alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Akin Sean El Precise BEY, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 17-8554.

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.
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
                          Learn & Protect Homepage
                        Enforcement News
                        Check Registration & Disciplinary History
                        Submit a Tip or Compliant
                        RED List
                        Office of Proceedings
                        Learning Resources
                        News & Events
                          Press Releases
                        Public Statements & Remarks
                        Events Carousel Rotation On
              On


What is a Bitcoin Futures ETF?
    
            A bitcoin futures exchange-traded fund (ETF) issues publicly traded securities that offer exposure to the price movements of bitcoin futures contracts.
      
    
  PDF
              BitcoinETF.pdf541.09 KB


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
# C_2010100EN.01002501.xml

| 17.4.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 100/25 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.4.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 100/25

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Simvoulio tis Epikratias (Greece) lodged on 1 February 2010 — Eleftheri Tileorasi A.E. ‘Alter Channel’ and Konstantinos Giannikos v Ipourgos Tipou kai Meson Mazikis Enimerosis and Ethniko Simvoulio Radiotileorasis

(Case C-52/10)

2010/C 100/37

Language of the case: Greek

Referring court

Referring court

Simvoulio tis Epikratias

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Eleftheri Tileorasi A.E. ‘Alter Channel’ and Konstantinos Giannikos

Applicants:

Defendants: Ipourgos Tipou kai Meson Mazikis Enimerosis (Minister for the Press and the Mass Media) and Ethniko Simvoulio Radiotileorasis (National Council for Radio and Television)

Defendants:

Question referred

Question referred

Is Article 1(d) of Council Directive 89/552/EEC on the coordination of certain provisions laid down by law, regulation or administrative action in Member States concerning the pursuit of television broadcasting activities (OJ 1989 L 298, p. 23), as amended by Article 1(c) of Directive 97/36/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (OJ 1997 L 202, p. 60), to be interpreted as meaning that, in the context of ‘surreptitious advertising’, the provision of payment or of consideration of another kind is a necessary defining element of the intention to advertise?

---
[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 74 (Monday, April 18, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Page 23048]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-08195]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

Internal Revenue Service


Open Meeting of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel's Tax Forms and 
Publications Project Committee

AGENCY: Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.

ACTION: Notice of meeting.

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

SUMMARY: An open meeting of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel's Tax Forms and 
Publications Project Committee will be conducted. The Taxpayer Advocacy 
Panel is soliciting public comments, ideas, and suggestions on 
improving customer service at the Internal Revenue Service. This 
meeting will be held via teleconference.

DATES: The meeting will be held Tuesday, May 10, 2022.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Fred Smith at 1-888-912-1227 or (202) 
317-3087.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given pursuant to section 
10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. app. (1988) 
that a meeting of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel's Tax Forms and 
Publications Project Committee will be held Tuesday, May 10, 2022, at 
1:00 p.m. Eastern Time. The public is invited to make oral comments or 
submit written statements for consideration. Due to limited time and 
structure of meeting, notification of intent to participate must be 
made with Fred Smith. For more information, please contact Fred Smith 
at 1-888-912-1227 or (202) 317-3087, or write TAP Office, 1111 
Constitution Ave. NW, Room 1509, Washington, DC 20224 or contact us at 
the website: http://www.improveirs.org.

    Dated: April 11, 2022.
Kevin Brown,
Acting Director, Taxpayer Advocacy Panel.
[FR Doc. 2022-08195 Filed 4-15-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4830-01-P
BOSTON FINANCIAL QUALIFIED HOUSING TAX CREDITS L.P. V


( A LIMITED PARTNERSHIP )





EXHIBIT 32.2





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 of Boston Financial Qualified Housing Tax Credits L.P. V (the “Partnership”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), the undersigned, the Principal Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer, hereby certifies 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 Partnership.











/s/Kenneth J. Cutillo


Kenneth J. Cutillo


Principal Executive Officer and


Principal Financial Officer


Arch Street VIII, Inc., as


Managing General Partner of


Boston Financial Qualified


Housing Tax Credits L.P. V





Date:  November 15, 2010








A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Partnership and will be retained by the Partnership and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
II-00915

From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

George Berticevich <gberticevich@yahoo.com>

Thursday, December 2, 2010 10:04 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.

George Berticevich

1785 Vistazo West

Tiburon, CA 94920
# C_2009193EN.01002301.xml

| 15.8.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 193/23 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.8.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 193/23

---

Action brought on 14 May 2009 — Hellenic Republic v Commission

(Case T-184/09)

2009/C 193/37

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Hellenic Republic (represented by: V. Kontolaimos, E. Leftheriotou, V. Karra)

Applicant:

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | grant the application and annul the contested decision or, in the alternative, alter it so that the financial correction is reduced to 5 % or, in the alternative, the correction of 10 % is applied only to the amount which corresponds to the sugar imported by E.V.Z.; |
| --- | --- |

—

grant the application and annul the contested decision or, in the alternative, alter it so that the financial correction is reduced to 5 % or, in the alternative, the correction of 10 % is applied only to the amount which corresponds to the sugar imported by E.V.Z.;

| — | order the Commission to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

In its application for annulment of the Commission decision of 19 March 2009 excluding from Community financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF), which was notified under document number C(2009) 1945 and published under No 2099/253/EC (OJ 2009 L 75, p. 15) and which concerns the imposition of corrections in respect of export refunds and the common organisation of the market in sugar, because of a lack of controls, the Hellenic Republic puts forward the following pleas for annulment.

By the first plea for annulment, the Hellenic Republic submits that the procedure for clearance of the accounts was invalid because of breach of a substantial procedural requirement that is laid down by Article 8(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1663/95, (1) relating to the failure to engage in bilateral discussion, so far as concerns the imposition of a correction for refunds in respect of sugar in non-Annex I products.

1

By the second plea for annulment, the Hellenic Republic alleges misappraisal of the facts, an insufficient statement of reasons and that the limits of the Commission’s discretion were exceeded, as regards the assessment of risk for the Fund.

By the third plea for annulment, it alleges breach of the principle of proportionality.

---

(1)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 1663/95 of 7 July 1995 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EEC) No 729/70 regarding the procedure for the clearance of the accounts of the EAGGF Guarantee Section (OJ 1995 L 158, p. 6).

1

---
Jason Lee DOVER, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 17-7991.

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.
Carlo Daniel CASTRO, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 17-264.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 2, 2017.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit denied.
EXHIBIT 31.2
IEA Income Fund X, L.P.
RULE 13a-14 CERTIFICATION
     I, John Kallas, certify that:
     1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of IEA Income Fund X, L.P. (the“Partnership”);
     2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any untrue statement of amaterial fact 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 the periodcovered by this quarterly report;
     3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information includedin this quarterly report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, resultsof operations and cash flows of the Partnership as of, and for, the periods presented in thisquarterly report;
     4. The other certifying officer of Cronos Capital Corp. (“CCC”), the General Partner of thePartnership, and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls andprocedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the Partnership and wehave:
          (a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating tothe Partnership, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others withinthose entities, particularly during the period in which this quarterly report is being prepared;and
          (b) evaluated the effectiveness of the Partnership’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this quarterly report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosurecontrols and procedures, based on our evaluation; and
          (c) disclosed in this quarterly report any change in the Partnership’s internal control overfinancial reporting that occurred during the Partnership’s most recent fiscal quarter (thePartnership’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected,or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the Partnership’s internal control over financialreporting.
     5. CCC’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluationof internal control over financial reporting, to the Partnership’s auditors and the Audit Committeeof Partnership’s Board of Directors (or persons performing the equivalent function):
          (a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect thePartnership’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 havea significant role in the Partnership’s internal control over financial reporting.
Date: May 13, 2005
/s/ JOHN KALLAS
# C_2009113EN.01004202.xml

| 16.5.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 113/42 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.5.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 113/42

---

Action brought on 24 March 2009 — Whirlpool Europe v Commission

(Case T-116/09)

2009/C 113/85

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Whirlpool Europe BV (Breda, Netherlands) (represented by: F.Tuytschaever, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | annul the contested decision in its entirety on account of the fact that one or more of the (cumulative) conditions of the Community guidelines on State aid for rescuing and restructuring firms in difficulty are not met or that, in any event, the Commission has failed to ascertain to the requisite legal standard that each of such conditions is met; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision in its entirety on account of the fact that one or more of the (cumulative) conditions of the Community guidelines on State aid for rescuing and restructuring firms in difficulty are not met or that, in any event, the Commission has failed to ascertain to the requisite legal standard that each of such conditions is met;

| — | in subsidiary order, annul the decision in its entirety on account of the failure to comply with the duty to state reasons laid down in Article 253 EC; |
| --- | --- |

—

in subsidiary order, annul the decision in its entirety on account of the failure to comply with the duty to state reasons laid down in Article 253 EC;

| — | order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant seeks the annulment of Commission Decision C(2008) 5995 final of 21 October 2008 declaring compatible with the common market the restructuring aid to be paid out by the French authorities to FagorBrandt company, subject to a number of conditions [C 44/2007 (ex N 460/2007)]. The applicant is a competitor to the beneficiary of the aid and has participated in the investigation procedure leading to the adoption of the contested decision.

The pleas in law and main arguments relied on by the applicant are identical or similar to those relied on in Case T-115/09 Electrolux v Commission.

Electrolux

Commission

---
Exhibit
4.2


 


Amendment
No. 1 to


2010
OMNIBUS INCENTIVE PLAN


OF



KINGTONE
WIRELESSINFO SOLUTION HOLDING LTD


 


Kingtone
Wirelessinfo Solution Holding Ltd (the “Company”) previously approved and adopted the 2010 Omnibus Incentive Plan
(the “Plan”) to promote the success and enhance the value of the Company by linking the personal interests of the
Plan’s participants to those of the Company’s members and by providing such individuals with an incentive for outstanding
performance in order to help grow the Company and to generate superior returns to its members. By this Amendment, the Company
desires to amend the Plan to increase the number of shares available under the Plan.


 


1.       Capitalized
terms used but not otherwise defined herein shall have the respective meanings assigned to such terms in the Plan.


 


2.       The
effective date of this Amendment to the Plan shall be February 26, 2015, upon the approval by the members.


 


3.       Section
4.1 of the Plan is amended and restated in its entirety as follows:


 


4.1.
Number of Shares Available for Awards and Conversion into ADSs. Subject to adjustment as provided in Section 16
hereof, the number of shares of Stock available for issuance under the Plan shall be 360,750, all of which may be granted as Incentive
Stock Options. Stock issued or to be issued under the Plan shall be authorized but unissued shares; or, to the extent permitted
by applicable law, issued shares that have been reacquired by the Company.


 


4.       This
Amendment shall amend only the provisions of the Plan as set forth herein. Those provisions of the Plan not expressly amended
hereby shall be considered in full force and effect.


 


IN
WITNESS WHEREOF, the Company has caused this Amendment to be executed by its duly authorized representative on this February 25,
2015.


 


	 	Kingtone
        Wirelessinfo Solution Holding Ltd

         

	 	By:	/s/
    Peng Zhang
	 	Name: 
	Peng
Zhang

	 	Title:	
        Chief Executive Officer
Kevin Paul DOTHARD, petitioner, v. Carmen Denise PALMER, Warden.

No. 17-5185.

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
Joanne STONE, petitioner, v. LOUISIANA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE.

No. 17-7692.

Supreme Court of the United States

March 19, 2018.

Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed *in forma pauperis* denied. Petitioner allowed until April 9, 2018, 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 if this Court.
Richard RICHARD, petitioner, v. TEXAS.

No. 17-7481.

Supreme Court of the United States

May 29, 2018.

Petition for rehearing denied.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
UNAUDITED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF SERV-TECH, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES AS OF
SEPTEMBER 30, 1996, AND FOR THE NINE MONTHS ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 1996 AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                               0
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                               32,378,480
<ALLOWANCES>                               (1,010,913)
<INVENTORY>                                  2,214,434
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            53,470,207
<PP&E>                                      45,993,761
<DEPRECIATION>                            (19,337,005)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              98,943,903
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       40,680,899
<BONDS>                                     15,170,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     3,436,975
<OTHER-SE>                                  39,102,029
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                98,943,903
<SALES>                                    106,159,971
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                           106,159,971
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               83,745,125
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           1,632,930
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 65,952
<INCOME-TAX>                                  (20,000)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             45,952
<DISCONTINUED>                            (11,733,754)
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                              (11,687,802)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (1.75)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>