alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
1 Pursu ant to Local Rule 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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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 Local Rule 47.5.4. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

For the Fifth Circuit

No. 96-30383 Summary Calendar

MARY FRANCES WILSON, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF THE ESTATE OF BILLY E. WILSON; DENNIS WILSON; HEDY WILSON HERTZOG,

Plaintiffs-Appellants,

v.

THE GROW GROUP, et al,

Defendants,

THE GROW GROUP INCORPORATED; GROWCO INCORPORATED;

NATIONAL AEROSOL PRODUCTS,

Defendants-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court For the Eastern District of Louisiana

(94-CV-307-R)

September 11, 1996 Before SMITH, DUHÉ, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: 12

P laintiffs, the widow and children of Billy Wilson, appeal

the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of the

Defendants in their suit claiming Billy Wilson’s death was caused

by Defendants’ chemicals.

The Plaintiffs first argue that the district court prematurely

considered and decided defendants’ motion for summary judgment.

The Plaintiffs contend that the district court’s action was an

abuse of discretion in light of the Plaintiff’s last minute

discovery that their medical expert would not testify in their

behalf. The Plaintiffs assert that without this witnes s’s

testimony, they could not prove causation, a central element in

their prima f acie case against the Defendants. Accordingly, the

Plaintiffs sought a continuance, which the district court denied.

The Plaintiffs then argue that the di strict court abused its

discretion in failing to grant a continuance.

We have reviewed the record and briefs and AFFIRM the district

court’s grant of summary judgment for the defendants. S ee The

Estate of Billy Wilson, et al v. The Grow Group, Inc. et al , No.

94-CV-307-R (E.D. La. Oct. 13, 1995). The district court granted

judgmen t because Plaintiffs failed to show that a genuine issue

exists as to whether the deceased was ever exposed to defendant’s

product, not for lack of proof of medical causation. The Plaintiffs

cannot rely on the mere allegations in their pleadings to defeat

the defendants’ m otion for summary judgment. S ee Celotex v.

Catrett
, 477 U.S. 317, 324 (1986). Moreover, the Plaintiffs cannot3

rely on an unsworn affidavit to raise a fact issue precluding

summary judgment. S ee Nissho-Iwai American Corp. v. Kline , 845

F.2d 1300, 1302 (5th Cir. 1988).

AFFIRMED.
Cedric Allen RICKS, petitioner, v. TEXAS.

No. 17-7676.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 16, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas denied.
Margaret K. NICKERSON-MALPHER, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES FEDERAL CORPORATION, et al.

No. 15-9450.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 3, 2016.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit denied.
# C_2009193EN.01002402.xml

| 15.8.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 193/24 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.8.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 193/24

---

Action brought on 10 June 2009 — Feng Shen Technology v OHIM — Majtczak (FS)

(Case T-227/09)

2009/C 193/40

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Feng Shen Technology Co. Ltd (Gueishan, Taiwan) (represented by: W. Festl-Wietek and P. Rath, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Jarosław Majtczak (Łódź, Poland)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 1 April 2009 in case R 529/2008-4; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 1 April 2009 in case R 529/2008-4;

| — | Declare Community trade mark No 4 431 391 invalid; and |
| --- | --- |

—

Declare Community trade mark No 4 431 391 invalid; and

| — | Order OHIM to pay the costs incurred in the proceedings before the Court and the Board of Appeal. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order OHIM to pay the costs incurred in the proceedings before the Court and the Board of Appeal.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

Registered Community trade mark subject of the application for a declaration of invalidity: The mark “FS” for goods in class 26 — Community trade mark No 4 431 391

Registered Community trade mark subject of the application for a declaration of invalidity:

Proprietor of the Community trade mark: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Proprietor of the Community trade mark:

Party requesting the declaration of invalidity of the Community trade mark: The applicant

Party requesting the declaration of invalidity of the Community trade mark:

Trade mark right of the party requesting the declaration of invalidity: Several earlier trade mark registrations for the figurative sign “FS” in Taiwan, China and Ghana in relation to zippers and related products

Trade mark right of the party requesting the declaration of invalidity:

Decision of the Cancellation Division: Rejected the request for a declaration of invalidity

Decision of the Cancellation Division:

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

Decision of the Board of Appeal:

Pleas in law: Infringement of Articles 51(1)(b) of Council Regulation 40/94 (which became Article 52(1)(b) of Council Regulation 207/2009), as the Board of Appeal failed to properly evaluate the evidence and documents provided by the parties and failed to properly analyse the facts as a precondition for a finding that the trade mark application concerned was made in bad faith

Pleas in law:

---
II-00839

From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

Maria Mayer <mayerfmt@aol.com>

Thursday, December 2, 2010 10:56 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.

Maria Mayer

4 Halsted Circle

Alhambra, CA 91801
Joseph Chandler DAVALL, petitioner, v. CALIFORNIA.

No. 16-9254.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 2, 2017.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeal of California, Second Appellate District denied.
# C_2010113EN.01004601.xml

| 1.5.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 113/46 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.5.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 113/46

---

Order of the General Court of 25 February 2010 — Google v OHIM (ANDROID)

(Case T-316/09) (1)

1

(Community trade mark - Refusal of registration - Restriction of the list of goods for which registration is sought - Withdrawal of the objection to registration - No need to adjudicate)

2010/C 113/74

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Google, Inc. (Mountain View, United States) (represented by: A. Bognár and M. Kinkeldey, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: D. Botis, acting as Agent)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 26 May 2009 (Case R 1622/2008-2) concerning an application for registration of the word mark ANDROID as a Community trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | There is no further need to adjudicate on the action. |
| --- | --- |

1.

There is no further need to adjudicate on the action.

| 2. | The applicant and the defendant shall bear their own costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The applicant and the defendant shall bear their own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 244, 10.10.2009.

1

---
# C_2009267EN.01008201.xml

| 7.11.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 267/82 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.11.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 267/82

---

Action brought on 18 September 2009 — Tecnoprocess v Commission and Delegation of the European Commission to the Republic of Nigeria

(Case T-367/09)

2009/C 267/145

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Tecnoprocess (Rome, Italy) (represented by A. Majoli, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities and Delegation of the European Commission to the Republic of Nigeria

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | a declaration pursuant to Article 232 EC that the EU Delegation to Abuya and the Commission of the European Communities have failed to act; |
| --- | --- |

—

a declaration pursuant to Article 232 EC that the EU Delegation to Abuya and the Commission of the European Communities have failed to act;

| — | a declaration, on the basis of Article 288 of the Treaty, that the Delegation and the Commission have incurred non-contractual liability vis-à-vis the applicant and an order that they should jointly and severally pay it compensation for damage in the sum of EUR 600 000 (six hundred thousand euro). |
| --- | --- |

—

a declaration, on the basis of Article 288 of the Treaty, that the Delegation and the Commission have incurred non-contractual liability vis-à-vis the applicant and an order that they should jointly and severally pay it compensation for damage in the sum of EUR 600 000 (six hundred thousand euro).

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

The company which is the applicant in these proceedings is the same as in Case T-264/09 Tecnoprocess v Commission of the European Communities and European Commission Delegation to Morocco. (1)

Tecnoprocess

Commission of the European Communities and European Commission Delegation to Morocco

1

The subject-matter of the dispute is the conditions surrounding the performance of the contract ‘EuropeAid 123511/D/SUP/NG — Supply, Installation, Delivery, Commissioning and After-Sale Service of 114 27 Kva Generators to the EC Assisted Prime Project in Nigeria’, designed to ensure the supply and installation of 114 27 KVA generators, and the performance of after-sales service assistance, for the National Authorising Officer, National Planning Commission and, especially for the offices of that body situated in six of the main geographic areas of Nigeria.

The applicant claims that the Commission has not shown due care and attention in monitoring the conditions in which the contract at issue was carried out, failing to find a satisfactory solution for its interests faced with the serious breaches of obligations to be found in its performance.

In support of its heads of claim, the applicant puts forward pleas in law and main arguments similar to those pleaded in Case T-264/09, cited above.

---

(1)  OJ 2009 C 220, p. 16.

1

---
Court of Appeals

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A18E0044. ROLLINS v. ROLLINS.

Upon consideration, Appellant’s motion for an extension of time in which to

file a discretionary application is GRANTED. Appellantshall have until May 7, 2018,

in which to file the discretionary application.

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________

I certify that the above is a true extract from

the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court

hereto affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

April 27, 2018

04/27/2018
II-00289

From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

Stan Sandrowicz <s.sandrowicz@comcast.net>

Thursday, December 2, 2010 2:40 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.

Stan Sandrowicz

401 N Eton #107

Birmingham, MI 48009
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: Telephone Call w/Mark Brickell
  
    



  Topic of discussion: SEFs
      
  When
              12/06/2012

  Rulemaking(s)
              XIII. SEF Registration

  CFTC Staff
              Megan Wallace

  Visitor(s)
              Mark Brickell

  Organization(s)
              Mark Brickell


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
Anthony Spencer GREEN, Sr., petitioner, v. CREIGHTON/CHI HEALTH, et al.

No. 17-7101.

Supreme Court of the United States

Feb. 20, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit denied.
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 Health and Human Services

###### National Institutes of Health

                    Notice is hereby given of a change in the meeting of the Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel, June 21, 2001, 8:30 a.m. to June 22, 2001, 6 p.m., River Inn, 924 25th Street, NW., Washington, DC, 20037 which was published in the                     **Federal Register**                     on June 12, 2001, 66 FR 31683-31685.                

The meeting will be one day only June 21, 2001. The time and location remain the same. The meeting is closed to the public.

Dated: June 18, 2001.

LaVerne Y. Stringfield,

Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. 01-15768  Filed 6-21-01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-M
##### 



Exhibit 32.1 Certification of Chief Executive Officer Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, the undersigned officer of T REIT, Inc. (the Company) hereby certifies, to his knowledge,
that: (i) the accompanying Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2004 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
Section 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and (ii) the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the Company. /s/     jack R. MaurerJack R. MaurerChief Executive Officer and President
 Date: April 1, 2005 A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provide to the
Company and will be retained by the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to
the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request. The foregoing certification is being furnished with the Companys Form 10-K for the period
ended December 31, 2004 pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350. It is not being filed for purposes of
Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and it is not to be incorporated by
reference into any filing of the Company, whether made before or after the date hereof, regardless
of any general information language in such filing.
```

[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 70 (Tuesday, April 12, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 21667-21668]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-07754]

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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Bureau of Indian Affairs

[223A2100DD/AAKC001030/A0A501010.999900]

Indian Gaming; Approval of Forest County Potawatomi Community 
Tribal-State Class III Gaming Compact With the State of Wisconsin

AGENCY: Bureau of Indian Affairs, Interior.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice publishes the approval of the 2022 Amendment and 
Extension to the Forest County Potawatomi Community of Wisconsin and 
the State of Wisconsin Class III Gaming Compact (Amendment) providing 
for Class III gaming between the Forest County Potawatomi Community 
(Tribe) and the State of Wisconsin (State).

DATES: The Amendment takes effect on April 12, 2022.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Paula L. Hart, Director, Office of 
Indian Gaming, Assistant Secretary--Indian Affairs, Washington, DC 
20240, [email protected], (202) 219-4066.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Under section 11 of the Indian Gaming 
Regulatory Act (IGRA), Public Law 100-497, 25 U.S.C. 2701 et seq., the 
Secretary of the Interior shall publish in

[[Page 21668]]

the Federal Register notice of approved Tribal-State compacts for the 
purpose of engaging in Class III gaming activities on Indian lands. As 
required by 25 CFR 293.4, all compacts and amendments are subject to 
review and approval by the Secretary. The Amendment provides for on-
reservation remote and retail sports wagering consistent with minimum 
internal control standards and rules of play agreed to by the State and 
the Tribe; extends the term of the compact to 2061; authorizes the 
Tribe to offer any form of table, electronic, or mechanical game; 
clarifies the existing Disaster Clause to include pandemics and 
provides a clear formula for the calculation of the reduction in 
revenue sharing payments if a facility is forced to close; contains 
several technical changes including removing obsolete language; and 
includes a forward looking provision which positions the Tribe to offer 
state-wide hub and spoke event wagering if State law is changed to 
allow such gaming, another Tribe's compact with the State authorizes 
such gaming, and the Tribe's Compact is amended. The Amendment is 
approved.

Wizipan Garriott,
Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary--Indian Affairs, Exercising by 
delegation the authority of the Assistant Secretary--Indian Affairs.
[FR Doc. 2022-07754 Filed 4-11-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4337-15-P
```