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: Call with MF Global
  
    



  When
              07/20/2011

  Rulemaking(s)
              XXIX. Alternatives to Credit Ratings

  CFTC Staff
              Bart ChiltonElizabeth Ritter

  Visitor(s)
              Jon CorzineLaurie Ferber

  Organization(s)
              MF Global


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
# L_2011318EN.01000101.xml

| 1.12.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 318/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.12.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 318/1

---

Notice concerning the entry into force of the Agreement on the participation of the Republic of Bulgaria and Romania in the European Economic Area and four related agreements

The procedures necessary for the entry into force of the Agreement on the participation of the Republic of Bulgaria and Romania in the European Economic Area and four related agreements (1), signed in Brussels on 25 July 2007, have been completed on 8 November 2011. Consequently, this Agreement has entered into force, in accordance with its Article 6(2), on 9 November 2011.

1

---

(1)  
  OJ L 221, 25.8.2007, p. 1.

1

---
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 9

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                      11,974,979
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                       1,200,000
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                     0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                  5,702,981
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                     125,414,332
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                       123,505,000
<LOANS>                                    298,856,434
<ALLOWANCE>                                  2,065,536
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             455,837,762
<DEPOSITS>                                 372,447,964
<SHORT-TERM>                                27,794,431
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                          9,479,818
<LONG-TERM>                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        34,500
<OTHER-SE>                                  46,081,049
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>             455,837,762
<INTEREST-LOAN>                             17,285,038
<INTEREST-INVEST>                            6,154,955
<INTEREST-OTHER>                             1,158,744
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                            24,598,737
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                          10,019,965
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                          11,246,013
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                       13,352,724
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                  180,000
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                              9,189,717
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              5,111,573
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                   5,111,573
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 3,253,508
<EPS-BASIC>                                       1.23
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.23
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    7.65
<LOANS-NON>                                  2,993,000
<LOANS-PAST>                                 1,133,000
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                              1,470,888
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                             2,088,492
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                   85,136
<RECOVERIES>                                     2,180
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                            2,065,536
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                           382,000
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                      1,683,536


</TABLE>
Release:#3970-96 (Civ 96-10421)

For Release:November 26, 1996

**EX PARTE ORDER ENTERED BY MICHIGAN FEDERAL COURT FREEZES ASSETS OF    DANIEL M. O'SHAUGHNESSEY, GLORY FUND I, INC. AND GLORY FUND, L.L.C.**

**CFTC Complaint Charges Defendants with Defrauding Customers,**

**Among other Federal Commodity Law Violations**

WASHINGTON -- The Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) announced    today that on November 21, 1996, the Honorable Robert H. Clelend of the    U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan entered a    statutory ***ex* parte** restraining order freezing the    assets of **Daniel M. O'Shaughnessey**, **Glory Fund I, Inc.**, and    **Glory Fund, L.L.C.**, all of Midland, Michigan.

In addition to freezing the defendants' assets, the court's ***ex* parte** order prohibits the destruction of the defendants'    books and records, and grants the CFTC access to their books and    records.

The order stems from a five-count injunctive complaint filed on November    20, 1996, alleging that the defendants defrauded Glory Fund pool    participants, issued false statements, commingled pool funds, and engaged    in false advertising.

Specifically, the complaint charged that since at least April 1996, the    defendants have violated the anti-fraud provisions of the *Commodity    Exchange Act (CEA)*, as well as the regulatory proscriptions against    commingling and false advertising.

The defendants allegedly cheated and defrauded pool participants by    misappropriating customer funds and by misrepresenting:

- the performance of Glory Fund and other commodity investments managed      or operated by O'Shaughnessey and Glory Fund I, Inc.;
- that customer funds were invested in the Glory Fund pool trading      account, when, in fact, the defendants knew that statement was      false;
- the value of the customers' investments;
- that customers' pool participation interests had earned a "profit"      from trading commodity futures contracts;
- that defendants converted or "rolled" investor loan interests into      pool interests in Glory Fund; and
- the results of an audit conducted by the National Futures      Association.

In the continuing litigation against the defendants, the CFTC is seeking    preliminary and permanent injunctions prohibiting the defendants from    violating Federal commodity law, in addition to other remedial relief,    including disgorgement of ill-gotten gains, restitution, and civil monetary    penalties as provided for by the CEA for each violation of the CEA or    regulations.

----
# C_2010234EN.01003501.xml

| 28.8.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 234/35 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.8.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 234/35

---

Judgment of the General Court of 8 July 2010 — Engelhorn v OHIM — The Outdoor Group (peerstorm)

(Case T-30/09) (1)

1

(Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the Community word mark peerstorm - Earlier Community and national word marks PETER STORM - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009) - Genuine use of the earlier marks - Articles 15 and 43(2) of Regulation No 40/94 (now Articles 15 and 42(2) of Regulation No 207/2009))

2010/C 234/61

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Engelhorn KGaA (Mannheim, Germany) (represented by: W. Göpfert and K. Mende, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (represented by: A. Folliard-Monguiral, acting as Agent)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: The Outdoor Group Ltd (Northampton, United Kingdom) (represented by: M. Edenborough, Barrister)

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

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 28 October 2008 (Case R 167/2008-5), relating to opposition proceedings between The Outdoor Group Ltd and Engelhorn KGaA.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Engelhorn KGaA to bear its own costs and to pay those of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) and of The Outdoor Group Ltd. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Engelhorn KGaA to bear its own costs and to pay those of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) and of The Outdoor Group Ltd.

---

(1)  OJ C 82, 4.4.2009.

1

---
David Tobias MAY, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 17-142.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 2, 2017.

*253Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied.
# L_2009073EN.01003501.xml

| 19.3.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 73/35 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.3.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 73/35

---

DECISION OF THE EEA JOINT COMMITTEE

No 3/2009

of 5 February 2009

amending Annex II (Technical regulations, standards, testing and certification) to the EEA Agreement

THE EEA JOINT COMMITTEE,

Having regard to the Agreement on the European Economic Area, as amended by the Protocol adjusting the Agreement on the European Economic Area, hereinafter referred to as ‘the Agreement’, and in particular Article 98 thereof,

Whereas:

| (1) | Annex II to the Agreement was amended by Decision of the EEA Joint Committee No 96/2008 of 26 September 2008 (1). |
| --- | --- |

(1)

Annex II to the Agreement was amended by Decision of the EEA Joint Committee No 96/2008 of 26 September 2008 (1).

| (2) | Commission Directive 2007/15/EC of 14 March 2007 amending, for the purposes of its adaptation to technical progress, Annex I to Council Directive 74/483/EEC relating to the external projections of motor vehicles (2) is to be incorporated into the Agreement, |
| --- | --- |

(2)

Commission Directive 2007/15/EC of 14 March 2007 amending, for the purposes of its adaptation to technical progress, Annex I to Council Directive 74/483/EEC relating to the external projections of motor vehicles (2) is to be incorporated into the Agreement,

HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:

Article 1

The following indent shall be added in point 17 (Council Directive 74/483/EEC) of Chapter I of Annex II to the Agreement:

| ‘— | 32007 L 0015: Commission Directive 2007/15/EC of 14 March 2007 (OJ L 75, 15.3.2007, p. 21).’ |
| --- | --- |

‘—

32007 L 0015: Commission Directive 2007/15/EC of 14 March 2007 (OJ L 75, 15.3.2007, p. 21).’

Article 2

The text of Directive 2007/15/EC in the Icelandic and Norwegian languages, to be published in the EEA Supplement to the Official Journal of the European Union, shall be authentic.

Article 3

This Decision shall enter into force on 6 February 2009, provided that all the notifications under Article 103(1) of the Agreement have been made to the EEA Joint Committee (*1).

Article 4

This Decision shall be published in the EEA Section of, and in the EEA Supplement to, the Official Journal of the European Union.

Done at Brussels, 5 February 2009.

For the EEA Joint Committee

The President

Alan SEATTER

---

(1)  
  OJ L 309, 20.11.2008, p. 15.

1

(2)  
  OJ L 75, 15.3.2007, p. 21.

2

(*1)  No constitutional requirements indicated.

*1

---
In the Matter of DISBARMENT OF Donald B. TERRELL.

No. D-3024.

Supreme Court of the United States

June 25, 2018.

Disbarment order entered.
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

1071 

CAF 11-01094 

PRESENT: SCUDDER, P.J., SMITH, CENTRA, GREEN, AND GORSKI, JJ.

 

IN THE MATTER OF MARK D. COLEMAN, 

PETITIONER-APPELLANT, 

 

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

MAUREEN M. MURPHY, RESPONDENT-RESPONDENT. 

 

BUCCI LAW FIRM, PLLC, BALDWINSVILLE (ROSEMARY E. BUCCI OF COUNSEL),

FOR PETITIONER-APPELLANT. 

JOHN M. MURPHY, JR., PHOENIX, FOR RESPONDENT-RESPONDENT.

LISA M. FAHEY, ATTORNEY FOR THE CHILD, EAST SYRACUSE, FOR CASEY M.C. 

 

Appeal from an order of the Family Court, Onondaga County

(William Dowling, R.), entered November 16, 2010 in a proceeding

pursuant to Family Court Act article 4. The order dismissed the

petition. 

It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is

unanimously reversed on the law without costs, the petition is

reinstated, and the matter is remitted to Family Court, Onondaga

County, for further proceedings in accordance with the following

Memorandum: Petitioner father commenced this proceeding pursuant to

Family Court Act article 4 seeking to terminate his support obligation

for the parties’ son on the grounds that respondent mother had

frustrated the father’s visitation rights and that his son had

abandoned him. The father appeals from an order dismissing his

petition without prejudice “for lack of proper cause of action for

filing.” We agree with the father that the Referee erred in

dismissing the petition without conducting a hearing. Indeed, the

Referee was required to “conduct a hearing on [the] petition to modify

a support order where the petition [was] ‘supported by affidavit and

other evidentiary material sufficient to establish a prima facie case

for the relief requested.’ Here, [the father] established a prima

facie case for the relief requested with respect to child support by

submitting evidentiary material establishing that his [son] had

abandoned him. His submissions in support of the petition established

that his repeated attempts at communication with his [son] had been

refused and that [he] had expressed a clear wish to ‘have nothing to

do with’ ” the father (Matter of Garcia v Barie, 59 AD3d 1090; see

Matter of Saunders v Aiello, 59 AD3d 1090, 1091; cf. Matter of

Hootnick v Cohen, 193 AD2d 1092). In addition, the petition alleged

that the mother had refused to permit the father to exercise his
-2- 1071 

CAF 11-01094 

visitation rights, and “a custodial parent’s ‘deliberate frustration’

of visitation rights can, under appropriate circumstances, warrant the

suspension of future child support payments” (Hiross v Hiross, 224

AD2d 662, 663). Consequently, we reverse the order, reinstate the

petition, and remit the matter to Family Court for further proceedings

thereon.

Entered: November 18, 2011 Patricia L. Morgan

Clerk of the Court
EXHIBIT 99.2



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 T REIT, Inc.
(the Company) Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2002 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, William C. Daniel, Chief Financial Officer of the Company,
certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



| | 1. |  | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 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: April 15, 2003 |  |  |  | 
|-------------------- |  |  |  | 
|                    
|                     |  |  |  | 
|                     |  |  |  |
WAYSIDE CHURCH, et al., petitioners, v. VAN BUREN COUNTY, MICHIGAN, et al.

No. 17-88.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 30, 2017.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit denied.
Jonathan KEARN, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 17-7210.

Supreme Court of the United States

May 21, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit denied.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE BALANCE
SHEET AT SEPTEMBER 30, 1997 (UNAUDITED) AND THE STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS FOR THE
QUARTERLY PERIOD ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 1997 (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 SEPTEMBER 30, 1997.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                         697,143
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  353,985
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,051,128
<PP&E>                                      17,318,635
<DEPRECIATION>                               7,169,635
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              11,200,368
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                  11,200,368
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                11,200,368
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,040,031
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  796,068
<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>                                   257,213
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 96-6647
LARRY OLIN WEBB, Petitioner - Appellant, versus ATTORNEY GENERAL OF NORTH CAROLINA; MARTIN J. MCDADE, Superintendent, Harnett Correctional Institution, Respondents - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Salisbury. William L. O steen, Sr., District Judge. (CA-95-361-4) Submitted: August 15, 1996 Decided: August 21, 1996 Before MURNAGHAN and ERVIN, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Larry Olin Webb, Appellant Pro Se. Clarence Joe DelForge, III, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF NORTH CAROLINA, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on his motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (1988), amended by Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104-132, 110 Stat. 1214. We have reviewed the record and thedistrict court's opinion accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny acertificate of probable cause to appeal; to the extent that a certificate of appealability is required, we deny such a certificate. We dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. Webb v. Attorney Gen. of North Carolina , No. CA-95-361-4 (M.D.N.C. Mar. 26, 1996). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
In the Matter of DISCIPLINE OF Marvin R. SPARROW.

No. D-2997.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 2, 2017.

Marvin R. Sparrow, of Rutherfordton, North Carolina, is suspended from the practice of law in this Court and a rule will issue, returnable within 40 days, requiring him to show cause why he should not be disbarred from the practice of law in this Court.