alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**Release: #3997-97 (CFTC Docket #97-6)****For Release: February 27, 1997**

**CFTC Complaint Charges Sean G. Kelly**

**With Failure to Keep and Maintain Books and    Records**

WASHINGTON -- The Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) today    announced the filing of an administrative complaint against **Sean G.    Kelly** of Buffalo, New York. Kelly has been registered with the CFTC as    a commodity trading advisor since January 12, 1996.

The one-count complaint alleges that Kelly violated the Commodity    Exchange Act (CEA) and CFTC regulations by failing to make and keep the    books and records required of commodity trading advisors.

Specifically, the complaint charges Kelly with failing to keep the    records of his business as a commodity trading advisor for the required    five-year period. The complaint also alleges that Kelly discarded the    records that he was required to produce to the CFTC's Division of    Enforcement pursuant to their power of inspection under the CEA.

Pursuant to statutory authority, the CFTC instituted the administrative    proceedings to determine whether the allegations of the complaint are true    and to determine if an order should be entered (a) requiring Kelly to cease    and desist from violating provisions of the CEA and regulations; (b)    prohibiting Kelly from trading on or subject to the rules of any contract    market; (c) revoking, suspending or conditioning Kelly's registration with    the CFTC and barring Kelly from acting in any capacity that would require    registration; and (d) assessing a civil monetary penalty of not more than    the greater of $100,000 or triple the monetary gain for each violation of    the CEA or the regulations.

# # #
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                           7,806
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                           5,251
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                     0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                 8,947
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                    122,473
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                           7,459
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                             7,474
<LOANS>                                        305,115
<ALLOWANCE>                                      3,721
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 473,249
<DEPOSITS>                                     346,169
<SHORT-TERM>                                    52,966
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                              4,322
<LONG-TERM>                                     36,506
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         3,898
<OTHER-SE>                                      29,389
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                 473,249
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                  5,900
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                2,342
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                     0
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                 8,242
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                               3,457
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               4,371
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                            3,871
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                      105
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   1
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                  3,322
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  1,702
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,280
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .33
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .33
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    3.50
<LOANS-NON>                                        969
<LOANS-PAST>                                         0
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                  1,142
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                 3,651
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                       35
<RECOVERIES>                                         0
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                3,721
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                             3,721
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                          2,050


</TABLE>
Richard RUSSELL, petitioner, v. FLORIDA.

No. 17-8220.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 23, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District denied.
**Exhibit 31.2**

**INSWEB CORPORATIONCERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER**

I, William D.Griffin, Chief Financial Officer of InsWeb Corporation, certify that:

1.                 I have reviewedthis annual report on Form 10-K of InsWeb Corporation;

2.                 Based on myknowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, inlight of the circumstances under which such statements were made, notmisleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

3.                 Based on myknowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information includedin this report, fairly present in all material respects the financialcondition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, andfor, the periods presented in this report;

4.                 The registrant’sother certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintainingdisclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and we have:

(a)          Designed such disclosurecontrols and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures tobe designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relatingto the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to usby others within those entities, particularly during the period in which thisreport is being prepared;

(b)         Evaluated theeffectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by thisreport based on such evaluation; and

(c)          Disclosed in this reportany change in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting thatoccurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’sfourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materiallyaffected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting; and

5.                 The registrant’sother certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’sauditors and the audit committee of registrant’s board of directors:

(a)          All significantdeficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internalcontrol over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adverselyaffect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financialinformation; and

(b)         Anyfraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees whohave a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting.
| Dated: March 29, 2006 |       | /s/ WILLIAM D.  GRIFFIN |
|----------------------------|------------|-------------------------|
|                       | ** ** | **William D. Griffin**  |
|                       |       | Chief Financial Officer |

 

----
1079.

#### DOBBINS *v.*SHY.

In a suit on a promissory note, where a plea of recoupment is filed, it is error to refuse to allow the defendant, pending the trial of the case, to withdraw the plea.

Complaint, from city court of Athens — Judge Cobb. January 14, 1908.

Submitted May 5,

Decided June 18, 1908.

*W. M. Smith, H. C. Tuck,*for plaintiff in error.

*T. S. Mell,*contra.

Hill, C. J.

Shy brought suit on a promissory note, against Dobbins, in the city court of Athens. The defendant admitted the execution of the note sued on, and that the plaintiff was the owner and holder thereof, hut pleaded recoupment. On the trial of the case the defendant moved the court to be allowed to withdraw his plea, and .the court refused the request, and an exception pendente lite was allowed. The jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff, and the defendant’s motion for a new trial was overruled.

The only question made in the ease is the alleged error in the *439refusal of the court to allow the defendant to withdraw the plea. Section 4970 of the Civil Code allows the petitioner to dismiss the petition at any time, either in term or vacation, so that he does not thereby prejudice any right of the defendant; and the same right is allowed to defendants, as to pleas. A plea of recoupment is in the nature of a cross action, and we think the defendant can, as matter of right, withdraw it at any time before the publication of the verdict. In *Bailey*v. *Wilner,*107 *Ga.*366 (33 S. E. 434), the Supreme Court says, “Furthermore, it would have been an easy matter for the defendant to have withdrawn her answer if, in her opinion, so doing would have been of any advantage to her.” So far as the record discloses, we can imagine no legal reason why the court refused to allow the defendant to withdraw the plea, and we therefore affirm the judgment, with direction that an order be entered nunc pro tunc allowing the plea to be withdrawn.

*Judgment*affirmed, *with direction.*
Rick PETRO, petitioner, v. IOWA.

No. 17-3.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 2, 2017.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals of Iowa denied.
# C_2012295EN.01000202.xml

| 29.9.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 295/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.9.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 295/2

---

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 19 July 2012 — European Parliament v Council of the European Union

(Case C-130/10) (1)

1

(Common foreign and security policy - Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 - Regulation (EU) No 1286/2009 - Restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities associated with Usama bin Laden, the Al-Qaeda network and the Taliban - Freezing of funds and economic resources - Choice of legal basis - Articles 75 TFEU and 215 TFEU - Entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon - Transitional provisions - CFSP common positions and decisions - Joint proposal from the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy and from the Commission)

2012/C 295/03

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: European Parliament (represented initially by E. Perillo and K. Bradley, and subsequently by A. Auersperger Matić and U. Rösslein, acting as Agents)

Applicant:

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Bishop and R. Szostak, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Intervening parties in support of the Defendant: Czech Republic (represented by: M. Smolek, E. Ruffer and K. Najmanová, acting as Agents), French Republic (represented by: G. de Bergues and A. Adam, acting as Agents), Kingdom of Sweden (represented by: A. Falk and C. Meyer-Seitz, acting as Agents), European Commission (represented by: S. Boelaert and M. Konstantinidis, acting as Agents)

Intervening parties in support of the Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Annulment of decision — Action for annulment — Annulment of Council Regulation (EU) No 1286/2009 of 22 December 2009 amending Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities associated with Usama bin Laden, the Al-Qaeda network and the Taliban (OJ 2009 L 346, p. 42) — Choice of legal basis

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders the European Parliament to pay the costs; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the European Parliament to pay the costs;

| 3. | Orders the Czech Republic, the French Republic, the Kingdom of Sweden and the European Commission to bear their own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the Czech Republic, the French Republic, the Kingdom of Sweden and the European Commission to bear their own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 134, 22.5.2010.

1

---
Lawrence D. RALPH, petitioner, v. Shawn PHILLIPS, Warden.

No. 17-5320.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 2, 2017.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit denied.
Sean O'NEILL, petitioner, v. Stu SHERMAN, Warden.

No. 17-5302.

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.
Frances ENDENCIA, petitioner, v. WELLS FARGO BANK, as Trustee.

No. 17-8009.

Supreme Court of the United States

May 14, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Appellate Court of Illinois, Second District 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 Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Interstate Land Investors II Limited Partnership, (the
Limited Partnership) for the period ended March 31, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, James Christopher Boone, General Partner and Principal Executive
Officer, Principal Financial Officer of the Limited Partnership, 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
results of operations of the Limited Partnership. /s/ James Christopher BooneJames Christopher BoonePresidentISC Realty Corporation,General Partner and Principal Executive Officer,Principal Financial Officer of the RegistrantMay 13, 2005
Cesar SEVILLA-ACOSTA, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 16-9732.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 2, 2017.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit denied.
Jeffrey HAWKINS, petitioner, v. MICHIGAN.

No. 16-9705.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 2, 2017.

Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed *in forma pauperis* denied. Petitioner allowed until October 23, 2017, within which to pay the docketing fee required by Rule 38(a) and to submit a petition in compliance with Rule 33.1 of the Rules of this Court.
Angela V. WOODHULL, petitioner, v. Shirley MASCARELLA, Individually and as Personal Representative of the Estate of Louise A. Falvo, et al.

No. 17-1482.

Supreme Court of the United States

June 25, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit denied.
# L_2005110EN.01008001.xml

| 30.4.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 110/80 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.4.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 110/80

---

Information relating to the entry into force of the Agreement between the European Community and the Government of the People’s Republic of China and on cooperation and mutual administrative assistance in customs matters

The Agreement between the European Community and the Government of the People’s Republic of China and on cooperation and mutual administrative assistance in customs matters (1), entered into force on 1 April 2005, the procedures provided for in Article 22 of the Agreement having been completed on 17 March 2005.

1

---

(1)  
  OJ L 375 of 23.12.2004, p. 20.

1

---
#### RESZUTEK v. UNITED STATES.

No. 215.

Circuit Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.

Jan. 31, 1945.

*143Morris E. Packer, of Brooklyn, N. Y., for appellant.

Vine H. Smith, Asst. U. S. Atty. of Brooklyn, N. Y. (T. Vincent Quinn, U. S. Atty., of Brooklyn, N. Y., on the brief), for appellee.

Before HUTCHESON, SIMONS, and CLARK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

While the extent of an agent’s legal authority to *consent*to *a*search and seizure may often be a matter of grave dispute, we think a showing of consent by those admittedly “in charge” of a six-family house as "superintendents” to a search of the cellar was sufficient to justify the District Court in entering an order denying the owner’s motion to suppress evidence so obtained “without prejudice to a renewal thereof before the Trial Court.” See Raine v. United States, 9 Cir., 299 F. 407, 411, certiorari denied 266 U.S. 611, 45 S.Ct. 94, 69 L.Ed. 467; United States v. Antonelli Fireworks Co., D.C.W.D.N.Y., 53 F.Supp. 870, 874; United States v. Ruffner, D.C.Md., 51 F.2d 579; United States v. Sergio, D.C. E.D.N.Y., 21 F.Supp. 553; United States v. Thomson, 7 Cir., 113 F.2d 643, 644, 129 A. L.R. 1291; State v. Griswold, 67 Conn. 290, 34 A. 1046, 33 L.R.A. 227. Moreover, the papers show an issue, raised by the superintendent at the time of search, and later in an affidavit presented by petitioner, that the particular spot where alcohol was found was in the possession not of the owner, but of a tenant. United States v. Ebeling, 2 Cir., 146 F.2d 254, and cases cited; Matthews v. Correa, 2 Cir., 135 F.2d 534, 537; Schnitzer v. United States, 8 Cir., 77 F.2d 233, 235. Petitioner appears to have been content to rely upon affidavits; if, however, he has additional facts to offer, the opportunity given him to renew his motion at trial, should one be had, affords him ample protection. Matthews v. Correa, supra.

Order affirmed.
Glen Ray ALLEN, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 17-5408.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 2, 2017.

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

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3925 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 3925

   To amend title XIX of the Social Security Act to prohibit States 
receiving Federal medical assistance for medication-assisted treatment 
under Medicaid from imposing utilization control policies or procedures 
        with respect to such treatment, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             July 23, 2019

Mr. Tonko (for himself and Mr. McKinley) introduced the following bill; 
       which was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To amend title XIX of the Social Security Act to prohibit States 
receiving Federal medical assistance for medication-assisted treatment 
under Medicaid from imposing utilization control policies or procedures 
        with respect to such treatment, and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Reducing Barriers to Substance Use 
Treatment Act''.

SEC. 2. PROHIBITION OF UTILIZATION CONTROL POLICIES OR PROCEDURES FOR 
              MEDICATION-ASSISTED TREATMENT UNDER MEDICAID.

    Section 1905 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1396d) is 
amended--
            (1) in subsection (a)--
                    (A) in the matter preceding paragraph (1), by 
                moving the margin of clause (xvi) 4 ems to the left; 
                and
                    (B) in paragraph (29), by inserting ``and to the 
                extent allowed in paragraph (3) of such subsection'' 
                after ``paragraph (1) of such subsection''; and
            (2) in subsection (ee), by adding at the end the following 
        new paragraph:
            ``(3) Prohibition of utilization control policies or 
        procedures for medication-assisted treatment.--A State which 
        receives Federal medical assistance under subsection (a)(29) 
        for expenditures for medication-assisted treatment may not 
        impose any utilization control policies or procedures (as 
        defined by the Secretary), including prior authorization 
        requirements, with respect to such treatment.''.
                                 <all>
```
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE BALANCE
SHEET AT JUNE 30, 1998 (UNAUDITED) AND THE STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS FOR THE
QUARTER PERIOD ENDED JUNE 30, 1998 (UNAUDITED) AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY
BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS INCLUDED AS PART OF ITS QUARTERLY
REPORT ON FORM 10-Q FOR THE PERIOD JUNE 30, 1998.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                         672,468
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  270,540
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               943,008
<PP&E>                                      16,983,984
<DEPRECIATION>                               7,768,973
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              10,158,019
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                  10,158,019
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                10,158,019
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               689,448
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  520,804
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   157,485
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
TOTAL GAS & POWER NORTH AMERICA, INCORPORATED, et al., petitioners, v. FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION, et al.

No. 17-975.

Supreme Court of the United States

June 18, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied.
Joe DUNSTON, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 17-8209.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 23, 2018.

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