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

###### Department of Labor

###### Employment and Training Administration

          - [TA-W-39,063]

                    In accordance with Section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 2273) the Department of Labor issued a Certification of Eligibility to Apply for Worker Adjustment Assistance on April 30, 2001, applicable to workers producing scissor aerial work platforms at Grove U.S., LLC, Shady Grove, Pennsylvania. The notice was published in the                     **Federal Register**                     on May 18, 2001 (66 FR 27690).                

At the request of State agency, the Department reviewed the certification for workers of the subject firm. The workers produce aerial work platforms. New information provided by the company show that workers of the subject firm are not separately identifiable by product line.

The intent of the certification is to provide coverage to all workers of the subject firm impacted by increased imports of articles like or directly competitive with those produced by the workers' firm. Therefore, the Department is amending the certification to provide coverage to all workers separated from employment at the subject firm, and not limit the coverage to those workers producing scissor aerial work platforms.

The amended notice applicable to TA-W-39,063 is hereby issued as follows:

“All workers of Grove U.S., LLC, Shady Grove, Pennsylvania, who became totally or partially separated from employment on or after March 28, 2000, through April 30, 2003, are eligible to apply for adjustment assistance under Section 233 of the Trade Act of 1974.”

Signed in Washington, DC this 6th day of June 2001.

Edward A. Tomchick,

Director, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.

[FR Doc. 01-16154  Filed 6-26-01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4510-30-M
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent

except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

February 24, 2006

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 05-10758

Conference Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

ANDRES MARTINEZ,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:04-CR-197-ALL

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

Before GARZA, DENNIS, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Appealing the Judgment in a Criminal Case, Andres Martinez

raises arguments that are foreclosed by the remedy opinion in

United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005), which effectively

converted the Sentencing Guidelines from a mandatory regime to an

advisory regime. The Government’s motion for summary affirmance

is GRANTED, and the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
# C_2011319EN.01000502.xml

| 29.10.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 319/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.10.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 319/5

---

Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 15 September 2011 — Federal Republic of Germany v European Commission

(Case C-544/09 P) (1)

1

(Appeal - State aid - Introduction of digital terrestrial television in the Berlin-Brandenburg region - Article 87(3)(c) EC - Market failure - Proportionality - Technological neutrality - Incentive effect)

2011/C 319/07

Language of the case: German

Parties

Parties

Appellant: Federal Republic of Germany (represented by: M. Lumma, J. Möller and B. Klein, acting as Agents)

Appellant:

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: H. van Vliet and K. Gross, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings:

Re:

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Seventh Chamber) of 6 October 2009 in Case T-21/06 Germany v Commission by which the Court dismissed the action for annulment of Commission Decision 2006/513/EC of 9 November 2005 on the State Aid which the Federal Republic of Germany has implemented for the introduction of digital terrestrial television in Berlin-Brandenburg (OJ 2006 L 200, p. 14) — Infringement of Article 107(3)(c) TFEU

Germany

Commission

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the appeal; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the appeal;

| 2. | Orders the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 51, 27.2.2010.

1

---
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE>           5
<LEGEND>
                    The Schedule contains summary financial 
                    information extracted from the financial
                    statements for P-B Capital Return Futures
                    Fund 2, L.P. and is qualified in its entirety
                    by reference to such financial statements
</LEGEND>

<RESTATED>          
<CIK>               0000851786
<NAME>              P-B Capital Return Futures Fund 2, L.P.
<MULTIPLIER>        1

<FISCAL-YEAR-END>               Dec-31-1997

<PERIOD-START>                  Jan-1-1997

<PERIOD-END>                    Jun-30-1997

<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-Mos

<CASH>                          5,762,080

<SECURITIES>                    23,166,403

<RECEIVABLES>                   0

<ALLOWANCES>                    0

<INVENTORY>                     0

<CURRENT-ASSETS>                28,928,483

<PP&E>                          0

<DEPRECIATION>                  0

<TOTAL-ASSETS>                  28,928,483

<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>           921,916

<BONDS>                         0

<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>           0

<PREFERRED>                     0

<COMMON>                        0

<OTHER-SE>                      28,006,567

<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>    28,928,483

<SALES>                         0

<TOTAL-REVENUES>                270,721

<CGS>                           0

<TOTAL-COSTS>                   0

<OTHER-EXPENSES>                1,982,461

<LOSS-PROVISION>                0

<INTEREST-EXPENSE>              0

<INCOME-PRETAX>                 0

<INCOME-TAX>                    0

<INCOME-CONTINUING>             0

<DISCONTINUED>                  0

<EXTRAORDINARY>                 0

<CHANGES>                       0

<NET-INCOME>                    (1,711,740)

<EPS-PRIMARY>                   (12.99)

<EPS-DILUTED>                   0

</TABLE>
David Robert SANDOVAL, petitioner, v. Lorie DAVIS, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division.

No. 17-6385.

Supreme Court of the United States

Feb. 26, 2018.

Petition for rehearing denied.
# C_2010328EN.01000902.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 (Seventh Chamber) of 7 October 2010 — European Commission v Hellenic Republic

(Case C-127/10) (1)

1

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 2006/42/EC on machinery - Failure to transpose within the prescribed period)

2010/C 328/14

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: M. Karanasou Apostolopoulu and G. Zavvos, acting as Agents)

Applicant:

Defendant: Hellenic Republic (represented by: N. Dafniou, acting as Agent)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Failure to adopt, within the prescribed period, the provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2006/42/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 May 2006 on machinery, and amending Directive 95/16/EC (recast)

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Declares that, by failing to adopt, within the prescribed period, the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2006/42/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 May 2006 on machinery, and amending Directive 95/16/EC, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Declares that, by failing to adopt, within the prescribed period, the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2006/42/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 May 2006 on machinery, and amending Directive 95/16/EC, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

| 2. | Orders the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 113, 1.5.2010.

1

---
II-00984

From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

Glenda Spencer <gspencer400@comcast.net>

Thursday, December 2, 2010 9:26 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.

Glenda Spencer

186 Grey Ghost Rd.

Harpers Ferry, WV 25425
Shakur C. GANNAWAY, petitioner, v. PRIME CARE MEDICAL, INC., et al.

No. 16-9599.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 2, 2017.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit denied.
# C_2010011EN.01001302.xml

| 16.1.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 11/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.1.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 11/13

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Baranya Megyei Bíróság (Hungary) lodged on 5 October 2009 — Uszodaépítő Kft. v APEH Központi Hivatal Hatósági Főosztály

(Case C-392/09)

2010/C 11/23

Language of the case: Hungarian

Referring court

Referring court

Baranya Megyei Bíróság

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Uszodaépítő Kft.

Applicant:

Defendant: APEH Központi Hivatal Hatósági Főosztály

Defendant:

Questions referred

Questions referred

| 1. | Is a provision of a law of a Member State, which entered into force on 1 January 2008, after the right to deduct had arisen, and which, for the purposes of the deduction of VAT paid and declared in relation to supplies of goods or services made in the 2007 financial year, requires the amendment of the content of invoices and the submission of a supplementary declaration, compatible with Articles 17 and 20 of the Sixth Directive? (1) |
| --- | --- |

1.

Is a provision of a law of a Member State, which entered into force on 1 January 2008, after the right to deduct had arisen, and which, for the purposes of the deduction of VAT paid and declared in relation to supplies of goods or services made in the 2007 financial year, requires the amendment of the content of invoices and the submission of a supplementary declaration, compatible with Articles 17 and 20 of the Sixth Directive? (1)

1

| 2. | Is the measure laid down by Paragraph 269(1) of the new VAT Law, according to which, if the requirements set out in the previous question are complied with, rights and obligations must be determined and applied in accordance with the provisions of that Law, even where they arose before the entry into force thereof, within the limitation period, compatible with the general principles of Community law, and, in particular, is it objectively justifiable, reasonable, proportionate and consistent with the principle of legal certainty? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Is the measure laid down by Paragraph 269(1) of the new VAT Law, according to which, if the requirements set out in the previous question are complied with, rights and obligations must be determined and applied in accordance with the provisions of that Law, even where they arose before the entry into force thereof, within the limitation period, compatible with the general principles of Community law, and, in particular, is it objectively justifiable, reasonable, proportionate and consistent with the principle of legal certainty?

---

(1)  Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonization of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment OJ 1997 L 145, p. 1.

1

---
Steven Bradley GILES, petitioner, v. Gary BECKSTROM, Warden.

No. 16-6909.

Supreme Court of the United States

Jan. 9, 2017.

Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed *in forma pauperis* denied. Petitioner allowed until January 30, 2017, within which to pay the docketing fee required by Rule *71138(a) and to submit a petition in compliance with Rule 33.1 of the Rules of this Court.
| 1. | Skystar      Bio-Pharmaceutical (Cayman) Holdings Co., Ltd. (“Skystar Cayman”) was      incorporated under the laws of the Cayman Islands, and is the wholly owned      subsidiary of the Company. |
|----|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| 2. | Fortunate      Time International Ltd. (“Fortunate Time”) was incorporated in Hong Kong      Special Administrative Region as a limited liability company, and is the      wholly owned subsidiary of SkystarCayman. |
|----|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| 3. | Sida      Biotechnology (Xian) Co., Ltd. was established in the PRC as a limited      liability company, and is the wholly owned subsidiary of Fortunate      Time. |
|----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

----
909.

#### Marks *v.*Smith, Governor.

Hill, C. J.

I. Where an indictment, with the bond given' thereon, has been regularly transferred by the superior court to a city court having jurisdiction of the offense charged in the indictment, the jurisdiction of the former ceases, and the jurisdiction of the latter attaches. The latter court has jurisdiction of all proceedings in the case subsequent to the transfer, including the forfeiture of the bond. Sureties in bonds taken in misdemeanor cases are chargeable with knowledge of the law which permits the transfer of such eases by the superior court to the city court for trial.

2. An amendment of a rule nisi issued on the forfeiture of a bond in a criminal case, changing the recital of the date of the execution of the bond, so as to make such recital of the date correspond to the true date of the bond, did not add a new and distinct cause of action, and was properly allowed.

*130Forfeiture of recognizance, from city court of Monticello— Judge Thurman. November 35, 1907.

Submitted February 17,

Decided March 30, 1908.

*A. Y. Clement,*for'plaintiff in error.

3. “An indictment which omits to charge that the failure of the accused to perform his contract of labor, or to repay advances made to him, was without goQd and sufficient cause is fatally defective.” A bail bond based on such defective indictment is void, and the surety thereon can set up such defect as a release, in answer to the scire facias issued on the forfeiture of the bond. *Mason*v. *Terrell,*3 *Ga. App.*348 (59 S. E. 4) ; *Candler*v. *Kirksey,*113 *Ga.*309 (38 S. E. 825, 84 Am. St. R. 247), and cit.

4. A presiding judge who is disqualified to try a criminal ease is also disqualified to forfeit a bond in such ease, or to grant a rule nisi on the forfeiture; and a judgment absolute based thereon is illegal, and should be set aside upon direct attack for that purpose.

*Judgment reversed.*
MIDWEST TERMINALS OF TOLEDO INTERNATIONAL, INC., petitioner, v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD.

No. 17-939.

Supreme Court of the United States

Feb. 26, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit denied.
November 2, 2023

Ms. Brigitte C. Weyls, Chief Counsel

Office of Commissioner Caroline D. Pham

U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission

Three Lafayette Centre

1155 21st Street, NW

Washington, DC 20581

Re: Statement regarding GMAC consideration of CME & FICC cross margining and expansion of Rule 

1.25-eligible investments to include FICC-cleared repurchase agreements (the “FICC Recommendations’)

Dear Ms. Weyls:

The Asset Management Group of the Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association (“SIFMA

AMG”)1is fully supportive of the expansion of clearing into U.S. Treasury markets, supports the expansion of 

cross-margining of cleared products, and supports the investment of customer margin in highly liquid, low-risk 

investments. We have previously conveyed our thoughts on the significant regulatory, risk, and operational 

enhancements needed to successfully implement U.S. Treasury clearing. While supportive of the FICC 

recommendations, we have concerns which should be addressed ahead of implementation:

1. Portfolio Margining: In proposing the cross margining of futures and cleared repos between CME and 

FICC, how would the different types of portfolio margined customers (futures and cleared swaps, cleared 

swaps and cleared SBS, and futures and cleared repos) be treated if an FCM defaulted or became insolvent?

2. Porting: If porting only happens post-default of an FCM / BD on an “all or nothing basis”, will the lack of 

porting under the FICC rules (or if the successor FCM is not also a sponsored clearing member / BD), 

frustrate porting for all futures customers or at least, the cross-margining customers?

3. Bankruptcy Analysis: Once these and other issues are clarified, an insolvency analysis must confirm the 

bankruptcy treatment of customer funds deposited by participants and held by the failed member acting as 

the FCM, the related DCO, and/or the related FICC member.

On behalf of SIFMA AMG, we appreciate the opportunity to communicate our thoughts, and if you have 

any questions, please do not hesitate to contact us by calling William Thum at (202) 962-7381.

Sincerely,

________________________

William C. Thum

Managing Director and Associate General Counsel

1 SIFMA AMG brings the asset management community together to provide views on U.S. and global policy and to 

create industry best practices. SIFMA AMG’s members represent U.S. and global asset management firms whose combined 

assets under management exceed $45 trillion. The clients of SIFMA AMG member firms include, among others, tens of 

millions of individual investors, registered investment companies, endowments, public and private pension funds, UCITS and 

private funds such as hedge funds and private equity funds.
CFTC November 8, 2010

John G. Macfarlane, III

Managing Director & Vice Chairman

Tudor Investment Corporation

Michael Riccardi

Chief Operating Officer.

Tudor Investment Corporation

Stephen N. Waldman

Managing Director and Deputy General Counsel

Tudor Investment Corporation

Kenneth M. Raisler

Sullivan & Cromwell LLP

Dodd-Frank Act Issues

Support Goals and Achievement of DFA

 Clearing requirements

 Capital, margin and segregation

 Transparency

 Trade reporting

To assure DFA achieves its goals

 Clearing

 Segregation approaches

 MSP definition

 Position Limits