alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
II-00294

From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

Laura Warfield <landrews@lava.net>

Thursday, December 2, 2010 2:32 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.

Laura Warfield

55 S. Kukui Street, D-2110

Honolulu, HI 96813
Daniel Anthony SMITH, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 16-9501.

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.
IB 

Union Calendar No. 252 

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 4018 

[Report No. 116–311] 

To provide that the amount of time that an elderly offender must serve 

before being eligible for placement in home detention is to be reduced 

by the amount of good time credits earned by the prisoner, and for 

other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JULY 25, 2019 

Mr. DEUTCH introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on the Judiciary 

NOVEMBER 26, 2019 

Additional sponsors: Mr. COLLINS of Georgia, Mr. JEFFRIES, Mr. NADLER, 

Mr. GAETZ, Ms. BASS, Mrs. RODGERS of Washington, Ms. DEAN, Mr. 

RICHMOND, Mr. ARMSTRONG, Mr. CICILLINE, Mr. MURPHY of North 

Carolina, and Mr. LAMB

NOVEMBER 26, 2019 

Reported with an amendment, committed to the Committee of the Whole 

House on the State of the Union, and ordered to be printed 

[Strike out all after the enacting clause and insert the part printed in italic] 

[For text of introduced bill, see copy of bill as introduced on July 25, 2019] 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 4018 RH

A BILL 

To provide that the amount of time that an elderly offender 

must serve before being eligible for placement in home 

detention is to be reduced by the amount of good time 

credits earned by the prisoner, and for other purposes. 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 4018 RH

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. GOOD CONDUCT TIME CREDITS FOR CERTAIN 

4 ELDERLY NONVIOLENT OFFENDERS. 

5 Section 231(g)(5)(A)(ii) of the Second Chance Act of 

6 2007 (34 U.S.C. 60541(g)(5)(A)(ii)) is amended by striking 

7 ‘‘to which the offender was sentenced’’ and inserting ‘‘re8 duced by any credit toward the service of the prisoner’s sen9 tence awarded under section 3624(b) of title 18, United 

10 States Code’’. 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
Union Calendar No. 252 

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 4018 

[Report No. 116–311] 

A BILL 

To provide that the amount of time that an elderly 

prisoner, and for other purposes. the amount of good time credits earned by the placement in home detention is to be reduced by offender must serve before being eligible for 

NOVEMBER 26, 2019 

Reported with an amendment, committed to the Comand ordered to be printed mittee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
GMAC TECHNICAL ISSUES SUBCOMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

Global Default Simulation  

Issue: CCP Global is coordinating a global default simulation across CCPs,

taking place during the week of the 13th November 2023.  

Global regulator support of the exercise is critical to its success.  The

default simulation has been arranged in consultation and with input

from regulators, not least of which the CFTC. (attach, once final in

Sept: the guidance letter and our descriptive deck)

Recommendation As we approach the November exercise, it is critical that the CFTC

continue its support and valuable input, alongside its role in

convening regulators and market participants.  

Furthermore, CFTC is advised to consider inclusion of lessons learnt

and best practices arising from such simulations into its capacity

building programmes with, especially, some emerging market

regulatory homologues.  

Background,  

Supporting

Arguments or

Examples & Data (if

any)

Often called “default simulations” or “fire drills,” these exercises are

performed at least annually by CCPs to confirm the readiness of a CCP’s

default management structure.  The purpose of a default simulation is to

check that operationally, the plans that a CCP and its participants have in

place for managing an actual member default are fit for purpose.   

Such tests are distinct from stress testing which validates the financial

resources of a CCP.  During simulations, CCPs test the operational readiness

of their staff, procedures, IT systems, clearing members and clients, or part

thereof.

The exercise planned for November includes 14 CCP Global members,

and certain European non‐members are participating as primary

participants. A further 15 members will participate as observers.
Margaret BACH, petitioner, v. CIRCUIT COURT OF WISCONSIN, MILWAUKEE COUNTY, et al.

No. 17-7831.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 16, 2018.

Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed *in forma pauperis* denied, and the petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals of Wisconsin, District I dismissed. See Rule 39.8.
EXHIBIT 10.14



FRITH CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, INC. P.O. DRAWER 5028, MARTINSVILLE, VIRGINIA 24115

TELEPHONE 276/632-7241

FAX 276/632-1263



[FRITH CONSTRUCTION

COMPANY, INC.

LOGO APPEARS HERE]



September 26,
2003



VIA FAX 632-0026



Mr. Doug Williams

Hooker Furniture Corporation

P. O. Box 4708

Martinsville, VA 24115



Dear Doug:



Please use this letter to confirm our agreement that Hooker Furniture Corporation will lease our 150,000 square foot building known as Frith
3 at a rental rate of 18 cents per square foot per month, or $27,000.00, for a term that ends December 31, 2005.



It is understood that Hooker Furniture will not be changed any rent until January, 2004, with rent due January 1, 2004. It is agreed that Hooker will pick up all
utilities and their costs starting October 1, 2003 as well as inside and outside maintenance tasks with the exception of pavement repairs, roof and any major systems.



If you have any questions, please give me a call.



Sincerely,/s/    James B. Frith, Jr.James B. Frith, Jr.President & COO




JBF, Jr./bc
Earl E. HAMPTON, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 17-8359.

Supreme Court of the United States

May 14, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit denied.
Quirino PEREZ-MARTINEZ, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 17-8395.

Supreme Court of the United States

May 14, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied.
DCO Exhibit A-7 

A diagram of the entire corporate organizational structure of Applicant including the legal 

name of all entities within the organizational structure and the applicable percentage 

ownership among affiliated entities. Additionally, provide (i) a list of all jurisdictions in 

which Applicant or its affiliated entities are doing business; (ii) the registration status of 

Applicant and its affiliated entities, including pending applications or exemption requests 

and whether any applications or exemptions have been denied (e.g., country, regulator, 

registration category, date of registration or request for exemption, date of denial, if 

applicable); and (iii) the address for legal service of process for Applicant (which cannot be 

a post office box) for each applicable jurisdiction. 

See corporate organizational structure of the Clearinghouse, attached hereto as Attachment A. 

The Clearinghouse, upon registration, will not do business in jurisdictions outside the United 

States. 

Neither the Clearinghouse nor its affiliates are registered with a financial regulator in a foreign 

jurisdiction. 

Aristotle International Europe limited, a wholly owned subsidiary of Aristotle Holding Company 

1, Inc., is registered with the UK Financial Conduct Authority (FCA). 

There are no pending registration applications, exemptions, or denials with respect to a financial 

regulator in a foreign jurisdiction. 

The Clearinghouse is organized in the State of Delaware and is qualified to do business in the 

District of Columbia. 

The Clearinghouse is wholly owned by Aristotle Exchange Holding Company 2, Inc. Aristotle 

Exchange Holding Company 2, Inc. also owns 100% of Aristotle Exchange DCM, Inc., which is 

seeking registration with the Commission as a designated contract market. 

Aristotle Exchange Holding Company 2, Inc. is wholly owned by Aristotle Exchange Holding 

Company 1, Inc. Aristotle Holding Company 1, Inc. owns 100% of PredictIt, Inc., the service 

provider to a market-based research project of Victoria University of Wellington, New Zealand, 

a not-for-profit university, for educational purposes. The research project PredictIt operates 

under the terms of CFTC Staff Letter No. 14-130, issued October 29, 2014. 

The Commission may contact the Clearinghouse, and the Clearinghouse hereby consents to 

service of process from the Commission, at the following address: 

205 Pennsylvania Avenue SE 

Washington, DC 20003 
Attachment A 

Organization Chart
Ronald Eric BOYD, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 17-5413.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 2, 2017.

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

CERTIFICATION PURSUANTTO SECTION 302 

 

OF THE SARBANES-OXLEYACT OF 2002 

 

I, Robert L. Lee, certify that: 

 

     1. I have reviewed this annualreport on Form 10-KSB of Empyrean Holdings, Inc. for the year ended December 31,2004; 

 

     2. Based on my knowledge, thisannual report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omitto state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respectto the period covered by this amended annual report; 

 

     3. Based on my knowledge, thefinancial statements, and other financial information included in this annualreport, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, resultsof operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periodspresented in this amended annual report. 

 

     4. The registrant's othercertifying offering officers and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules13a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and we have: a) designed such disclosurecontrols and procedures to ensure that material information relating to theregistrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us byothers within those entities, particularly during the period in which thisamended annual report is being prepared; b) evaluated the effectiveness of theregistrant's disclosure controls and procedures as of a date within 90 daysprior to the filing date of this amended annual report (the "Evaluation Date");and c) presented in this annual report our conclusions about the effectivenessof the disclosure controls and procedures based on our evaluation as of theEvaluation Date; 

 

     5. The registrant's othercertifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation,to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of registrant's board ofdirectors (or persons performing the equivalent function): a) all significantdeficiencies in the design or operation of internal controls which couldadversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process, summarize andreport financial data and have identified for the registrant's auditors anymaterial weaknesses in internal controls; and b) any fraud, whether or notmaterial, that involves management or other employees who have a significantrole in the registrant's internal controls; and 

 

     6. The registrant's othercertifying officers and I have indicated in this annual report whether or notthere were significant changes in internal controls or in other factors thatcould significantly affect internal controls subsequent to the date of our mostrecent evaluation, including any corrective actions with regard to significantdeficiencies and material weaknesses. 

 

Date:   March 21, 2005

  

***/s/ Robert L. Lee           ***Robert L. LeePresident 

----
Peggy MORRIS, petitioner, v. CITY OF NEW YORK, NEW YORK, et al.

No. 17-8116.

Supreme Court of the United States

May 14, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit denied.
Exhibit 32.1





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 Hooker Furniture Corporation (the “Company”) Annual Report on Form 10-K for the period ended January 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), each of the undersigned certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of his knowledge:





(1)
The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; 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:  April 15, 2010




By:  /s/ Paul B. Toms, Jr.
 Paul B. Toms, Jr.
 Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
 
 
 
 By:  /s/ E. Larry Ryder
 E. Larry Ryder
 Executive Vice President - Finance and
 Administration and Chief Financial Officer
Dennis DAVIS, petitioner, v. TEXAS; and Dennis Davis, petitioner, v. Texas.

No. 17-7724.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 16, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas denied.
## NUMBER 13 - 2 0 - 00 399 - C V COURT OF APPEALS THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS CORPUS CHRISTI

– EDINBURG

NATALIE MORRIS , Appellant,

v. WILMINGTON SAVINGS FUND SOCIETY , FSB , D/B/A CHRISTIANA TRUST AS OWNER TRUSTEE OF THE RESIDENTIAL CREDIT OPPORTUNITIES TRUST V , Appellee s .

On appeal from the Coun ty Court at Law No. 5

of Nueces County, Texas.



## MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Chief Justice Contreras and Justices Longoria and Tijerina

Memorandum Opinion by Justice Tijerina Appellant Natalie Morris filed a notice of appeal from a final judgment and order of possession signed on August 20, 2020 , in trial court cause number 2018CCV

- 62405

- 5 in
the County Court at Law No. 5 of Nueces County, Texas. The clerk ’ s record for the appeal2

was filed on December 17, 2020

. Appellant filed a motion for extension of time to file her brief in this matter which the Court granted until February 18, 202 1. Appellant filed a
second motio n for extension of time to file her brief in this matter , which was opposed by appellees, Wilmington Savings Fund Society, FSB, d/b/a Ch r istiana Trust as Owner Trustee of the Residential Credit Opportunities Trust V . T he Court granted appellant’s
second motion for extension of time to file the brief until March 22, 2021. Nevertheless,

a ppellant did not file her brief. On March 24 , 2021, the C lerk notified appellant that h er brief had not been timely filed. The Clerk advised appellant th at the appeal would be dismissed f or want of prosecution unless, within ten days from the date of this letter, appellant reasonably explain ed the failure and the appellee s w ere not significantly injured by the appellant ’ s failure to timely file a brief

. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 38.8(a)

. Appellant did not respond to the Clerk ’ s notice or file a brief in this matter. Appellate courts possess the authority to dismiss an appeal for want of prosecution when an appellant in a civil case fails to timely file the appellant ’ s brief and gives no reasonable explanation for the failure. See id . R. 38.8(a)(1) ; id. R. 42.3(b) ; Am. Bail Bonds v. City of El Paso , 225 S.W.3d 612 , 612 (Tex. App.

— El Paso 2006, no pet.) ; Newman v. Clark , 113 S.W.3d 622, 623 (Tex. App.

— Dallas 2003, no pet.) (per curiam). Similarly, courts may dismiss an appeal for want of prosecution generally or because the appellant has failed to comply with a requirement of the appellate rules, a court order, or a notice from the appellate court clerk requiring a response or other action w ithin a specified time. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 42.3 (b), (c).3

The Court, having examined and fully considered the documents on file and appellant ’ s failure to file a brief, is o f the opinion that this appeal should be dismissed. Accordingly, w e dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution

. See id. R. 38.8(a), 42.3(b), (c).

JAIME TIJERINA Justice Delivered and filed on the 3r d day of June , 202 1

.
Arthur James PIERRE, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 17-7619.

Supreme Court of the United States

March 19, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied.
Exhibit 32.2



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-K for the period ended December 31, 2010
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
(the "Report"), I, David R. Pressler, Secretary, Treasurer and Chief
Financial 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 Financial Officer
Michael Alexander THOMPSON, petitioner, v. Janet DOWLING, Warden.

No. 17-8423.

Supreme Court of the United States

June 11, 2018.

*2627Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit denied.
Exhibit 32.2
 Certification of Principal Financial Officer, Pursuant to
18 U.S.C. Section 1350,
As Adopted Pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
  (1)
    
    the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934; and
 (2)
    
    the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition of the Company at the end of the period covered by the Report and
results of operations of the Company for the period covered by the Report.
 /s/ Thomas P. WilkasThomas P. WilkasPrincipal Financial Officer
Walter Louis JACKSON, Jr., petitioner, v. TEXAS.

No. 17-5088.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 2, 2017.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals of Texas, Fourteenth District denied.
# C_2011152EN.01000902.xml

| 21.5.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 152/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.5.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 152/9

---

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 24 March 2011 — European Commission v Kingdom of Spain

(Case C-375/10) (1)

1

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 2007/36/EC - Exercise of certain rights of shareholders in listed companies - Failure to transpose within the period prescribed)

2011/C 152/16

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: G. Braun and E. Adsera Ribera, Agents)

Applicant:

Defendant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: F. Díez Moreno, Agent)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Failure to adopt, within the period prescribed, the measures necessary to comply with Directive 2007/36/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 July 2007 on the exercise of certain rights of shareholders in listed companies (OJ 2007 L 184, p. 17)

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Declares that, by failing to adopt, within the period prescribed, the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2007/36/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 July 2007 on the exercise of certain rights of shareholders in listed companies, the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 15 thereof; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Declares that, by failing to adopt, within the period prescribed, the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2007/36/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 July 2007 on the exercise of certain rights of shareholders in listed companies, the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 15 thereof;

| 2. | Orders the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 274, 9.10.2010.

1

---
Cite as 2014 Ark. App. 553

ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS

DIVISION II

No. CV-13-969

ALVESTER BINGHAM 

APPELLANT

V.

C & L ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE

 APPELLEE

Opinion Delivered October 22, 2014

APPEAL FROM THE DESHA 

COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT 

[NO. CV-12-54-3]

HONORABLE ROBERT BYNUM

GIBSON, JR., JUDGE

SUPPLEMENTAL ADDENDUM

ORDERED

BILL H. WALMSLEY, Judge

Appellant Alvester Bingham appeals from the trial court’s order granting appellee C&L

Electric Cooperative’s motion for summary judgment. Due to deficiencies in appellant’s

addendum, we cannot reach the merits of the appeal. Neither appellant’s complaint nor

appellee’s answer or amended and substituted answer were included in appellant’s addendum.

Arkansas Supreme Court Rule 4-2(a)(8) requires the addendum to contain documents

in the record on appeal that are essential for the appellate court to confirm its jurisdiction, to

understand the case, and to decide the issues on appeal. The addendum must include the

pleadings on which the circuit court decided each issue, including the complaint and answer. 

Ark. Sup. Ct. R. 4-2(a)(8)(A)(i). Therefore, pursuant to Rule 4-2(b)(4), we order appellant

to file a supplemental addendum within seven calendar days to provide the necessary

pleadings.
Cite as 2014 Ark. App. 553

Supplemental addendum ordered.

HARRISON and GRUBER, JJ., agree.

Jack R. Kearney, for appellant.

Friday, Eldredge and Clark, LLP, by: James C. Baker and Kimberly D. Young, for

appellee.

2