alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# U ni te d S ta te s Co ur t of A pp ea ls For the Eig hth Circu it

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _
No. 1 7- 23 63

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _
St ev en E. Hill

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pla in ti

ff - App el la nt

v.

C.V. Riv era, Warde n

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defe nd

an t - Ap pe ll ee

__ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t fo r th e Eas te rn Dis tri ct of Ark an sa s - Hel en a

__ __ __ __ __ __
Su bm it te d: May 15, 2 01 8 Fi le d: May 29, 2 01 8 [Un pu bl is he d]

__ __ __ __ __ __ Befo re BENTON, BOW MAN, an d KELLY, Circ ui t J ud ge s.

__ __ __ __ __ __

PER CURI AM.

St ev en E. Hi ll ap pe al s af

te r th e d is tri ct co ur t di sm is se d hi s 28 U.S.C. § 22 41

pe ti ti on

. Hav in g juri sd ic ti on un de r 28 U.S.C. § 12 91
, t h is co ur t affi rm s in pa rt,

va cat es in pa rt, a nd rem an ds th e cas e fo r fu rth er p ro ceed in gs

.Hil l is a fed eral i n mat e w h o was tri ed an d co nv ic te d on se ve ral ch arg es in a

m il it ary co ur t-marti al

. Upo n de no vo rev ie w, th e jud gm en t is affi rm ed a s t o Hil l’s cl ai m of in su ffi ci en t ev id en ce to su pp or t hi s co nv ic ti on

. Se e Lo pe z- Lo pe z v. Sa nd er

s , 59 0 F .3d 90 5, 9 07 (8 th Ci r. 20 10 ), All en v. U.S. Air For ce , 6 03 F.3 d 4 23 , 43 1 (8 th Ci r. 20 10 ) (“ it is no t ou r du ty to st an d in th e st ead of th e m il it ary co ur ts to reex am in e

an d weig h each it em of ev id en ce of th e oc cu rren ce of ev en ts whi ch te nd to pr ov e or di sp ro ve on e of th e al le ga ti on s in th e ap pl ic at io n fo r rel ie f” (in te rn al qu ot at io n m ark s

om it te d) ). The jud gm en t al so is affi rm ed t o th e ex te nt Hil l arg ue d th at th e m il it ary

co ur t-marti a l l a c k e d juri sd ic ti on so le ly d ue to hi s br eak in m il it ary se rv ic e. Se e 10 U.S.C. § 80 3( a) (s ub

ject t o s ta tu te of l im it at io ns , per so n wh o i s i n a st at us in whi ch

pe rs on is su bjec t to Uni fo rm Co de of Mi li ta ry Ju st ic e (U C M J ) a n d who co m m it te d of fen se ag ai ns t UCMJ whi le fo rm erl y in st at us in whi ch pe rs on was su bjec t to UCMJ is no t rel ie ve d fro m am en ab il it y to UCMJ ju ris di ct io n fo r th at of fen se by re as on of

te rm in at io n o f th at pe rs on ’s for m er s ta tu s)

.

To th e ex te nt Hil l as se rte d a n a r g u men t ba se d on th e ap pl ic ab le st at ut e of li m it at io ns , th e jud gm en t is va cat ed an d th e m at te r is rem an de d fo r th e pa rti es an d th e di st ric t co ur t to reco ns id er th is cas e in li gh t of U n i t e d S t a t e s v. Man ga ha s , 7 7 M.J

. 22 0 (C .A.A.F. 20 18 ).

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

-2

-
<PAGE>


                                                                    EXHIBIT 12.2

                                  CERTIFICATION


     I, Wolfgang Preuss, fulfilling the function of principal executive officer,
certify that:

1.   I have reviewed this annual report on Form 20-F of PrimaCom AG;

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, 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 company as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4.   The company's other certifying officer and I are responsible for
     establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined
     in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the company and 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
          company, 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)  evaluated the effectiveness of the company'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

     (c)  disclosed in this report any change in the company's internal control
          over financial reporting that occurred during the period covered by
          the annual report that has materially affected, or is reasonably
          likely to materially affect, the company's internal control over
          financial reporting; and

5.   The company's other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our
     most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the
     company's auditors and the audit committee of the company'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 company'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 company's internal
          control over financial reporting.

Date:    May 19, 2005


/s/ Wolfgang Preuss
----------------------------
Wolfgang Preuss
# C_2011232EN.01001002.xml

| 6.8.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 232/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.8.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 232/10

---

Order of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 23 May 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de première instance de Namur (Belgium)) — André Rossius (C-267/10), Marc Collard (C-268/10) v Etat Belge — SPF Finances

(Joined Cases C-267/10 and C-268/10) (1)

(Article 6(1) TEU - Article 35 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Possession and sale of manufactured smoking tobacco - National legislation authorising the levying of excise duty on tobacco products - Court manifestly incompetent)

(2011/C 232/17)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Tribunal de première instance de Namur

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: André Rossius (C-267/10), Marc Collard (C-268/10)

Defendant: Etat Belge — SPF Finances

In the presence of: Etat Belge — Service public federal Défense

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Tribunal de première instance de Namur — Interpretation of the first paragraph of Article 6(1) TEU and of Article 35 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Whether national legislation permitting the production, import, promotion and sale of manufactured smoking tobacco, recognised to be seriously harmful, is compatible with the object of protecting human health — Whether the provisions of national law authorising the levying of excise duty on tobacco products are valid in the light of the [EU] rules cited

Operative part of the order

The Court of Justice of the European Union is manifestly incompetent to reply to the questions asked by the Tribunal de première instance de Namur (Belgium) by decisions of 24 March 2010.

---

(1)  OJ C 221, 14.08.2010.

---
Charlie VERNON, Jr., petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 17-8835.

Supreme Court of the United States

June 11, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit denied.
```
  
 
VIX FUTURES - CBOE FUTURES EXCHANGE                                  Code-1170E1
OPTION AND FUTURES COMBINED POSITIONS AS OF 11/03/09          |
--------------------------------------------------------------| NONREPORTABLE
      NON-COMMERCIAL      |   COMMERCIAL    |      TOTAL      |   POSITIONS
--------------------------|-----------------|-----------------|-----------------
  Long  | Short  |Spreads |  Long  | Short  |  Long  | Short  |  Long  | Short
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
($1000 X INDEX)                                      OPEN INTEREST:       55,936
COMMITMENTS
   4,168   22,887    8,035   35,802   17,476   48,005   48,398    7,931    7,538

CHANGES FROM 10/27/09 (CHANGE IN OPEN INTEREST:      5,567)
     715    5,347    2,283    4,498   -2,625    7,496    5,005   -1,929      562

PERCENT OF OPEN INTEREST FOR EACH CATEGORY OF TRADER
     7.5     40.9     14.4     64.0     31.2     85.8     86.5     14.2     13.5

NUMBER OF TRADERS IN EACH CATEGORY (TOTAL TRADERS:       35)
       7       15       16       12        8       31       28
```

----

Updated November 6, 2009
**EXHIBIT 32**

 

**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 Annual Report of Remedent, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-KSB/A for the period ending March 31, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), we, Robin List, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and Philippe Van Acker, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 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 result of operations of the Company. 

 

 
|   | /s/ Robin List | /s/ Philippe Van Acker |  
 

Robin List

Philippe Van Acker

 
 

Chief Executive Officer

Chief Financial Officer

 
 

(Principal Executive Officer)

(Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)

 

Dated: September 28, 2005

Dated: September 28, 2005

 
 

 

 

 

 

  |
|--------|----------------|------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
----

            COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 2038/2004

of 26 November 2004         

fixing the maximum aid for concentrated butter for the 325th special invitation to tender opened under the standing invitation to tender provided for in Regulation (EEC) No 429/90

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1255/1999 of 17 May 1999 on the common organisation of the market in milk and milk products (1), and in particular Article 10 thereof,

Whereas:

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

For the 325th tender under the standing invitation to tender opened by Regulation (EEC) No 429/90 the maximum aid and the end-use security are fixed as follows:

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on 27 November 2004.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 26 November 2004.

For the Commission

Mariann FISCHER BOEL            

Member of the Commission

----

(1)OJ L 160, 26.6.1999, p. 48. Regulation as last amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 186/2004 (OJ L 29, 3.2.2004, p. 6).

(2)OJ L 45, 21.2.1990, p. 8. Regulation as last amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 921/2004 (OJ L 163, 30.4.2004, p. 94).

----
Carston Carrell WOODSON, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 17-8267.

Supreme Court of the United States

May 21, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied.
Keith ST. AUBIN, petitioner, v. TEXAS.

No. 17-7222.

Supreme Court of the United States

June 4, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas denied.
William BELL, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 17-5685.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 2, 2017.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit denied.
EXHIBIT 99.1

                    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 Annual Report of Twinview, Inc. on Form 10-KSB for
the period ending December 31, 2002 as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Patrick K. Hogle, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 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 the
           operation of the Company.

/s/ Patrick K. Hogle
_______________________________________
Patrick K. Hogle
Chief Executive Officer
April 8, 2003





                    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 Annual Report of Twinview, Inc. on Form 10-KSB for
the period ending December 31, 2002 as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, John S. Girvan, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 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 the
           operation of the Company.


/s/ John S. Girvan
_______________________________________
John S. Girvan
Chief Financial Officer
April 8, 2003
Joshua S. HERRERA, petitioner, v. Randy GROUNDS, Warden.

No. 17-5428.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 2, 2017.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.
Hal Lewis HEBERT, petitioner, v. COLORADO.

No. 17-8921.

Supreme Court of the United States

June 11, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals of Colorado denied.
Exhibit 10.13


 


 



Effective Date: April 1, 2016








		Re:	Eos Petro, Inc. Promissory Note










Dear Mr. Linton:







Reference is made to a promissory note in the principal amount of $30,000 made on November 5, 2015 (the "Note") in favor of John Linton, an individual ("Linton"), made by Eos Petro, Inc. ("Eos," collectively referred to with Linton as the "Parties").







You are hereby requested in this letter (this "Letter Agreement") to indicate your agreement to, and acknowledgement of, the following:  The Parties hereby agree that the maturity date of the Note is extended to September 30, 2016.







Please acknowledge your agreement to, and acceptance of, the foregoing by signing this Letter Agreement below.  Please return a signed copy to the undersigned, it being agreed that this Letter Agreement may be executed in counterparts and signatures received by electronic transmission shall have the same effect as original signatures.







Sincerely,







NIKOLAS KONSTANT, signing in his individual capacity and as the Chairman and CFO of Eos Petro, Inc., a Nevada corporation







By: /s/ Nikolas Konstant






















ACKNOWLEDGED AND AGREED TO ON MAY 12, 2016 BY:


	 	 
	
JOHN LINTON, an individual


 


 


By: /s/ John Linton


Name: John Linton
In Re Lawrence WILLIAMS, Petitioner.

No. 17-9155.

Supreme Court of the United States

June 25, 2018.

Petition for writ of habeas corpus denied.
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 24.3

                           DIRECTORS AND OFFICERS OF
                      MARATHON POWER TECHNOLOGIES COMPANY
                               POWER OF ATTORNEY

The undersigned directors and officers of Marathon Power Technologies, hereby
constitute and appoint Gregory Rufus, with full power of substitution and
resubstitution, as attorney-in-fact for each of the undersigned, and in the
name, place and stead of each of the undersigned, to execute on behalf of each
of the undersigned an Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended
September 30, 2001 pursuant to Section 13 of the Securities and Exchange Act of
1934 and to execute any and all amendments to such report and to file the same,
with all exhibits thereto and other documents required to be filed in connection
therewith, granting to such attorney full power to act with or without the
others, and to have full power and authority to do and perform, in the name and
on behalf of each of the undersigned, every act whatsoever necessary, advisable
or appropriate to be done in the premises, hereby ratifying and approving the
act of said attorney and any such substitute.

This Power of Attorney may be executed in multiple counterparts, each of which
shall be deemed an original with respect to the person executing it.

                       EXECUTED as of December 28, 2001.

              /s/ Douglas W. Peacock
----------------------------------------------
                 Douglas W. Peacock
            Chairman of the Board and
              Chief Executive Officer
           (Principal Executive Officer)




             /s/ Albert J. Rodriguez
----------------------------------------------
                Albert J. Rodriguez
                     President
           (Principal Operating Officer)




              /s/ W. Nicholas Howley
----------------------------------------------
                W. Nicholas Howley
        Executive Vice President and Director

                                     viii
II-00157

From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

Maribeth Milner <mmilner@inebraska.com>

Saturday, December 4, 2010 2:02 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.

Maribeth Milner

5151 Vine #608

Lincoln, NE 68504
Release:#3963-96 (3-96-CV-2734-T)

For Release:October 31, 1996

TEXAS COURT ISSUES PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION IN

CFTC ANTI-FRAUD ACTION AGAINST EUGENE MORRIS WALTER OF DALLAS,
    TEXAS

Court's Action Stems from CFTC Civil Complaint Charging Walter with
    Defrauding Commodity Customers, Among Other Federal Commodity Law
    Violations

WASHINGTON -- The Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) announced
    today that on October 25, 1996, the U.S. District Court for the Northern
    District of Texas (Dallas Division) entered a consent order of preliminary
    injunction against Eugene Morris Walter of Dallas, Texas, stemming
    from a CFTC complaint filed on September 30, 1996, charging Walter with
    engaging in fraudulent misconduct involving commodity futures and options
    trading in violation of the Commodity Exchange Act and CFTC
    regulations.

The preliminary injunction enjoins Walter from violating the
    Commission's anti- fraud and registration regulations, as charged in the
    CFTC complaint. In addition, the order requires Walter to cooperate with
    the CFTC in locating the allegedly ill-gotten assets, and to provide the
    court with financial disclosures of dispositions of funds, securities,
    assets, or other property he owned or owns. The injunctive relief also
    prohibits Walter from destroying books and records and denying the CFTC
    access to such records.

The CFTC's complaint charges that, from at least March 1994 to April
    1995, Walter, among other things, fraudulently solicited customers by
    misrepresenting to them the anticipated profits and potential risks of
    trading commodity futures and options, and misled his customers, through
    false oral and written statements, into believing their accounts were
    profitable, when they were actually losing money. Walter also allegedly
    failed to register with the CFTC, failed to provide required risk
    disclosure statements to customers, and unlawfully commingled customers'
    funds with his own and those of other customers. (See CFTC News
    Release #3947-96, October 1, 1996.)

In its continuing litigation against Walter, the CFTC is seeking a
    permanent injunction against activities by Walter that violate the CEA or
    CFTC regulations and other sanctions, including an accounting,
    disgorgement, restitution to customers, and civil monetary penalties.

The CFTC received assistance from the U.S. Attorney's Office for the
    Northern District of Texas and the Texas State Securities Commission in
    filing this case.

---
Sylvester RICHARDSON, petitioner, v. ET R.O.S.P. MEDICAL DEPARTMENT, et al.

No. 17-5438.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 10, 2017.

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