alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
II-00774

From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

glen koons <glen_ak@yahoo.com>

Thursday, December 2, 2010 11:27 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.

glen koons

14 seville ln.

Hot Springs, AR 71909
# L_2008194EN.01004201.xml

| 23.7.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 194/42 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.7.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 194/42

---

Corrigendum to Information on the date of entry into force of the Fisheries Agreement between the European Community and the Republic of Kiribati

(
  Official Journal of the European Union L 165 of 26 June 2008
  )

On page 10, second paragraph:

for:

‘The Agreement accordingly entered into force on 29 April 2008, ...’,

read:

‘The Agreement accordingly entered into force on 30 April 2008, ...’.

---
# L_2014310EN.01005401.xml

| 30.10.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 310/54 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.10.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 310/54

---

DECISION OF THE EEA JOINT COMMITTEE

No 90/2014

of 16 May 2014

amending Annex XIII (Transport) to the EEA Agreement

THE EEA JOINT COMMITTEE,

Having regard to the Agreement on the European Economic Area (‘the EEA Agreement’), and in particular Article 98 thereof,

Whereas:

| (1) | Commission Decision 2009/992/EU of 17 December 2009 on minimum requirements for the data to be entered in the national electronic register of road transport undertakings (1) is to be incorporated into the EEA Agreement. |
| --- | --- |

(1)

Commission Decision 2009/992/EU of 17 December 2009 on minimum requirements for the data to be entered in the national electronic register of road transport undertakings (1) is to be incorporated into the EEA Agreement.

| (2) | Annex XIII to the EEA Agreement should therefore be amended accordingly, |
| --- | --- |

(2)

Annex XIII to the EEA Agreement should therefore be amended accordingly,

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

Article 1

The following point is inserted after point 19a (Regulation (EC) No 1071/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council) of Annex XIII to the EEA Agreement:

| ‘19aa. | 32009 D 0992: Commission Decision 2009/992/EU of 17 December 2009 on minimum requirements for the data to be entered in the national electronic register of road transport undertakings (OJ L 339, 22.12.2009, p. 36).’ |
| --- | --- |

‘19aa.

32009 D 0992: Commission Decision 2009/992/EU of 17 December 2009 on minimum requirements for the data to be entered in the national electronic register of road transport undertakings (OJ L 339, 22.12.2009, p. 36).’

Article 2

The text of Decision 2009/992/EU 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 17 May 2014, provided that all the notifications under Article 103(1) of the EEA Agreement have been made (*1), or on the day of the entry into force of Decision of the EEA Joint Committee No 88/2014 of 16 May 2014 (2), whichever is the later.

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, 16 May 2014.

For the EEA Joint Committee

The President

Gianluca GRIPPA

---

(1)  
  OJ L 339, 22.12.2009, p. 36.

1

(*1)  No constitutional requirements indicated.

*1

(2)  See page 40 of this Official Journal.

2

---
#### W. R. Hopkins and Z. W. Evans, *Plaintiffs in Error,*v. F. A. Rollins, *Defendant in Error.*

Division A.

Opinion filed June 22, 1929.

On petition for Rehearing.

Ellis, J.

The judgment was entered February 8, 1927. The motion'for a new trial was made and submitted February 11th. The Court overruled the motion October 17th, eight months afterward. The writ of error issued August 6th, 1927, five months and twenty-eight days after the judgment was entered but two months and eleven days before the court overruled the motion for a new trial.

The plaintiffs in error here were the plaintiffs below. This Court affirmed the judgment April 20,1929. The plaintiffs *616in error by their counsel now ask for a rehearing and dismissal of the writ of error because they say that as the writ of error was taken before the motion for a new trial and was ruled upon by the court the writ was invalid as it was not taken to a final judgment; that the judgment did not become final until the court overruled the motion for a new trial and a writ of error lies only to a final judgment.

The case of McClellan v. Wood, 78 Fla. 407, 83 So. R. 295, is cited in support of that proposition. In that case the writ of error was taken out nine months after the judgment, but only two months' after the motion for a new trial was overruled.

The court said that the ‘ ‘ entry in the minutes of the court makes the orders granting or denying new trials matters of record affording a means of determining when the judgment entered becomes final for the purpose of taking a writ of error. ’ ’ There was also some language in the opinion about motions for new trials being V determined, abandoned or otherwise disposed of.”

Conceding that the plaintiff has it within his power to abandon a motion for a new trial, he may do so by implication. The case at bar presents an instance of abandonment of the motion by implication.

Counsel, believing that they had six months under the statute from the date when the motion for a new trial would be disposed of, decided to take the writ of error before that date. A thing they were not precluded from doing, for they could abandon the motion for a new trial and take the writ within six months from the date of the entry of the judgment. Having done that it is presumed such was their purpose.

Their treatment of the case was in all respects consistent with such purpose because they briefed it upon its merits, procured a bill of exceptions and-argued the case orally upon *617the facts after the case had reposed here for a year and four months, during all of which time counsel for the plaintiffs in error made no suggestion to this Court of the point which he now raises.

We treat the matter as if the motion for a new trial was abandoned and that the writ was taken in due course within six months after the judgment was entered.

Petition denied.

Terrell, C. J., and Brown, J., concur.

Whitfield, C. J., and Buford, J., concur in the opinion and judgment.
EXHIBIT 99.2
                           ============

Certification of Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer
     Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
-------------------------------------------------------------------

In connection with the Annual Report of Natalma Industries, Inc.
(Registrant) on Form 10-KSB for the year ended December 31, 2003, as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
(the Report), I, Derick Sinclair, Chief Executive Officer and Chief
Financial Officer of Registrant, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge and belief:

   (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 Registrant.


Date: March 29, 2004           /s/ Derick Sinclair
                              ----------------------------------
                              Chief Executive Officer and Chief
                              Chief Financial Officer of
                              Natalma Industries, Inc., Registrant
Exhibit 11

Computation of Earnings per Share



|                                                                                         |  |                                 |          
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |  | ------------------------------- | ---------
|                                                                                         |  | Three MonthsEndedMarch 31, 2008
|Income available to common stockholders                                                  |  | $                               | 1,009,599
|Weighted average shares outstanding                                                      |  |                                 | 4,975,542
|Basic earnings per share                                                                 |  | $                               | 0.20     
|Income for diluted earnings per share                                                    |  | $                               | 1,009,599
|Total weighted average common shares and equivalents outstanding for diluted computation |  |                                 | 4,975,542
|Diluted earnings per share                                                               |  | $                               | 0.20
Russell THAW, et al., petitioners, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS, III, Attorney General, et al.

No. 17-594.

Supreme Court of the United States

Dec. 4, 2017.

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

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                                                    <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                                9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                      DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                           SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                                       8,632
<SECURITIES>                                                     0
<RECEIVABLES>                                               10,397
<ALLOWANCES>                                                 2,551
<INVENTORY>                                                      0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                                 0
<PP&E>                                                      12,513
<DEPRECIATION>                                              12,184
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                              30,544
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                            0
<BONDS>                                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                            0
<PREFERRED>                                                      0
<COMMON>                                                         0
<OTHER-SE>                                                  28,883
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                                30,544
<SALES>                                                          0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                             6,227
<CGS>                                                            0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                                2,998
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                                 0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                               281
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                               0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                              3,229
<INCOME-TAX>                                                   (3)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                          3,232
<DISCONTINUED>                                                   0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                                  0
<CHANGES>                                                        0
<NET-INCOME>                                                 3,232
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                                  .42
<EPS-DILUTED>                                                    0
        

</TABLE>
```
  
 
WHEAT - MINNEAPOLIS GRAIN EXCHANGE                                   Code-001626
OPTION AND FUTURES COMBINED POSITIONS AS OF 07/21/09          |
--------------------------------------------------------------| NONREPORTABLE
      NON-COMMERCIAL      |   COMMERCIAL    |      TOTAL      |   POSITIONS
--------------------------|-----------------|-----------------|-----------------
  Long  | Short  |Spreads |  Long  | Short  |  Long  | Short  |  Long  | Short
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(CONTRACTS OF 5,000 BUSHELS)                         OPEN INTEREST:       36,102
COMMITMENTS
   6,796    3,474    4,353   16,402   16,190   27,551   24,017    8,552   12,086

CHANGES FROM 07/14/09 (CHANGE IN OPEN INTEREST:        105)
     181      380     -603     -512      -22     -933     -245    1,039      350

PERCENT OF OPEN INTEREST FOR EACH CATEGORY OF TRADER
    18.8      9.6     12.1     45.4     44.8     76.3     66.5     23.7     33.5

NUMBER OF TRADERS IN EACH CATEGORY (TOTAL TRADERS:       42)
       9        6       12       22       14       36       30
```

----

Updated July 24, 2009
EPIC SYSTEMS CORPORATION, petitioner, v. Jacob LEWIS.

No. 16-285.

Supreme Court of the United States

Aug. 25, 2017.

Motion of petitioner to dispense with printing the joint appendix granted.
Marvin D. WATKINS, petitioner, v. MARYLAND.

No. 17-6306.

Supreme Court of the United States

Dec. 4, 2017.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Special Appeals of Maryland denied.
Grace MAKAU, petitioner, v. Louise MEYER, Judge, District Court of North Carolina, Orange County, et al.

No. 17-6012.

Supreme Court of the United States

Nov. 27, 2017.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied.
# L_2011262EN.01002701.xml

| 6.10.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 262/27 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.10.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 262/27

---

DECISION OF THE EEA JOINT COMMITTEE

No 71/2011

of 1 July 2011

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 25/2010 of 12 March 2010 (1). |
| --- | --- |

(1)

Annex II to the Agreement was amended by Decision of the EEA Joint Committee No 25/2010 of 12 March 2010 (1).

| (2) | Commission Decision 2010/453/EU of 3 August 2010 establishing guidelines concerning the conditions of inspections and control measures, and on the training and qualification of officials, in the field of human tissues and cells provided for in Directive 2004/23/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (2) is to be incorporated into the Agreement, |
| --- | --- |

(2)

Commission Decision 2010/453/EU of 3 August 2010 establishing guidelines concerning the conditions of inspections and control measures, and on the training and qualification of officials, in the field of human tissues and cells provided for in Directive 2004/23/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (2) is to be incorporated into the Agreement,

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

Article 1

The following point shall be inserted after point 17 (Commission Communication on parallel imports of proprietary medicinal products for which marketing authorisation have already been granted) under the heading ‘
  ACTS OF WHICH THE CONTRACTING PARTIES SHALL TAKE NOTE
  ’ of Chapter XIII of Annex II to the Agreement:

| ‘18. | 32010 D 0453: Commission Decision 2010/453/EU of 3 August 2010 establishing guidelines concerning the conditions of inspections and control measures, and on the training and qualification of officials, in the field of human tissues and cells provided for in Directive 2004/23/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (OJ L 213, 13.8.2010, p. 48).’. |
| --- | --- |

‘18.

Article 2

The text of Decision 2010/453/EU 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 2 July 2011, provided that all the notifications pursuant to 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, 1 July 2011.

For the EEA Joint Committee

The President

Kurt JÄGER

---

(1)  
  OJ L 143, 10.6.2010, p. 18.

1

(2)  
  OJ L 213, 13.8.2010, p. 48.

2

(*1)  No constitutional requirements indicated.

*1

---
Tremayne Juandal MABRY, petitioner, v. VIRGINIA.

No. 17-8653.

Supreme Court of the United States

June 4, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Virginia denied.
Sergio RAMIREZ, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 17-8914.

Supreme Court of the United States

June 18, 2018.

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

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4021 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 4021

To prohibit a Federal agency from using a facial recognition technology 
         without a Federal court order, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             July 25, 2019

Mr. Engel (for himself, Ms. Norton, Ms. Velazquez, Ms. Haaland, and Mr. 
   Serrano) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                   Committee on Oversight and Reform

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To prohibit a Federal agency from using a facial recognition technology 
         without a Federal court order, and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Facial, Analysis, Comparison, and 
Evaluation Protection Act of 2019'' or the ``FACE Protection Act of 
2019''.

SEC. 2. FACIAL RECOGNITION TECHNOLOGY.

    (a) Restriction.--A Federal agency may not apply facial recognition 
technology to any photo identification issued by a State or the Federal 
Government or any other photograph otherwise in the possession of a 
State or the Federal Government unless the agency has obtained a 
Federal court order determining that there is probable cause for the 
application of such technology.
    (b) Prohibition on Sharing Information.--Any information obtained 
using facial recognition technology under a Federal court order may not 
be shared with any other Federal agency or entity that has not been 
granted permission for such use by a Federal court order.
    (c) Definitions.--In this section:
            (1) Facial recognition.--The term ``facial recognition'' 
        means an automated or semi-automated process that assists in 
        identifying or verifying an individual based on the physical 
        characteristics of an individual's face geometry.
            (2) Facial recognition technology.--The term ``facial 
        recognition technology'' means any computer software or 
        application that performs facial recognition.
            (3) Federal agency.--The term ``Federal agency'' has the 
        meaning given that term in section 102 of title 40, United 
        States Code.
            (4) State.--The term ``State'' means each of the several 
        States, the District of Columbia, each commonwealth, territory 
        or possession of the United States, and each federally 
        recognized Indian Tribe.
                                 <all>
```
<PAGE>   1

                                                                   EXHIBIT 11.01


                             Interpore International
                      Computations of Net Income Per Share
                      (in thousands, except per share data)
                                   (unaudited)

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                          Three months ended       Six months ended
                                                               June 30,                June 30,
                                                         -------------------      -------------------
                                                          1997         1996        1997         1996
                                                         ------       ------      ------       ------
<S>                                                      <C>          <C>         <C>          <C>    
Net income                                               $   20       $  117      $  279       $  292
                                                         ======       ======      ======       ======
Calculation of shares used in computing net income
 per share:
   Weighted average common shares outstanding             6,971        7,009       6,963        6,987
   Weighted average convertible preferred stock              77          236          77          237
   Common share equivalents outstanding                     231          387         250          341
                                                         ------       ------      ------       ------
Shares used in computing net income per share             7,279        7,632       7,290        7,565
                                                         ======       ======      ======       ======
Net income per share                                     $  .00       $  .02      $  .04       $  .04
                                                         ======       ======      ======       ======
</TABLE>
Akeem R. GUMBS, petitioner, v. Louis PENN, Jr.

No. 17-6195.

Supreme Court of the United States

Nov. 27, 2017.

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