alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
II-01086

From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

Yangbo Du <yangbodu@mit.edu>

Thursday, December 2, 2010 8:23 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.

Yangbo Du

471 Memorial Dr.

Cambridge, MA 2139
CERTIFICATIONS PURSUANT TO SECTION 302
 I, Mark Zouvas , certify that:
 
 1. I have reviewed this Annual report on Form 10-KSB of Anza Innovations, Inc. ;
 
 2. Based on my knowledge, this Annual 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 Annual report;
 
 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this Annual 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 Annual report;
 
 4. The registrant's other certifying officers and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and have:
 
 a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures 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 Annual report is being prepared;
 b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and procedures as of a date within 90 days prior to the filing date of this Annual report (the "Evaluation Date"); and
 c) presented in this Annual report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures based on our evaluation as of the Evaluation Date;
 
 5. The registrant's other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation, 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 in the design or operation of internal controls which could adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process, summarize and report financial data and have identified for the registrant's auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls; and
 b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal controls; and
 
 6. The registrant's other certifying officers and I have indicated in this Annual report whether there were significant changes in internal controls or in other factors that could significantly affect internal controls subsequent to the date of our most recent evaluation, including any corrective actions with regard to significant deficiencies and material weaknesses.
 
 
 Date: May 15, 2003
By:  Mark Zouvas
/s/ Mark ZouvasTitle Sole Remaining Officer
# C_2009129EN.01001801.xml

| 6.6.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 129/18 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.6.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 129/18

---

Action brought on 24 March 2009 — Italy v Commission

(Case T-126/09)

2009/C 129/31

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Italian Republic (represented by: P. Gentili, avvocato dello Stato)

Applicant:

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | Annulment of Notices of open competitions EPSO/AD/144/09 (public health), EPSO/AD/145/09 (food safety (policy and legislation)), and EPSO/AD/146/09 (food safety (audit, inspection and evaluation)) for the drawing up of a reserve from which to recruit 35, 40 and 55 administrators (AD 5) respectively, with Bulgarian, Cypriot, Czech, Estonian, Hungarian, Latvian, Lithuanian, Maltese, Polish, Romanian, Slovak and Slovenian citizenship, in the field of public health. |
| --- | --- |

—

Annulment of Notices of open competitions EPSO/AD/144/09 (public health), EPSO/AD/145/09 (food safety (policy and legislation)), and EPSO/AD/146/09 (food safety (audit, inspection and evaluation)) for the drawing up of a reserve from which to recruit 35, 40 and 55 administrators (AD 5) respectively, with Bulgarian, Cypriot, Czech, Estonian, Hungarian, Latvian, Lithuanian, Maltese, Polish, Romanian, Slovak and Slovenian citizenship, in the field of public health.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those in Case T-166/07 Italy v Commission.

Italy

Commission

---
Ruben Orlando BENITEZ, petitioner, v. MISSISSIPPI.

No. 17-8694.

Supreme Court of the United States

May 29, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Mississippi denied.
Terrell Jamar HOUSTON, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 17-6520.

Supreme Court of the United States

May 21, 2018.

On petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed *in forma pauperis* and petition for writ of certiorari granted. Judgment vacated, and case remanded to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit for further consideration in light of *Byrd v. United States,* 584 U.S. ----, 138 S.Ct. 1518, --- L.Ed.2d ---- (2018).
In Re Andre David LEFFEBRE, petitioner.

No. 17-5326.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 2, 2017.

Petition for writ of mandamus denied.
# C_2009069EN.01005102.xml

| 21.3.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 69/51 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.3.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 69/51

---

Action brought on 26 January 2009 — Procaps v OHIM — Bioframa (PROCAPS)

(Case T-35/09)

(2009/C 69/112)

Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Procaps SA (Barranquilla, Colombia) (represented by: M. Vidal-Quadras Trias de Bes, 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: Biofarma SAS (Neuilly sur Seine, France)

Form of order sought

| — | Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM (Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 24 November 2008 in Case R 867/2007-4 which was notified to the parties on 25 November 2008. |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM (Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 24 November 2008 in Case R 867/2007-4 which was notified to the parties on 25 November 2008.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant

Community trade mark concerned: Word mark ‘PROCAPS’ (Trade mark application No 3.519.394) for goods and services in Classes 5, 35, 39, 40, 44.

Community trade mark concerned:

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: BIOFARMA, société par actions simplifiée.

Mark or sign cited in opposition: National and international word mark ‘PROCAPTAN’, for goods in Class 5.

Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition: Opposition rejected.

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed in part

Decision of the Board of Appeal:

Pleas in law: Incorrect application of Article 9(1)(b) of Regulation No 40/94 on the Community trade mark.

Pleas in law:

---
<PAGE>   1




                             WESTPOINT STEVENS INC.

EXHIBIT (11) - STATEMENT RE: COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER SHARE

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                         THREE MONTHS ENDED
                                                              MARCH 31,
                                                      ------------------------
                                                        1997       1996      
                                                      --------    ------      
<S>                                                   <C>         <C>    
Primary:
Average shares outstanding                             31,011      31,513


Shares issuable under 1995 Key Employee Stock
      Bonus Plan                                           48          78

Net effect of dilutive stock options - based on
      the treasury stock method
      using average  market price                         631         378
                                                      -------     -------

Total                                                  31,690      31,969
                                                      =======     =======

Net income                                            $10,108     $ 7,976
                                                      =======     =======

Per share amount                                      $   .32     $   .25
                                                      =======     =======
</TABLE>




                                       18
MARICOPA COUNTY, ARIZONA, et al., petitioners, v. Manuela VILLA.

No. 17-862.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 30, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.
Untitled Document





 






 Exhibit
10.59








 

1








 











 

2








 











 

3








 











 

4








 











 

5








 











 

6








 











 

7








 











 

8
Charles Andrew Goss RICHARDS, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 17-8456.

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.
Jagdish C. LAUL, petitioner, v. LOS ALAMOS NATIONAL LABORATORIES.

No. 17-1197.

Supreme Court of the United States

June 4, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit denied.
Konrad WOLFF, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 17-8200.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 23, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 17-11295

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

JORGE ANDRES NUNEZ-SAENZ, also known as Tucan,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 5:17-CR-38-1

Before WIENER, DENNIS, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Jorge Andres 

Nunez-Saenz has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in 

accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States 

v. Flores, 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Nunez-Saenz has filed a response. We 

have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected 

therein, as well as Nunez-Saenz’s response. We concur with counsel’s 

 

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not 

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH 

CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

June 27, 2018

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 17-11295 Document: 00514531730 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/27/2018
No. 17-11295

2

assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. 

Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is 

excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. 

See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.

 Case: 17-11295 Document: 00514531730 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/27/2018
Dino CONSTANCE, petitioner, v. Jeffrey A. UTTECHT, Superintendent, Coyote Ridge Corrections Center.

No. 17-5358.

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.
James Le'Roy KELLEY, petitioner, v. Lorie DAVIS, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division.

No. 17-7254.

Supreme Court of the United States

May 21, 2018.

Petition for rehearing denied.
Pedro MEZA, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 17-8448.

Supreme Court of the United States

May 14, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied.
***Exhibit 31.2******CERTIFICATIONS***I, Joseph L. DePaula, certify that: 1. I have reviewed this report on Form 10-Q of AMTROL Inc;  2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a materialfact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light ofthe circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to theperiod covered by this quarterly report;  3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial informationincluded 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 periodspresented in this report;  4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e)and 15d-15(e)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange ActRules 13a-15(f) and 15d-(f)) for the registrant and have: a. Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused suchdisclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensurethat material 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. (Paragraph omitted in accordance with SEC transition instructionscontained in SEC Release 34-47986 and Release 34-49313);  c. Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls andprocedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness ofthe disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by thisreport based on such evaluation; and  d. Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recentfiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annualreport) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect,the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and 5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our mostrecent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’sauditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s Board of Directors (or personsperforming the equivalent functions): a. All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design oroperation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likelyto adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize andreport financial information; and  b. Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or otheremployees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting.        Date: May 15, 2006 By:  /s/JOSEPH L. DEPAULA    Joseph L. DePaula         Executive Vice President, ChiefFinancial
### IN THE SUPREME COURT STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA

2023 ND 87

Timothy A. Johnson, Plaintiff and Appellant

v. City of Jamestown, a Municipality in the State of North Dakota, Defendant and Appellee

No. 20220283

Appeal from the District Court of Stutsman County, Southeast Judicial District, the Honorable Cherie L

. Clark , Judge.

AFFIRMED

. Per Curiam

. Timothy C. Lamb, Grand Forks, N

. D ., for plaintiff and appellant.

Brian D. Schmidt (argued) and Scott K. Porsborg (on brief) , Bismarck, N

. D ., for defendant and appellee.1 Johnson v. City of Jamestown

No. 20220283
Per Curiam

. [¶1] Timothy Johnson appeals from a judgment dismissing his personal injury action against the City of Jamestown entered after a jury found he did not sustain a serious injury as a result of a motor vehicle collision with a City

owned vehicle. Johnson argues th e district court erred in admitting and excluding evidence, the district court judge should have recused herself , and his due process rights were violated. We conclude the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting and excluding evidence and Johnson is precluded from raising the recusal and due process issues for failure to raise them in the district court. Franciere v. City of Mandan , 2020 ND 143, ¶ 24, 945 N.W.2d 251 ( “B ecause alleged judicial bias was not raised in the district court, we wi ll not address it for the first time on appeal

. ”) ; Matter of Didier , 2019 ND 263, ¶ 11, 934 N.W.2d 417 (concluding that appellant’s failure to raise constitutional due process issue in the district court was sufficient for this Court to decline review on a ppeal)

. We summarily aff irm under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(4 ) and (7)

. [¶2] Jon J. Jensen, C.J. Daniel J. Crothers Lisa Fair McEvers Jerod E. Tufte Douglas A. Bahr
---

---

EXHIBIT 15.3

# CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT
REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

We consent to the incorporation by
reference in the Registration Statements on Form S-8 (File Nos. 333-10840; 333-12814;
333-13186; 333-91650; 333-122128; 333-137644; 333-139688; 333-148774) pertaining to
Optibase Ltd. of our report, dated April 14, 2008 with respect to the consolidated
financial statements of Scopus Video Networks Ltd., included in the Annual Report (Form
20-F) for the year ended December 31, 2007.

| |  | /s/ Brightman Almagor & Co
Brightman Almagor & Co.Certified Public AccountantsA Member Firm of Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu
| |  | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

June 26, 2008



---

---
# C_2010179EN.01003902.xml

| 3.7.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 179/39 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.7.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 179/39

---

Order of the President of the General Court of 7 May 2010 — Almamet v Commission

(Case T-410/09 R)

(Interim measures - Competition - Commission decision imposing a fine - Bank guarantee - Application for suspension of operation of a measure - Financial loss - No exceptional circumstances - No urgency)

(2010/C 179/68)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Almamet GmbH Handel mit Spänen und Pulvern aus Metall (Ainring, Germany) (represented by: S. Hautbourg and C. Renner, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: N. Khan, V. Bottka and N. von Lingen, agents)

Re:

APPLICATION for suspension of the operation of the Commission Decision of 22 July 2009 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 [EC] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/F-1/39.396 — Calcium carbide and magnesium based reagents for the steel and gas industries)

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The application for interim measures is dismissed. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The application for interim measures is dismissed.

| 2. | Costs are reserved. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Costs are reserved.

---
YTB International, Inc.


                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                               18 U.S.C. ss. 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


     In connection with the accompanying Report of YTB International, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended March 31, 2005 (the "Report"), I,
Michael Y. Brent, Director and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby
certify that to my knowledge:

(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) as
applicable 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.

This certification accompanies the Report pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of
Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.

Date: 05/23/2005
/s/ Michael Y. Brent
    Director and Chief Executive Officer


-------------------------------------------------

[Signature]
TRANSPERFECT GLOBAL, INC., petitioner, v. Andrei IANCU, Director, United States Patent and Trademark Office

No. 17-535.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 30, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit denied.
H. Res. 1776 

In the House of Representatives, U. S., 

December 17, 2010. 

Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it 

shall be in order to consider in the House the joint resolution 

(H.J. Res. 105) making further continuing appropriations for 

fiscal year 2011, and for other purposes. All points of order 

against consideration of the joint resolution are waived except 

those arising under clause 10 of rule XXI. The joint resolution shall be considered as read. All points of order against 

provisions in the joint resolution are waived. The previous 

question shall be considered as ordered on the joint resolution 

to final passage without intervening motion except: (1) one 

hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair 

and ranking minority member of the Committee on Appropriations; and (2) one motion to recommit. 

Attest: 

Clerk.