alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Created with Sketch.Menu Transparency
	Contact Us Search
Search
 Main navigation

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


External Meetings: Meeting with Barclays
  
    



  Phased-in approach; liquidity issues; blocks
      
  When
              05/25/2011

  Rulemaking(s)
              XVIII. Real Time Reporting

  Organization(s)
              Barclays


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
In Re Raoul Barrie CLYMER, petitioner.

No. 16-9671.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 2, 2017.

Petition for writ of mandamus denied.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
REGISTRANT'S UNAUDITED FINANCIAL REPORTS AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
TO
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                      17,703,000
<SECURITIES>                                 2,030,000
<RECEIVABLES>                                2,583,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                 1,388,000
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                       4,176,000
<DEPRECIATION>                                 711,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              66,065,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                   1,109,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                66,065,000
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             2,871,000
<CGS>                                        1,713,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                7,676,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (6,518,000)
<INCOME-TAX>                                        22
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (6,540,000)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (6,540,000)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (.07)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.07)


</TABLE>
Ryan HOLNESS, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 17-8361.

Supreme Court of the United States

May 14, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied.
# C o u rt o f

A p p ea ls

o f t h e S t a te o f

G eo rg ia

ATLANTA,_

_ _ __ _ _ __ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ __ _

Th e Co u rt

o f Ap p ea l s h er eb y p a s s es t h e f

o ll owi n g o r der :

A1 5 A0 16 1

. FRANK BURNS v

. FEDERAL NATI ONAL MORTGAG E
ASSOCI ATI ON.

Fed eral Nat i o nal M ort gag e As s o ci at i o n o b t ai n ed a w ri t o f p o ss es s i o n ag ai n s t

Fran k Bu rn s i n m ag i s t rat e co u rt

. Bu rn s ap p eal ed t o t he su p eri o r co urt

, wh i ch i s s u ed

a fi nal o rd er g ran t i n g a wri t o f p o s s es s i o n to Fed eral Nat io n al M o rt g ag e As s o ci at i o n

o n J u n e 1 8

, 20 1 3

. Bu rn s fi led a n o t i ce of ap p eal f r o m t h i s o rd er o n J un e 28

, 2 0 1 3.

Fed eral Nat i o n al M o rt g ag e As s o ci at i on fi l ed a m ot i o n t o d i s m i s s Bu rn s ’ n o t i c e o f

ap p eal becau s e i t was fi l ed o ut si d e t he s ev en -d ay ti m e l i m i t set fo rt h i n OCGA § 4 4

-
7 -5 6 fo r a p p e a l s o f ju dg m en t s en t ered i n di s p os s es s o ry act i o n s

. Ho wev er, t h e t ri al

co u rt d en i ed t h e m o t i on , fi n d i n g t h at th e u n ti m el i n es s was d u e t o t h e fact th at Bu rn s ’

co u ns el d i d no t recei v e no t i ce o f t h e en t ry o f th e f i n a l ord er. Pret erm i t t i n g wh et h er

t h e cas e s h o u l d b e d i s m is s ed as u n t i m el y , w e lack ju ri s d i ct i o n t o co n s i d er t h e d i rect

ap p eal fo r an o t h er reas o n

. Becau s e t he cas e reach ed t h e s u p eri or co u rt b y vi rt ue o f a de n o v o ap peal fro m

m ag i s t rat e c o u r t

, Bu rn s was req u i red t o fo l l o w t h e d is cret i o n ary ap p eal p ro ced u res

t o s eek ap p el l at e rev i ew i n t h is Co urt

. See OCGA § 5 -6 -3 5 (a) (1 1 ); S t r a c h a n v.

Mer it o r Mo r t

g a ge Co r p

. E a s t
, 2 1 6 Ga. Ap p

. 8 2 (4 53 SE2 d 1 1 9 ) (1 99 5 ). Hi s fai l u re

t o d o s o d ep ri v es u s o f ju ri s d i ct i o n o v er t hi s ap p eal

, wh ich i s h ereb y DISM ISSED. October 16, 2014C o u r t o f A p p e a l s o f t h e S t a t e o

f G e o r g ia

C le r k ’ s O f f i c e
, A t la n t a
,

_

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ I c e r t i f y t h a t t h e a b o v e i s a tr u e e x t r a c t f r o m

t h e m i n u t e s o

f t h e C o u r t o

f A p p e a l s o f G e o r g i a

. W i tn e s s m y s i g n a t u r e a n d t h e s e a l o

f s a i d c o u r t

h e r e t o a f f i x e d t h e d a y a n d y e a r l a s t a b o v e w r i t t e n

.

, C l e r k

. 10/16/2014
Ronnie BOWLING, petitioner, v. Randy WHITE, Warden.

No. 17-7688.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 16, 2018.

*1554Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit denied.
Wayland Demond HINKLE, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 17-7947.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 2, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied.
EXHIBIT 31.2

                           SECTION 302 CERTIFICATIONS

I, Mark Scott, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K/A of IA Global, Inc.
("registrant");

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

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the
financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as
of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4. As the registrant's certifying officer, I am responsible for establishing and
maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules
13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and I have:

   a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures or caused such disclosure
      controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure
      that material information relating to the registrant, including its
      consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those
      entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being
      prepared;

   b) [omitted pursuant to the guidance of Release No. 33-8238 (June 5, 2004)];

   c) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and
      procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the
      effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures as of the end of
      the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

   d) As discussed above, disclosed in this report any change in the
      registrant's internal control over financial reporting that occurred
      during the registrant's most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant's
      fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially
      affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant's
      internal control over financial reporting; and

5. As the registrant's certifying officer I have disclosed, based on our most
recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the
registrant's auditors and the audit committee of registrant's board of directors
(or persons performing the equivalent functions):

   a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or
      operation of internal control over financial reporting which are
      reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant's ability to record,
      process, summarize and report financial information; and

   b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
      employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal control
      over financial reporting.

Date: December 31, 2007                 /s/ Mark Scott
                                        Mark Scott
                                        Chief Operating and Financial Officer
Orlando PINA, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 17-9070.

Supreme Court of the United States

June 25, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied.
# L_2009334EN.01001601.xml

| 17.12.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 334/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.12.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 334/16

---

DECISION OF THE EEA JOINT COMMITTEE

No 114/2009

of 22 October 2009

amending Annex XXII (Company law) to the EEA Agreement

THE EEA JOINT COMMITTEE,

Having regard to the Agreement on the European Economic Area, as amended by the Protocol adjusting the Agreement on the European Economic Area, hereinafter referred to as ‘the Agreement’, and in particular Article 98 thereof,

Whereas:

| (1) | Annex XXII to the Agreement was amended by Decision of the EEA Joint Committee No 104/2009 of 25 September 2009 (1). |
| --- | --- |

(1)

Annex XXII to the Agreement was amended by Decision of the EEA Joint Committee No 104/2009 of 25 September 2009 (1).

| (2) | Commission Regulation (EC) No 460/2009 of 4 June 2009 amending Regulation (EC) No 1126/2008 adopting certain international accounting standards in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1606/2002 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards International Financial Reporting Interpretations Committee’s (IFRIC) Interpretation 16 (2) is to be incorporated into the Agreement, |
| --- | --- |

(2)

Commission Regulation (EC) No 460/2009 of 4 June 2009 amending Regulation (EC) No 1126/2008 adopting certain international accounting standards in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1606/2002 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards International Financial Reporting Interpretations Committee’s (IFRIC) Interpretation 16 (2) is to be incorporated into the Agreement,

HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:

Article 1

The following indent shall be added in point 10ba (Commission Regulation (EC) No 1126/2008) of Annex XXII to the Agreement:

| ‘— | 32009 R 0460: Commission Regulation (EC) No 460/2009 of 4 June 2009 (OJ L 139, 5.6.2009, p. 6).’ |
| --- | --- |

‘—

32009 R 0460: Commission Regulation (EC) No 460/2009 of 4 June 2009 (OJ L 139, 5.6.2009, p. 6).’

Article 2

The text of Regulation (EC) No 460/2009 in the Icelandic and Norwegian languages, to be published in the EEA Supplement to the Official Journal of the European Union, shall be authentic.

Article 3

This Decision shall enter into force on 23 October 2009, provided that all the notifications under Article 103(1) of the Agreement have been made to the EEA Joint Committee (*1).

Article 4

This Decision shall be published in the EEA Section of, and in the EEA Supplement to, the Official Journal of the European Union.

Done at Brussels, 22 October 2009.

For the EEA Joint Committee

The President

Oda Helen SLETNES

---

(1)  
  OJ L 304, 19.11.2009, p. 23.

1

(2)  
  OJ L 139, 5.6.2009, p. 6.

2

(*1)  No constitutional requirements indicated.

*1

---
DIGNITY HEALTH, et al., petitioners, v. Starla ROLLINS.

No. 16-258.

Supreme Court of the United States

Dec. 2, 2016.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit granted. The case is consolidated and a total of one hour is allotted for oral argument.
II-00957

From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

sara booth <slcdaphne@yahoo.com>

Thursday, December 2, 2010 9:42 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.

sara booth

343 grays lane

Daphne, AL 36526
In the United States Court of Federal Claims

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

MATTHEW DRIGGERS, *

* No. 19-1436V

Petitioner, * Special Master Christian J. Moran

*

v. * Filed: October 14, 2021

*

SECRETARY OF HEALTH * Stipulation; influenza (“flu”) vaccine; 

AND HUMAN SERVICES, * anaphylaxis; chronic urticaria.

*

*

Respondent. *

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Jeffrey S. Pop, Jeffrey S. Pop & Associates, Beverly Hills, CA, for Petitioner;

Amanda Pasciuto, United States Dep’t of Justice, Washington, DC, for 

Respondent.

UNPUBLISHED DECISION1

On October 12, 2021, the parties filed a joint stipulation concerning the 

petition for compensation filed by Matthew Driggers on September 18, 2019. 

Petitioner alleged that the influenza (“flu”) vaccine he received on September 20, 

2016, which is contained in the Vaccine Injury Table (the “Table”), 42 C.F.R. 

§100.3(a), caused him to suffer from anaphylaxis and chronic urticaria. Petitioner 

represents that there has been no prior award or settlement of a civil action for 

damages on his behalf as a result of his condition.

Respondent denies that the vaccine either caused petitioner to suffer from 

anaphylaxis or chronic urticaria, or any other injury or his current condition.

1 The E-Government Act, 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note (2012) (Federal Management and 

Promotion of Electronic Government Services), requires that the Court post this decision on its 

website. Pursuant to Vaccine Rule 18(b), the parties have 14 days to file a motion proposing 

redaction of medical information or other information described in 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-12(d)(4). 

Any redactions ordered by the special master will appear in the document posted on the website.
2

Nevertheless, the parties agree to the joint stipulation, attached hereto. The 

undersigned finds said stipulation reasonable and adopts it as the decision of the 

Court in awarding damages, on the terms set forth therein.

Damages awarded in that stipulation include:

A lump sum payment of $35,000.00 in the form of a check payable to 

petitioner. This amount represents compensation for all damages that 

would be available under 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-15(a).

In the absence of a motion for review filed pursuant to RCFC, Appendix B, 

the clerk is directed to enter judgment according to this decision and the attached 

stipulation.2

 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/Christian J. Moran

Christian J. Moran

Special Master

2 Pursuant to Vaccine Rule 11(a), the parties can expedite entry of judgment by each 

party filing a notice renouncing the right to seek review by a United States Court of Federal 

Claims judge.
#### Seaboard Air Line Railway Company, a Corporation, *Plaintiff in Error,*v. C. D. Schenck, *Defendant in Error.*

Division B.

Opinion filed January 11, 1929.

*L. W. Duval,*for Plaintiff in Error ,-

*Anderson & Anderson,*for Defendant in Error.

Buford, J.

This case comes to this Court on writ of error to the Circuit Court of Marion County in a case wherein the defendant in error sued the plaintiff in error *17for damage alleged to have occurred to a shipment of household goods while in transit by the defendant as a common carrier.

There was enough evidence to warrant the jury in returning a verdict in favor of the plaintiff.

The damage recoverable by the plaintiff, however, was limited in this case by the contract in the form of a bill of lading. That contract fixed the weight of the goods at Two Thousand (2000) pounds and the value at ten cents per pound. The judgment was for Two Hundred and Fifty-five ($255.00) Dollars. The plaintiff and defendant were each bound by the contract of shipment in this case. A. C. L. R. Co. v. Dexter & Conner, 50 Fla. 180, 39 So. R. 634; Noone v. Sou. Express Co. 79 Fla. 25, 83 So. R. 607. In the latter cited case Judge Horne, the writer of the opinion therein, says:

> Common honesty, good faith, and fair dealing, it seems to the writer, would limit the plaintiff in his .recovery to the value as declared by him though made at a time when it was to his advantage to make it small, and now greatly to his disadvantage when suing for the recovery of damages for the loss of his property by one having exclusive control of it; and in the opinion of the writer the judgment of the circuit court should be affirmed.

The recoverable value of the goods as limited by the contract between the parties in this case was Two Hundred ($200.00) Dollars.

If within thirty days after the filing of the mandate in the trial court, the plaintiff will enter remittitur of Fifty-five ($55.00) Dollars of the amount, the judgment will stand *18affirmed for Two Hundred ($200.00) Dollars. Otherwise, the judgment is reversed for a new trial.

It is so ordered.

Whitfield, P. J. and Strum, J., concur.

Terrell, C. J. and Ellis and Brown, J. J., concur in the opinion and judgment.
Fredrick GOINGS, petitioner, v. Carolyn GROSBOLL.

No. 17-8859.

Supreme Court of the United States

June 11, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Illinois denied.
Eileen VEY, petitioner, v. Jerry TYSKIEWIEZ.

No. 17-1439.

Supreme Court of the United States

June 25, 2018.

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

Justice ALITO took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.
DENY and Opinion Filed June 7, 2021 

# S

In The 

### Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05-21-00150-CV IN RE TONY LAMAR VANN, Relator Original Proceeding from the 193rd Judicial District Court Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. DC-20-09117 MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Molberg, Reichek, and Smith Opinion by Justice Smith In this pro se petition for writ of mandamus, relator Tony Lamar Vann petitions the Court for a writ of mandamus co mpelling the trial court to (1) void its order denying relator’s motion to reinstate, (2) recuse from this proceeding, and (3) reinstate this case to the trial court’ s active docket. To be entitled to the extraordinary remedy of mandamus, relator must show both that the trial court has clearly abused its discretion and that re lator has no adequate appellate remedy. In re Prudential Ins. Co ., 148 S.W.3d 124, 135–36 (Tex. 2004 ) (orig. proceeding). This burden includes providing the appellate court with a record sufficient to make that showing. See Walker v. Packer , 827 S.W.2d 833, 837 (Tex. 1992). After reviewing the petition and record, we conc lude relator has failed to s how an abuse of discretion.–2– Accordingly, we deny mandamus relief. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 52.8(a).

210150F.P05 /C r ai g Smith / CRAIG SMITH JUSTICE
Jharildan VICO, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 17-685.

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.