Arsean Lamone HICKS, petitioner, v. Harold W. CLARKE, Director, Virginia Department of Corrections.

No. 17-28.

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.
Eric HOPE, petitioner, v. FLORIDA.

No. 17-8022.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 2, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District denied.
# L_2005097EN.01003701.xml

| 15.4.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 97/37 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.4.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 97/37

---

Information relating to the entry into force of the Agreement between the European Community and the Swiss Confederation amending the Agreement between the European Economic Community and the Swiss Confederation of 22 July 1972 as regards the provisions applicable to processed agricultural products (1)

The procedures necessary for the entry into force of the Agreement between the European Community and the Swiss Confederation amending the Agreement between the European Economic Community and the Swiss Confederation of 22 July 1972 as regards the provisions applicable to processed agricultural products, signed in Luxembourg on 26 October 2004, having been completed on 29 March 2005, this Agreement entered into force, in conformity with its Article 5(1), on 30 March 2005.

---

(1)  
  OJ L 23, 26.1.2005, p. 19.

1

---
Created with Sketch.Menu Transparency
	Contact Us Search
Search
 Main navigation

      
      About the CFTC
                          The Commission
                        Chairman & Commissioners
                        CFTC Organization
                        Advisory Committees
                        Budget & Performance
                        Privacy at the CFTC
                        Careers
                        Diversity and Inclusion at the CFTC
                        Industry Oversight
                          Industry Filings
                        Trading Organizations
                        Clearing Organizations
                        Data Repositories
                        Intermediaries
                        Market Surveillance
                        Contracts & Products
                        Rules & Rule Amendments
                        Anti-Money Laundering
                        Law & Regulation
                          Commodity Exchange Act & Regulations
                        How Rules Are Made
                        Holding Wrongdoers Accountable
                        Federal Register
                        Public Comments
                        CFTC Staff Letters
                        Office of Technology Innovation
                        Market Data & Economic Analysis
                          Data at CFTC
                        Commitments of Traders
                        Bank Participation Reports
                        Cotton On-Call
                        Financial Data for FCMS
                        Net Position Changes Data
                        Staff Reports
                        Weekly Swaps Report
                        Cleared Margin Reports
                        Office of the Chief Economist
                        Forms & Submissions
                        Learn & Protect
                          Check Registration & Disciplinary History
                        Submit a Tip
                        Reparations Program
                        RED List
                        Advisories & Articles
                        Videos
                        Publications
                        News & Events
                          Press Releases
                        Public Statements & Remarks
                        Events Carousel Rotation On
              On


External Meetings: Meeting with Bafin
  
    



  Discussions concerning the cross-border guidance and exemptive order.
      
  When
              06/28/2013

  Rulemaking(s)
              Cross-Border

  CFTC Staff
              Mark WetjenJoseph Cisewski

  Visitor(s)
              Karl-Burkhard Caspari

  Organization(s)
              Bafin


Resources

CFTC Regulations
	Commodity Exchange Act
	Privacy Policy
	Web Policy
	FOIA
	EEO Statement
	No Fear Act
	Accessibility Statement
	Procurement
	USA.gov
	Glossary

Actions

Search Public Comments
	Submit Tips & Complaints
	Search Industry FilingsWhistleblower.gov
	Office of Technology InnovationInspector GeneralSitemap

HomeCFTC Headquarters
Three Lafayette Centre
1155 21st Street, NW
Washington, DC 20581
202.418.5000
Frank Le'Dell OWENS, petitioner, v. FLORIDA.

No. 17-5036.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 2, 2017.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District denied.
II-O0131

From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

Deborah Daves <n2healing@earthlink.net>

Saturday, December 4, 2010 10:29 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.

Deborah Daves

3867 Water Oak Way

Atlanta, GA 30340