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 DTCC/MarkitSERV
  
    



  When
              10/27/2010

  Rulemaking(s)
              XVII. Data Recordkeeping

  CFTC Staff
              Irina LeonovaDavid Taylor

  Visitor(s)
              Gina GhentJeffrey WaddleJames McLoughlinPeter Malyshev

  Organization(s)
              DTCCMarkitSERV


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
Bruce William MACON, petitioner, v. Lorie DAVIS, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division.

No. 17-8397.

Supreme Court of the United States

June 11, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied.
Jamus JACOBS, petitioner, v. THE OATH FOR LOUISIANA, INC., et al.

No. 17-1146.

Supreme Court of the United States

May 29, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Fourth Circuit denied.
Michael E. BARNER, petitioner, v. Duncan MacLAREN, Warden.

No. 16-9572.

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.
VITOL S.A., et al., petitioners, v. AUTORIDAD DE ENERGIA ELECTRICA DE PUERTO RICO.

No. 17-951.

Supreme Court of the United States

June 4, 2018.

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

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. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Reducing Barriers to 

5 Substance Use Treatment Act’’. 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
2 

•HR 3925 IH

1 SEC. 2. PROHIBITION OF UTILIZATION CONTROL POLICIES 

2 OR PROCEDURES FOR MEDICATION-AS3 SISTED TREATMENT UNDER MEDICAID. 

4 Section 1905 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 

5 1396d) is amended— 

6 (1) in subsection (a)— 

7 (A) in the matter preceding paragraph (1), 

8 by moving the margin of clause (xvi) 4 ems to 

9 the left; and 

10 (B) in paragraph (29), by inserting ‘‘and 

11 to the extent allowed in paragraph (3) of such 

12 subsection’’ after ‘‘paragraph (1) of such sub13 section’’; and 

14 (2) in subsection (ee), by adding at the end the 

15 following new paragraph: 

16 ‘‘(3) PROHIBITION OF UTILIZATION CONTROL

17 POLICIES OR PROCEDURES FOR MEDICATION-AS18 SISTED TREATMENT.—A State which receives Fed19 eral medical assistance under subsection (a)(29) for 

20 expenditures for medication-assisted treatment may 

21 not impose any utilization control policies or proce22 dures (as defined by the Secretary), including prior 

23 authorization requirements, with respect to such 

24 treatment.’’. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5, the Court has determine d that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except

under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

For the Fifth Circuit

No. 96-60766

Summary Calendar

NELL PHILLIPS,

Petitioner,

VERSUS

UNION TEXAS PETROLEUM; NATIONAL UNION FIRE

INSURANCE COMPANY; DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF WORKER’S

COMPENSATION PROGRAMS, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR,

Respondents.

Petition for Review of an Order

of the Benefits Review Board

(94-773)

February 11, 1998

Before DUHÉ, DeMOSS, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

On December 11, 1987, J. T. Phillips (decedent) was an

employee of Union Texas Petroleum (Union Texas) and was on duty on

the offshore drilling rig Eugene Island 384 which was owned and

operated by Union Texas. Sometime between 9:45 and 10:00 a.m. on2

that date, a co-worker found the decedent collapsed and unconscious

in the well bay of the rig. An Air Med helicopter was summoned and

i t subsequently evacuated decedent from the rig to the Ibe ria

Parish General Hospital emergency room where he was pronounced dead

at 11:40 a.m. An autopsy later determined that the cause of death

was arteriosclerotic heart di sease and the mode of death was

natural. Nell Phillips, the widow of decedent, filed a claim for

benefits under the Longshore and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act

against Union Texas Petroleum (the emp loyer) and National Union

Fire Insurance (the compensation carrier). The claim was presented

to an administrative law judge for determination who found "that

employer presented substantial evidence sufficient to overcome the

Section 20(a) presumption" and concluded that "decedent’s death on

December 11, 1987, was due to his underlying arteriosclerotic

coronary disease to which he was predisposed and that no causal

connectio n to his work activities exists." Accordingly, the

admi nistrative law judge denied the claim for benefits and that

determination was appealed to the Benefits Review Board. This

appeal was pending before the Benefits Review Board for more than

one yea r and had not been acted upon before September 12, 1996.

Accordingly, pursuant to the provisions of Public Law 104-134

(Omnibus Appropriations for Fiscal Year 1996), the decision of the

administrative law judge "s hall be considered affirmed and shall

become the Final Order of the Board for purposes of o btaining a

review in the United States Courts of Appeal." Claimant appeals to3

this Court.

We have carefully reviewed the briefs, the record excerpts and

relevant portions of the record itself. For the reasons stated by

the administrative law judge in his Order filed January 13, 1994,

we are satisfied that the administrative law judge properly found

the facts and properly applied the law thereto in this case.

Accordingly, the Order of the administrative law judge is AFFIRMED.
Darell C. BOOKER, petitioner, v. ILLINOIS.

No. 17-8501.

Supreme Court of the United States

June 11, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Appellate Court of Illinois, Third District denied.
Robert BAEZ, aka Roberto Baez, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 17-8330.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 30, 2018.

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

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 4090 

To amend title 5, United States Code, to eliminate the use of official time 

by Federal employees. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JULY 26, 2019 

Mr. ROONEY of Florida introduced the following bill; which was referred to 

the Committee on Oversight and Reform 

A BILL 

To amend title 5, United States Code, to eliminate the use 

of official time by Federal employees. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Do Your Job Act of 

5 2019’’. 

6 SEC. 2. ELIMINATION OF OFFICIAL TIME. 

7 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 7131 of title 5, United 

8 States Code, is amended to read as follows: 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
2 

•HR 4090 IH

1 ‘‘§ 7131. Elimination of official time 

2 ‘‘Any activities performed by an employee relating to 

3 the business of a labor organization shall be performed 

4 during the time the employee is in a non-duty status.’’. 

5 (b) CLERICAL AMENDMENT.—The table of sections 

6 for chapter 71 of title 5, United States Code, is amended 

7 by striking the item relating to section 7131 and inserting 

8 the following: 

‘‘7131. Elimination of official time.’’. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
EXHIBIT 23.1

                         CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS


We consent to the use in connection with the registration statements on Form S-8
for the 1999 Stock Option Plan, Registration File No. 333-41788, and the 2000
Stock Option Plan, Registration File No. 333-41786, of IA Global,Inc. formerly
Medium4.com, Inc, incorporated into the Annual Report on Form 10-K of IA
Global,Inc., of our report dated March 15, 2004 relating to the financial
statements of IA Global, Inc. and Subsidiaries as of December 31, 2003 and for
the year then ended December 31, 2003.


                                        /s/ Radin Glass & Co., LLP
                                        Radin Glass & Co., LLP
                                        Certified Public Accountants


New York, New York
March 30, 2004
Virgil L. LIGHT, petitioner, v. Karl D. ELLEDGE, Individually and in His Official Capacity as Judge, Superior Court of Cochise County, Arizona, et al.

No. 17-5292.

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.
Leon Eugene MORRIS, petitioner, v. C. RICHARDS, et al.

No. 17-8449.

Supreme Court of the United States

May 14, 2018.

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



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with the Hooker Furniture Corporation (the Company)
Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ending November 30, 2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Paul B. Toms, Jr., Chief Executive 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 (Section 906), that, to the best of my knowledge:



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



| | (2) | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                        |  |  |  |     |  |                          |  |                        
|----------------------- |  |  |  | --- |  | ------------------------ |  | -----------------------
|                        |  |  | 
|Date: February 27, 2004 |  |  |  | By: |  | /s/    Paul B. Toms, Jr.
|                        |  |  |  |     |  |                          | 
|                        |  |  |  |     |  |                          |  | Paul B. Toms, Jr.      
|                        |  |  |  |     |  |                          |  | Chief Executive Officer



A signed original of this written
statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
Domingo VENTURA, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 17-5317.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 2, 2017.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit denied.
**EXHIBIT 31.02**

**RULE13a-14(a)/15d-14(a) CERTIFICATIONS**

I,Barbra E. Kocsis, Chief Financial Officer of Merrill Lynch AlternativeInvestments LLC, the general partner of John W. Henry & Co./MillburnL.P., certify that:

1. I have reviewedthis report on Form 10-Q of John W. Henry & Co./Millburn L.P.;

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)and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

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

b)Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls andprocedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectivenessof the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period coveredby this report based on such evaluation; and

c) Disclosed in thisreport any change in the registrant’s internal control over financial reportingthat occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter that hasmaterially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and

5. The registrant’s othercertifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation ofinternal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and theaudit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performingthe equivalent functions):

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 reportfinancial information; and

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

 
| Date: May 15, 2007 |   |
|--------------------|--------|

 
| By                                            | /s/ BARBRA E.  KOCSIS |   |
|-----------------------------------------------|-----------------------|--------|
| Barbra E. Kocsis                              |
| Chief Financial  Officer                      |
| (Principal  Financial and Accounting Officer) |

 

----
Kevin Patrick BUKER, petitioner, v. HOWARD COUNTY, MARYLAND, et al.

No. 16-1539.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 2, 2017.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied.
# C_2009282EN.01005601.xml

| 21.11.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 282/56 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.11.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 282/56

---

Action brought on 25 September 2009 — El Corte Inglés v OHIM — Pucci International (Emidio Tucci)

(Case T-373/09)

2009/C 282/105

Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

Parties

Parties

Applicant: El Corte Inglés (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: J. Rivas Zurdo, lawyer)

Applicant:

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

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Emilio Pucci International BV (Amsterdam, Netherlands)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | annul the decision of 18 June 2009 of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM in Joined Cases 770/2008-2 and 826/2008-2 in so far as, by partially upholding the applicant and the opponent's applications, it rejects the Community mark 3 679 591 with respect to classes 3, 18, 24, 25 and for ‘articles for cleaning purposes; steelwool’ in class 21; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of 18 June 2009 of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM in Joined Cases 770/2008-2 and 826/2008-2 in so far as, by partially upholding the applicant and the opponent's applications, it rejects the Community mark 3 679 591 with respect to classes 3, 18, 24, 25 and for ‘articles for cleaning purposes; steelwool’ in class 21;

| — | allow registration of Community mark No 3 679 591‘EMIDIO TUCCI’ in its entirety; |
| --- | --- |

—

allow registration of Community mark No 3 679 591‘EMIDIO TUCCI’ in its entirety;

| — | order the party or parties opposing this application to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the party or parties opposing this application to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant

Applicant for a Community trade mark:

Community trade mark concerned: Figurative mark ‘EMIDIO TUCCI’ (Application No 3 679 594) in handwritten letters for goods and services in classes 1 and 45.

Community trade mark concerned:

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: EMILIO PUCCI INTERNATIONAL B.V.

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings:

Mark or sign cited in opposition: Community figurative mark ‘EMILIO PUCCI’ No 203570 (classes 18 and 24), Italian word marks No 769250 (Classes 3, 14, 18, 21, 24, 25 and 33) and No 274991 (classes 9, 12, 18, 20, 26, 27 and 34) and Italian word mark No 275894 (classes 14, 18, 24 and 25).

Mark or sign cited in opposition:

Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition partially upheld.

Decision of the Opposition Division:

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeals brought by the applicant and the opponent partially upheld.

Decision of the Board of Appeal:

Pleas in law: Incorrect interpretation of Article 8(1)(b) and 8(5) of Regulation No 207/2009.

Pleas in law:

---
# C_2011340EN.01002003.xml

| 19.11.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 340/20 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.11.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 340/20

---

Order of the General Court of 19 September 2011 — Matkompaniet v OHIM — DF World of Spices (KATOZ)

(Case T-195/09) (1)

1

(Community trade mark - Opposition - Withdrawal of the opposition - No need to adjudicate)

2011/C 340/42

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Matkompaniet AB (Borås, Sweden) (represented by: J. Gulliksson and J. Olson, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: D. Botis, acting as Agent)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM intervening before the General Court: DF World of Spices GmbH (Dissen, Germany) (represented by: A. Ebert-Weidenfeller and S. Schmüser, lawyers)

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

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 11 March 2009 (Case R 577/2008-2) concerning opposition proceedings between Matkompaniet AB and DF World of Spices GmbH

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

| 1. | There is no further need to adjudicate on the action. |
| --- | --- |

1.

There is no further need to adjudicate on the action.

| 2. | The applicant and the intervener shall bear their own costs and each of them shall pay half the costs of the defendant. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The applicant and the intervener shall bear their own costs and each of them shall pay half the costs of the defendant.

---

(1)  OJ C 180, 1.8.2009.

1

---
Jerome WILSON, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 17-8601.

Supreme Court of the United States

May 29, 2018.

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