alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
II-OlO02

From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

David Smith <dshighridge@gmail.com>

Thursday, December 2, 2010 9:17 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.

David Smith

113 Frank Applegate Rd

Jackson, NJ 8527
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0000852426
<NAME> EAGLE PACIFIC INDUSTRIES, INC.
<MULTIPLIER> 1
       
<S>                          <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                   DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                                      JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                        MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                                        0
<SECURITIES>                                                  0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        13,503,467
<ALLOWANCES>                                            321,000
<INVENTORY>                                          13,517,073
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     27,385,381
<PP&E>                                               23,863,128
<DEPRECIATION>                                        4,636,569
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                       52,763,782
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                25,738,730
<BONDS>                                               9,370,330
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                10,037,500
<PREFERRED>                                                   0
<COMMON>                                                 68,162
<OTHER-SE>                                            7,549,060
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                         52,763,782
<SALES>                                              18,510,064
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     18,510,064
<CGS>                                                15,128,680
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        15,128,680
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                      2,780,506
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                         11,228
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                      632,366
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                         (42,716)
<INCOME-TAX>                                              7,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                     (49,716)
<DISCONTINUED>                                                0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                               0
<CHANGES>                                                     0
<NET-INCOME>                                            (49,716)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                              (.04)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                              (.04)
        


</TABLE>
II-01162

From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

Laurence Carter <cartermusic@bellsouth.net>

Wednesday, December 1, 2010 10:55 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.

Laurence Carter

631 Azalea rd

Mobile, AL 36609
Raymond STEIGELMAN, petitioner, v. Levi McDANIEL, et al.

No. 15-9564.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 3, 2016.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit denied.
# C_2009282EN.01006002.xml

| 21.11.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 282/60 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.11.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 282/60

---

Action brought on 28 September 2009 — Fuller & Thaler Asset Management v OHIM (BEHAVIOURAL INDEX)

(Case T-383/09)

2009/C 282/112

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant(s): Fuller & Thaler Asset Management, Inc. (San Mateo, United States) (represented by S. Malynicz, Barrister)

Applicant(s):

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

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 11 June 2009 in case R 138/2009-1; and |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 11 June 2009 in case R 138/2009-1; and

| — | Order the defendant to pay its own costs and those of the applicant |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the defendant to pay its own costs and those of the applicant

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

Community trade mark concerned: The word mark “BEHAVIOURAL INDEX” for goods and services in classes 9 and 36

Community trade mark concerned:

Decision of the examiner: Refused the application for a Community trade mark

Decision of the examiner:

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

Decision of the Board of Appeal:

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 7(1)(c) of Council Regulation 207/2009 as the Board of Appeal (i) erred in relation to the meaning and syntax of the mark, as well as its aptness or otherwise as an immediate and direct descriptive term for the goods and services in question; (ii) failed to establish facts of its own motion that would show that the Community trade mark concerned was descriptive to the relevant public, even though it correctly concluded that the relevant public was specialised; and (iii) failed to take account of the public interest that underlies this ground for refusal and failed to establish on the evidence that there was, in the relevant specialised sphere, a reasonable likelihood that other traders in that sphere would wish to use the Community trade mark concerned in the future.

Pleas in law:

---
If this opinion indicates that it is “FOR PUBLICATION,” it is subject to revision until final publication in the Michigan Appeals Repo rts.

- 1

- 

### S T A T E O F M I C H I G A N

C O U R T O F A P P E A L S

UNPUBLISHED In re SHAW , Minor s

. June 15, 2023

No s

. 362752 ; 362753 Macomb Circuit Court Family Division LC No s

. 2022

- 000118

- NA ; 2022

- 000119

- NA

Before: R ICK , P .J., and S HAPIRO and O’B RIEN , JJ.

O’B RIEN , J

. ( dissenting ).

It is undisputed that TS suffered severe, unexplained, nonaccidentental trauma while in respondents’ care

. The only people called to testify about how TS’s trauma happened were respondents, and the referee credited Dr. Bradley Norat ’s testimony that respondents’ explanation for TS’s injuries was implausible. T his finding necessarily means that respondents

— the persons responsible for TS’s care at the time that TS suffered severe, nonaccidental trauma

— either do not k now how the trauma occurred or are refusing to say. Either way, based on that conduct, TS’s well

- being cannot be assured in their care

, i.e., it is reasonably likely that TS will be harmed if returned to respondents’ care. Further, although there is no evidence that AS suffered from physical injuries, she is of a similar age to TS and is similarly situated, and thus, the doctrine of anticipatory neglect allows the inference that AS is also in danger of being harmed or neglected if left in respondents’ care. See In re Kellogg , 331 Mich App 249, 259; 952 NW2d 544 (2020)

. Accordingly, I would conclude that the trial court clearly erred when it refused to find a statutory ground for terminati on under, at the very least, MCL 712a.19b(3)(j). I therefore respectfully dissent.

/s/ Colleen A. O’Brien
# C_2015046EN.01004101.xml

| 9.2.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 46/41 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.2.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 46/41

---

Judgment of the General Court of 11 December 2014 — Formula One Licensing v OHIM — ESPN Sports Media (F1-LIVE)

(Case T-10/09 RENV) (1)

1

((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the Community figurative mark F1-LIVE - Earlier Community figurative mark F1 and national and international word marks F1 Formula 1 - Relative grounds for refusal - Article 8(1)(b) and (5) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 8(1)(b) and (5) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)))

(2015/C 046/49)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Formula One Licensing BV (Rotterdam, Netherlands) (represented by: B. Klingberg and K. Sandberg, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: A. Folliard-Monguiral, acting as Agent)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: ESPN Sports Media Ltd (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: T. de Haan, lawyer)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court:

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 16 October 2008 (Case R 7/2008-1), concerning opposition proceedings between Racing-Live and Formula One Licensing BV.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1) | Annuls the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 16 October 2008 (Case R 7/2008-1). |
| --- | --- |

1)

Annuls the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 16 October 2008 (Case R 7/2008-1).

| 2) | Orders OHIM and ESPN Sports Media Ltd to pay the costs incurred by Formula One Licensing BV in the proceedings before the General Court and the Court of Justice, and in the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM. |
| --- | --- |

2)

Orders OHIM and ESPN Sports Media Ltd to pay the costs incurred by Formula One Licensing BV in the proceedings before the General Court and the Court of Justice, and in the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM.

---

(1)  OJ C 55, 7.3.2009.

1

---
H. R. 3680 

One Hundred Sixteenth Congress 

of the 

United States of America 

AT THE SECOND SESSION 

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Friday, 

the third day of January, two thousand and twenty 

An Act 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 415 North 

Main Street in Henning, Tennessee, as the ‘‘Paula Croom Robinson and Judy 

Spray Memorial Post Office Building’’. 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 

the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

SECTION 1. PAULA CROOM ROBINSON AND JUDY SPRAY MEMORIAL 

POST OFFICE BUILDING. 

(a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States Postal 

Service located 415 North Main Street in Henning, Tennessee, 

shall be known and designated as the ‘‘Paula Croom Robinson 

and Judy Spray Memorial Post Office Building’’. 

(b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, regulation, 

document, paper, or other record of the United States to the facility 

referred to in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference 

to the ‘‘Paula Croom Robinson and Judy Spray Memorial Post 

Office’’. 

Speaker of the House of Representatives. 

Vice President of the United States and

President of the Senate.
Brian NORWOOD, petitioner, v. Lorie DAVIS, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division.

No. 17-7900.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 30, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied.
Raul TIJERINA, petitioner, v. Jacqueline LASHBROOK, Warden.

No. 17-8129.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 23, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit denied.
# C_2011211EN.01000501.xml

| 16.7.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 211/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.7.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 211/5

---

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 26 May 2011 — European Commission v Kingdom of Belgium

(Case C-538/09) (1)

1

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Environment - Directive 92/43/EEC - Article 6(3) - Special areas of conservation - Appropriate assessment of the implications of a plan or project which is likely to have a significant effect on a protected site - Exemption from assessment of plans or projects which are subject to a declaratory scheme - Incorrect transposition)

2011/C 211/07

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: D. Recchia and A. Marghelis, Agents)

Applicant:

Defendant: Kingdom of Belgium (represented by: T. Materne, Agent)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Incorrect transposition of the provisions of Article 6(3) of Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (OJ 1992 L 206, p. 7) — Obligatory environmental impact assessment where a project or a plan has an effect on a ‘Natura 2000’ site

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Declares that, by not requiring an appropriate environmental impact assessment to be undertaken for certain activities, subject to a declaratory scheme, where those activities are likely to have an effect on a Natura 2000 site, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 6(3) of Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Declares that, by not requiring an appropriate environmental impact assessment to be undertaken for certain activities, subject to a declaratory scheme, where those activities are likely to have an effect on a Natura 2000 site, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 6(3) of Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora;

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

2.

Orders the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 51, 27.2.2010.

1

---
# C_2013367EN.01002701.xml

| 14.12.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 367/27 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.12.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 367/27

---

Judgment of the General Court of 5 November 2013 — Rusal Armenal v Council

(Case T-512/09) (1)

1

(Dumping - Imports of certain aluminium foil originating in Armenia, Brazil and China - Accession of Armenia to the WTO - Market economy treatment - Article 2(7) of Regulation (EC) No 384/96 - Whether compatible with the Anti-Dumping Agreement - Article 277 TFEU)

2013/C 367/48

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Rusal Armenal ZAO (Yerevan, Armenia) (represented by: B. Evtimov, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented: initially by J.-P. Hix, Agent, and by G. Berrisch and G. Wolf, lawyers, and subsequently by J.-P. Hix and B. Driessen, Agents, and by G. Berrisch, and lastly by J.-P. Hix and B. Driessen)

Defendant:

Intervener in support of the defendant: European Commission (represented by M. França and C. Clyne, Agents)

Intervener in support of the defendant

Re:

Re:

Application for the annulment of Council Regulation (EC) No 925/2009 of 24 September 2009 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of certain aluminium foil originating in Armenia, Brazil and the People’s Republic of China (OJ 2009 L 262, p. 1).

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls Council Regulation (EC) No 925/2009 of 24 September 2009 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of certain aluminium foil originating in Armenia, Brazil and the People’s Republic of China in so far as it concerns Rusal Armenal ZAO; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls Council Regulation (EC) No 925/2009 of 24 September 2009 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of certain aluminium foil originating in Armenia, Brazil and the People’s Republic of China in so far as it concerns Rusal Armenal ZAO;

| 2. | Orders the Council of the European Union to pay the costs incurred by Rusal Armenal; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the Council of the European Union to pay the costs incurred by Rusal Armenal;

| 3. | Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 80, 27.3.2010.

1

---
# C_2010246EN.01001601.xml

| 11.9.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 246/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.9.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 246/16

---

Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 29 July 2010 — European Commission v French Republic

(Case C-35/10) (1)

1

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 2006/21/EC - Protection of the environment - Waste management - Mining extraction - Failure to transpose within the prescribed period)

2010/C 246/27

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: A. Marghelis and J. Sénéchal, Agents)

Applicant:

Defendant: French Republic (represented by: G. de Bergues and S. Menez, Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Failure to adopt, within the prescribed period, all the provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2006/21/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 March 2006 on the management of waste from extractive industries and amending Directive 2004/35/EC (OJ 2006 L 102, p. 15)

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Declares that, by failing to adopt, within the prescribed period, all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2006/21/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 March 2006 on the management of waste from extractive industries and amending Directive 2004/35/EC, the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Declares that, by failing to adopt, within the prescribed period, all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2006/21/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 March 2006 on the management of waste from extractive industries and amending Directive 2004/35/EC, the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

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

2.

Orders the French Republic to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 80, 27.03.2010.

1

---
<PAGE>


                                                                      EXHIBIT 23


                          INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT


The Board of Directors
Riviana Foods Inc.:

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statements (No.
333-40865, 333-15843, 333-02484 and 333-107624) on Form S-8 and registration
statement (No. 333-17901) on Form S-3 of Riviana Foods Inc. of our report dated
August 14, 2003, with respect to the consolidated balance sheets of Riviana
Foods Inc. as of June 29, 2003 and June 30, 2002, and the related consolidated
statements of income, capital accounts and retained earnings, comprehensive
income and accumulated other comprehensive loss and cash flows for each of the
years in the two-year period ended June 29, 2003, which report appears in the
June 29, 2003, annual report on Form 10-K of Riviana Foods Inc.


KPMG LLP

Houston, Texas
September 11, 2003
WASHINGTON, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES, et al.

No. 17-269.

Supreme Court of the United States

March 19, 2018.

Motion of Washington State Association of Counties and Association of Washington Cities for leave to file a brief as *amici curiae* granted.