alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Release: 4013-97 (Civ 95-C-5422)
    For Release: April 22, 1997U.S. DISTRICT COURT IN ILLINOIS ISSUES PERMANENT INJUNCTION
     IN CFTC ANTI-FRAUD ACTION AGAINST GARY BRUCE ANDERSON
     Court Order Permanently Bars Anderson from the Futures Industry and
     Orders Restitution WASHINGTON - The Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) announced
    that on April 18, 1997, U.S. District Court Judge Milton Shadur for the
    Northern District of Illinois entered a consent order of permanent
    injunction against Gary Bruce Anderson, formerly of Wayne and
    Geneva, Illinois, but currently of Syracuse, Indiana. Anderson has never
    been registered with the CFTC in any capacity. The court's action concludes
    a CFTC anti-fraud action brought against Anderson on September 22, 1995
    (CFTC News Release #3868-95, October 11, 1995).

Anderson admits and the permanent injunction finds that Anderson
    fraudulently solicited approximately $500,000 from more than 30 investors
    in Indiana and Illinois to trade commodity futures from 1990 through
    September 1995.

The order also finds and Anderson admits that he misrepresented material
    facts to potential investors he solicited for commodity trading programs
    while acting as an unregistered commodity trading advisor and futures
    commission merchant. The order also finds that Anderson willfully prepared
    and distributed fabricated statements which:

- falsely stated that investors' funds had been invested in commodity
      futures when they had not;
- falsely stated that profits had been generated when actually they had
      not; and
- overstated the value of each investor's interest in commodity futures
      contracts.

The court found that these misrepresentations constitute violations of
    Sections 4b and 4o of the Commodity Exchange Act (CEA).

The order also finds and Anderson admits that he misappropriated
    investor funds and converted more than half of the funds he collected to
    his own use and the use of others, including using those funds to pay his
    own mortgage, his children's private school tuition, and other personal
    expenses. In so doing, Anderson commingled investors' funds with his own
    and those of his family and did not segregate customer funds, as required
    by CFTC regulations.

The order permanently enjoins Anderson from further violations of the
    CEA, as charged, and permanently enjoins him from 1) trading commodity
    futures or options for himself or on behalf of others, 2) advising others
    in connection with the trading of commodity futures or options, and 3)
    soliciting or receiving money from others to trade commodity futures or
    options. The order also bars Anderson from ever seeking registration with
    the Commission in any capacity.

Finally, Anderson is ordered to pay restitution. IRS tax liens
    reportedly are already outstanding against Anderson's assets.
EXHIBIT 11
                               AGEMARK CORPORATION

              STATEMENT REGARDING COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER SHARE

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                                       Year Ended
                                                                                      September 30,
                                                                            ---------------------------
                                                                                1999            1998
                                                                            -----------       ---------
<S>                                                                         <C>               <C>
Common shares actually outstanding, beginning of period                      1,000,000              200

Shares cancelled, September 29,1998                                                               (200)

Issuance of shares to partnerships                                                            1,000,000

Weighted average common shares actually outstanding                          1,000,000            2,939

Stock options issued
January 1, 1999 at $1.10 per share                                             166,666                -
January 1, 1999 at $1.00 per share                                              43,750                -
                                                                             ---------
Total shares subject to options                                                210,416                -

Total assumed proceeds of exercise                                          $  227,083                -

Number of shares assumed purchased at 5.97 / share (1)                          38,037                -

Net shares assumed issued at January 1, 1999                                   172,379                -

Stock options issued April 1, 1999
At $1.00 per share                                                              18,748
Total shares subject to options                                                 18,748

Total assumed proceeds of exercise                                          $   18,748

Number of shares assumed purchased at 5.97 / share (1)                           3,140

Net shares assumed issued at April 1, 1999                                      15,608


Weighted average common shares assumed outstanding for period                1,137,088            2,939
<FN>

(1) There is no market for the Company's shares. For computational purposes the
value assumed is the September 30, 1998 book value per share.
</FN>
</TABLE>
<PAGE>
              BOSTON FINANCIAL QUALIFIED HOUSING TAX CREDITS L.P. V
                             (A Limited Partnership)


                                 EXHIBIT [32.1]

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


In connection with the Quarterly Report of Boston Financial Qualified Housing
Tax Credits, L.P. V (the "Partnership") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended June
30, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
(the "Report"), the undersigned, the Executive Vice President, 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/Jenny Netzer
                                                       Jenny Netzer
                                                       Executive Vice President
                                                       MMA Financial, LLC

                                                       Date:    August 13, 2004









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.

<PAGE>
Austin Billy WILLIS, III, petitioner, v. Heidi M. LACKNER, Warden.

No. 17-8326.

Supreme Court of the United States

May 29, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.
# C_2010051EN.01003302.xml

| 27.2.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 51/33 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.2.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 51/33

---

Action brought on 20 November 2009 — European Commission v New Acoustic Music et Anna Hildur Hildibrandsdottir

(Case T-464/09)

2010/C 51/65

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: A.-M. Rouchaud-Joët, N. Bambara, Agents, assisted by C. Erkelens, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: New Acoustic Music Association (Orpington, United Kingdom), Anna Hildur Hildibrandsdottir (Orpington)

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | order the defendants to repay to the Commission the amount of EUR 31,136.23 in principal, to be accrued with interests at 7,70 % per annum as of 14 January 2008 until the date of final payment; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendants to repay to the Commission the amount of EUR 31,136.23 in principal, to be accrued with interests at 7,70 % per annum as of 14 January 2008 until the date of final payment;

| — | order the defendants to pay the procedural costs, including those incurred by the Commission. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendants to pay the procedural costs, including those incurred by the Commission.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

The application is filed in relation to a grant agreement identified with the contract number 2003-1895/001-001, entered into between the European Commission (hereinafter ‘Commission’) and New Acoustic Music Association (hereinafter ‘NAMA’), represented by Ms Anna Hildur Hildibrandsdottir, with a view to carrying out the action entitled CLT2003/A1/GB-317 — European Music Roadwork in framework of the Programme ‘Culture 2000’ (1).

1

By means of its application, the applicant seeks an order from the Court requesting the defendants, each liable for the entire amount, one in the absence of the other, to repay to the Commission the sum of EUR 31,136.23, accrued with default interests, resulting from the difference between the sum paid in advance by the applicant to NAMA for the implementation of the actions provided for in the grant agreement and the sum which NAMA is entitled to.

In support of its application, the applicant raises a single plea in law. It submits that NAMA has allegedly breached its contractual obligations by failing to reimburse part of the advance payment made by the Commission since the actual eligible expenses were lower than the estimated total costs.

The Commission contends that both Acoustic and Ms Anna Hildur Hildibrandsdottir, in her capacity as partner and authorised legal representative of NAMA, are jointly liable for the sum due.

---

(1)  Decision No 508/2000/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 February 2000 establishing the Culture 2000 programme (OJ 2000 L 63, p. 1)

1

---
I 

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 4210 

To enhance the salaries of Federal employees, including employees of the 

Department of Veterans Affairs, in Stanislaus County, California, and 

for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

AUGUST 27, 2019 

Mr. HARDER of California introduced the following bill; which was referred 

to the Committee on Oversight and Reform 

A BILL 

To enhance the salaries of Federal employees, including employees of the Department of Veterans Affairs, in 

Stanislaus County, California, and for other purposes. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Fair Pay for the Mo5 desto VA Act’’. 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 4210 IH

1 SEC. 2. ENHANCEMENT OF SALARIES OF FEDERAL EM2 PLOYEES IN STANISLAUS COUNTY, CALI3 FORNIA. 

4 (a) COST OF LIVING IN DETERMINING RATES OF

5 PAY FOR VA EMPLOYEES.— 

6 (1) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding any other 

7 provision of law, cost of living shall be included in 

8 any determination of the rate of basic pay for any 

9 position within the Department of Veterans Affairs 

10 where the duty station is located in Stanislaus Coun11 ty, California. 

12 (2) REDETERMINATION OF RATES OF PAY.— 

13 Not later than the first day of the first pay period 

14 beginning on or after January 1, 2020, and not less 

15 than once during each subsequent five-year period, 

16 the rate of basic pay for each position described 

17 under paragraph (1) shall be redetermined. 

18 (b) LOCALITY-BASED COMPARABILITY PAYMENTS

19 FOR FEDERAL EMPLOYEES.—Beginning on the date that 

20 is 3 months after the date of the enactment of this Act, 

21 Stanislaus County, California, shall be included in the lo22 cality pay area applicable to San Francisco, California, 

23 pursuant to section 5304 of title 5, United States Code. 

24 (c) APPLICATION.—Nothing in this Act shall be con25 strued to— 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 4210 IH

1 (1) result in a lower rate of basic pay for any 

2 position affected by the requirements of subsection 

3 (a) or (b) otherwise payable for that position but for 

4 the requirements of this Act; 

5 (2) affect any payment in addition to basic pay 

6 that an employee occupying such a position is eligi7 ble to receive, including locality pay under section 

8 5304 of title 5, United States Code, or any allow9 ance, differential, bonus, award, or other similar 

10 cash payment under such title or title 38, United 

11 States Code; or 

12 (3) supersede or otherwise affect any limitation 

13 on total pay, including the limitation provided in sec14 tion 5307 of title 5, United States Code. 

Æ 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
Thomas Shane MATHERLY, petitioner, v. J.F. ANDREWS, et al.

No. 17-5877.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 30, 2017.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied.
N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
UNITED STATES OF AM ERIC A, Plaintiff - Appe lle e , v. STEVEN M . FER GUSON, De fe nda

nt - Appe lla

nt. No. 13-50554

D.C . No. 2:06-c r-00909-R
M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the C e ntra l Distric t of C a lifornia M anue l L. R e a l , Distric t Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d Oc tobe r 14, 2014 * * B e fore : LEAVY, GOULD, a n d B ER Z ON, C irc uit Judge s . Ste ve n M . Fe rguson a

ppe a ls from

the distric t

c ourt’ s judgm e nt a

nd
c ha lle nge s the 121-m onth se nte nc e and $15,000 fine im pose d on re se nte nc ing following his jury-tria l c onvic tions for va rious fra ud, ta x, obstruc tion, a

nd fina nc ia l offe nse s unde r 18 U.S.C . §§ 2, 1341, 1503, 1956(a )(1)(A)(i), 1957, a

nd 2314; a

nd 

# FIL ED OCT 20 2014 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U
. S
. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3. ** The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without oral a

rgum e nt. Se eFe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).26 U.S.C . § 7201. W e have jurisdic tion under 28 U.S.C . § 1291, a nd we a ffirm

in pa rt a nd va c ate in pa

rt. Fe rguson c onte nds tha

t the distric t c ourt viola

te d Fe de ra l R

ule of C rim ina l Proc e d ure R ule 32(i)(3)(B ) by fa iling to re solve a lle ge d fa c tua l dispute s at se nte nc ing. This c la im

fa ils. B e c a

use the argum e nts tha

t Fe rguson ra ise d at se nte nc ing did not c ontra dic t a ny fa c tua l a sse rtions in the

pre s e nte nc e re port, the y did not invoke the distric t c o urt’ s fa c t-finding re sponsibility unde r R ule 32. Se e Unite d State s v . Pe tri , 731 F.3d 833, 840-41 (9th C ir.), c e rt. de nie d, 134 S. C t. 681 (2013). M ore ove r, any

e rror wa s ha

rm le s s be c a

use the re c ord re fle c ts tha t the dispute d fa c ts ha d no e ffe c t on these nte n c e im

p ose d. Se eUnite d State

s v . Sae te urn , 504 F.3d 1175, 1179 (9th C ir. 2007) (R ule 32(i)(3)(B ) c l a im s “ are c onfine d to fa c tua l dispute s whic h a ffe c te d the te m pora l prison term of the
se nte nc e the distric t c ourt im p ose d.” ). Fe rguson ne xt c onte nds tha t the c ourt e rre d by

ora l ly im posing a $15,000 fine de spiteits finding tha t Fe rguson wa s una

b le to pa y a fine . The gove rnm e nt c onc e de s tha

t no fineshould beim

pose d in this c a se . S

e e U.S.S.G. § 5E1.2(a). Ac c ordingly , we va c ate the fine a s ora lly im pose d a nd hold tha

t the c orre c te d writte n judgm e nt, whic h wa ive s a ll fine s, sha ll c o ntrol. AFFIRM E D in par t; V ACAT E D in par t.
1 3
- 5 0 5 5 4 2
Katherine B. ROBINSON, et al., petitioners, v. CHESAPEAKE BANK OF MARYLAND, et al.

No. 17-7575.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 2, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied.
# L_2009177EN.01000702.xml

| 8.7.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 177/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.7.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 177/7

---

Notice concerning the application between the European Community and the Swiss Confederation of the Cooperation Agreement between the European Community and its Member States, of the one part, and the Swiss Confederation, of the other part, to combat fraud and any other illegal activity to the detriment of their financial interests, by virtue of Article 44(3) of the Agreement

The Cooperation Agreement between the European Community and its Member States, of the one part, and the Swiss Confederation, of the other part, to combat fraud and any other illegal activity to the detriment of their financial interests (1), which the Council decided to conclude on 18 December 2008
   (2), is applicable between the European Community and the Swiss Confederation, by virtue of Article 44(3) of the Agreement, since 8 April 2009.

1

2

---

(1)  
  OJ L 46, 17.2.2009, p. 8.

1

(2)  
  OJ L 46, 17.2.2009, p. 6.

2

---
Release:#3885-96

For Release:January 4, 1996

CFTC FILES ENFORCEMENT ACTION AGAINST ROBERT A. BESNER AND NEW FOREST
    CAPITAL MANAGEMENT CHARGING FRAUD AND MISAPPROPRIATION

Illinois Judge Enters Ex Parte Order Freezing the Defendants' Assets
    and Protecting Books and Records; at Least $2.2 Million of Investors' Funds
    are Allegedly Missing

WASHINGTON - The Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) today filed
    a five-count injunctive complaint in the U.S. District Court for the
    Northern District of Illinois against Robert A. Besner and New
    Forest Capital Management, Inc., both of Northbrook, Illinois. Besner,
    who is registered as an associated person (AP), is also president of New
    Forest, which is a registered commodity trading advisor (CTA).

The CFTC civil complaint charges that from August 1994 to the present
    Besner and New Forest violated the anti-fraud, conversion, and registration
    provisions of the Commodity Exchange Act (CEA) and engaged in CTA
    fraud.

Today Senior U.S. District Judge John A. Nordberg entered an ex
    parte restraining order freezing the defendants' assets and prohibiting
    them from destroying books and records and from denying CFTC
    representatives access to their books and records. The court also ordered
    the defendants to appear for a hearing on January 16 on the CFTC's motion
    for a temporary restraining order.

CFTC Alleges that the Defendants Cheated and Defrauded Commodity
    Futures Customers, Converted Customer Funds, and Fabricated Account
    Statements

Specifically, the complaint charges that Besner and New Forest cheated
    and defrauded investors by misappropriating and converting customer funds,
    and making misrepresentations and issuing false reports and statements to
    investors. They allegedly misrepresented to investors that funds in
    commodity accounts opened in their names would be used to trade commodity
    futures, that profits had been made in the accounts, and that their
    accounts had certain balances. The defendants accepted at least $2.7
    million from investors, $2.2 million of which is unaccounted for, the CFTC
    complaint alleges.

In its continuing litigation against the defendants, the CFTC is seeking
    preliminary and permanent injunctions, in addition to other remedial
    relief, including an accounting, disgorgement, rescission, and restitution.
    The complaint also seeks a civil monetary penalty against each defendant of
    $100,000, or triple the monetary gains to the defendant, whichever is
    greater, for each violation of the CEA or CFTC regulations.

# # #
---

---

EXHIBIT 12.2

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF
FINANCIAL OFFICER

I, Danny Lustiger,
certify that:

1.    
          I have reviewed this annual report on Form 20-F of Optibase Ltd.;

2.    
          Based on my knowledge, this 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 report;

3.    
          Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information
          included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial
          condition, results of operations and cash flows of the company as of, and for,
          the periods presented in this report;

4.    
          The companys other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for
          establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in
          Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the company and have:

a.       
          designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure
          controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that
          material information relating to the company, including its consolidated
          subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly
          during the period in which this report is being prepared;

b.       
          evaluated the effectiveness of the companys disclosure controls and
          procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness
          of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered
          by this report based on such evaluation; and

c.       
          disclosed in this report any change in the companys internal control over
          financial reporting that occurred during the period covered by the annual report
          that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the
          companys internal control over financial reporting; and

5.    
          The companys other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on
          our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the
          companys auditors and the audit committee of companys board of
          directors (or persons performing the equivalent function):

a.       
          all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation
          of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to
          adversely affect the company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 have a significant role in the companys internal control over
          financial reporting.

Date: May 14, 2007

/s/ Danny Lustiger
Danny Lustiger
Chief Financial Officer



---

---