alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**Release: #4184-98****For Release: August 27, 1998**

**U.S. District Court for the
    Northern District of Alabama Enters Consent Order of Preliminary Injunction
    Against Two Defendants in Alabama Commodity Pool Fraud
    Case**

The Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) announced today that
    defendants **James Michael Hanks** (Hanks) and **Financial Planning Alliance International** (FPAI), two defendants
    in *CFTC v. The ChateauForte Consortium, Inc. et. al.* (Case No.
    CV-98-N-1755-S), without admitting or denying the allegations of the
    Commission's complaint against them, have consented to a preliminary
    injunction barring them from violating the antifraud and registration
    provisions of the Commodity Exchange Act (Act). Judge Edwin L. Nelson of
    the Northern District of Alabama signed the order on August 24, 1998.

The injunction stems from a five-count complaint filed by the Commission
    in the Northern District of Alabama on July 7, 1998 (see CFTC News Release
    #4166-98, July 13, 1998). The complaint alleged that **Hanks**
    and **FPAI** participated with other defendants in soliciting
    Alabama residents to invest at least $3.4 million in **The Millennium
    Fund**, an unregistered commodity pool. The complaint alleged
    antifraud violations, misappropriation of customer funds, unregistered
    activity, and various reporting and recordkeeping violations of the Act
    against **Hanks**, **FPAI**, **The
    ChateauForte Consortium, Inc.**, **WorldEx, S.A.**,
    **John La Tourette**, **Dr. Richard E. Busch**,
    and **William E. Amos**. The preliminary injunction leaves in
    place Judge Nelson's earlier order freezing assets, preserving records, and
    appointing a receivership over all the named defendants, including **Hanks** and **FPAI**.

In the pending litigation, the CFTC seeks an order permanently enjoining
    the defendants from violations of the Act, requiring the defendants to make
    an accounting, and requiring the defendants to disgorge profits, to make
    restitution to defrauded customers, and to pay civil fines not exceeding
    $110,000 per violation ($100,000 for violations before November 27, 1996)
    or triple the monetary gain to the defendants.
# C_2010011EN.01004202.xml

| 16.1.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 11/42 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.1.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 11/42

---

Action brought on 9 November 2009 — Nikolchov v Commission

(Case F-94/09)

2010/C 11/81

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Vladimir Nikolchov (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: B. Lemal, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission

Defendant:

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Annulment of the decision of 29 July 2009 of the appointing authority refusing to grant daily allowances to the applicant, following his recruitment as a probationary official on 16 January 2009.

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | declare that this action is formally admissible; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare that this action is formally admissible;

| — | declare that an infringement occurred of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations and Article 10 of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations and of declare that there has been an infringement of the Commission decision of 15 April 2004 adopting the General implementing provisions for giving effect to Article 7(3) thereof; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare that an infringement occurred of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations and Article 10 of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations and of declare that there has been an infringement of the Commission decision of 15 April 2004 adopting the General implementing provisions for giving effect to Article 7(3) thereof;

| — | consequently, order the annulment of the decision of the appointing authority (No R/9/09) of 29 July 2009 dismissing the applicant’s complaint seeking the grant of daily allowances on the basis of his second entry into service, in accordance with the second indent of Article 10(2)(b) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations; |
| --- | --- |

—

consequently, order the annulment of the decision of the appointing authority (No R/9/09) of 29 July 2009 dismissing the applicant’s complaint seeking the grant of daily allowances on the basis of his second entry into service, in accordance with the second indent of Article 10(2)(b) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations;

| — | order the defendant to pay the applicant unpaid daily allowance totalling EUR 10 979,43, or any other amount fixed by the Tribunal, in addition to default interest from the date of bringing the complaint until the date of payment; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to pay the applicant unpaid daily allowance totalling EUR 10 979,43, or any other amount fixed by the Tribunal, in addition to default interest from the date of bringing the complaint until the date of payment;

| — | order the Commission of the European Communities to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission of the European Communities to pay the costs.

---
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 Annual Report of IA Global, Inc. (the "Company")
on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2003 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Alan Margerison,
Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350,
as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of
my knowledge, 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 result of operations of the
Company for the dates and periods covered by the Report.

         This certificate is being made for the exclusive purpose of compliance
by the Chief Executive Officer of the Company (or equivalent) with the
requirements of Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, and may not be
used by any person or for any reason other than as specifically required by law.


                                        /s/ Alan Margerison
                                        Alan Margerison
                                        President and Chief Executive Officer
                                        March 30, 2004
Robert C. MYERS, petitioner, v. MONTANA.

Robert C. Myers, petitioner, v. Montana; and Robert C. Myers, petitioner, v. Montana.

No. 17-1469.

Supreme Court of the United States

June 4, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Montana denied.
**Exhibit 31.1**
**FORM OF SECTION 302 CERTIFICATION**
I, Alfonso Romo Garza, certify that:
 1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of Seminis,Inc.;  2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untruestatement of a material fact or omit to state a material factnecessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstancesunder which such statements were made, not misleading with respect tothe period covered by this report;  3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and otherfinancial information included in this report, fairly present in allmaterial respects the financial condition, results of operations andcash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented inthis report;  4. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I areresponsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls andprocedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e))for the registrant and have:
 (a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures,or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to bedesigned under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including itsconsolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others withinthose entities, particularly during the period in which thisreport is being prepared;  (b) Designed such internal control over financialreporting, or caused such internal control over financialreporting to be designed under our supervision, to providereasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financialreporting and the preparation of financial statements forexternal purposes in accordance with generally acceptedaccounting principles;  (c) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’sdisclosure controls and procedures and presented in this reportour conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosurecontrols and procedures, as of the end of the period covered bythis report based on such evaluation; and  (d) Disclosed in this report any change in theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting thatoccurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter(the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of anannual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonablylikely to materially affect, the company’s internal controlover financial reporting;
 5. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I havedisclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal controlover financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the auditcommittee of registrant’s board of directors (or persons performingthe equivalent functions):
 (a) All significant deficiencies and materialweaknesses in the design or operation of internal control overfinancial reporting which are reasonably likely to adverselyaffect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarizeand report financial information; and  (b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involvesmanagement or other employees who have a significant role inthe registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.
Date: December 17, 2004    /s/ Alfonso Romo Garza  Alfonso Romo Garza Chief Executive Officer
Arthur Brennan MALLOY, petitioner, v. Dewayne ESTES, Warden, et al.

No. 16-8395.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 2, 2017.

Motion of petitioner for reconsideration of order denying leave to proceed *in forma pauperis* denied.
Joshua KELLY, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 17M129.

Supreme Court of the United States

June 18, 2018.

Motion for leave to file a petition for writ of certiorari with supplemental appendix under seal granted.
<Page>

                                                                   EXHIBIT 32.01

                           SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATIONS

In connection with this quarterly report of John W. Henry & Co./Millburn L.P.
(the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2005 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (this "Report"),
I, Robert M. Alderman, Chief Executive Officer, President and Manager of the
Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

1. This Report containing the financial statements 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 this Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.


Date: November 14, 2005
------------------------
By /s/ ROBERT M. ALDERMAN
   ----------------------
Robert M. Alderman
Chief Executive Officer, President and Manager
(Principal Executive Officer)
Saman KHOURY, petitioner, v. Robert M. SPEER, Acting Secretary of the Army.

No. 17-235.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 10, 2017.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit denied.
Exhibit 23.1
 
 
 INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS CONSENT
 
 
 The Board of Directors and Stockholders
 Audible, Inc.
 
 
 We consent to incorporation by reference in the registration statements (Nos. 333-91107 and 333-110210) on Form S-8, (No. 333-45470) on Form S-3 and (No. 333-85286) on Forms S-3 and S-3/A of Audible, Inc. of our report dated March 19, 2004, relating to the balance sheets of Audible, Inc. as of December 31, 2002 and 2003, and the related statements of operations, stockholders equity (deficit), and cash flows for each of the years in the three-year period ended December 31, 2003, which report appears in the December 31, 2003 annual report on Form 10-K of Audible, Inc.
 
 
 /s/ KPMG LLP
 
 Short Hills, New Jersey
 March 29, 2004
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: Meeting w/NextEra (via phone)
  
    



  When
              11/23/2010

  Rulemaking(s)
              II. Definitions

  CFTC Staff
              Chris Iacovella

  Visitor(s)
              Lawrence Silberstein

  Organization(s)
              NextEra


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
II-00709

From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

Noel Eaves <jeave@sbcglobal.net>

Thursday, December 2, 2010 12:15 PM

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.

Noel Eaves

18290 Stenberg Drive

Red Bluff, CA 96080
Michael Nelson CURRIER, petitioner, v. VIRGINIA.

No. 16-1348.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 16, 2017.

Petition for a writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Virginia granted.
Release: #4115-98 (CFTC Docket No. 98-7)

For Release: March 6, 1998

CFTC FILES SIX-COUNT ADMINISTRATIVE COMPLAINT AGAINST ABRAHAM AND
    SONS CAPITAL, INC., AND BRETT G. BRUBAKER OF COLORADO, ALLEGING THAT THE
    RESPONDENTS DEFRAUDED COMMODITY POOL CUSTOMERS

WASHINGTON -- The Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) announced
    the filing of a six-count anti-fraud administrative complaint against Abraham and Sons Capital, Inc. (ASC), an Illinois corporation located
    in Texas Creek, Colorado, and ASC's president and sole officer, Brett G.
    Brubaker (Brubaker), also of Texas Creek. Neither respondent has ever
    been registered with the CFTC.

The complaint, filed on March 5, 1998, alleges that ASC and Brubaker
    defrauded investors while acting as managing general partners of Abraham
    and Sons, Limited Partnership (Fund), a private commodity pool, which
    traded commodity futures contracts, among other things, and operated as a
    hedge fund.

Specifically, the complaint charges ASC and Brubaker with acting as
    commodity pool operators without being registered with the CFTC. From late
    1994 through the end of 1995, the Fund's value declined from approximately
    $12 million to $6.7 million, according to the complaint. Although this
    decline occurred steadily throughout 1995, it was not reported to investors
    until January 1996, and concealed in these losses were $3.2 million of
    losses in futures trading, the complaint charges.

ASC and Brubaker allegedly violated the anti-fraud provisions of the
    Commodity Exchange Act, by, among other things:

misrepresenting to investors the nature and amount of futures trading
    they would engage in for the Fund;

misrepresenting to investors the amount of money Brubaker had personally
    invested in the Fund;

engaging in speculative futures trading not allowed by the Fund's
    partnership agreement; and

willfully issuing false statements to investors concerning the
    profitability of all the trading done for, and the value of each
    participant's share in, the Fund.

The CFTC complaint further alleges that ASC and Brubaker failed to
    provide proper reports to the Fund's participants, failed to make and keep
    books and records in an accurate and orderly manner at its main business
    office, failed to provide Fund records to CFTC representatives upon
    request, and acted as commodity pool operators without being registered
    with the CFTC.

A public hearing has been ordered to determine whether the allegations
    are true, and, if so, what remedial sanctions, if any, are appropriate and
    in the public interest. Possible sanctions include cease and desist orders
    against the respondents, trading prohibitions, the imposition of civil
    penalties of up to $100,000 or triple the monetary gain to each respondent
    for each violation, and restitution to customers of damages proximately
    caused by the violations of the respondents.
<PAGE>   1
                                                                 Exhibit 10.3(R)


                                 EXHIBIT 10.3(R)

                     AMENDMENT DATED AS OF FEBRUARY 1, 2000
                    TO PROMISSORY NOTE DATED FEBRUARY 1, 1996
                          FROM H & L CONCEPTS, INC. TO
                                ROBERT M. FELDMAN




                                      -27-
<PAGE>   2


                      AMENDMENT OF COGNOVIT PROMISSORY NOTE

         The undersigned hereby agree to modify the Cognovit Promissory Note
dated February 1, 1996, from H & L Concepts, Inc. to Robert M. Feldman, a copy
of which is attached hereto, to extend the date for the commencement of payment
of principal and interest to February 1, 2001, with interest accrued through
December 31, 2000 being added to principal.

         All other terms of the note shall remain in full force and effect as
written.

February 1, 2000                      /s/Robert M. Feldman
                                      -------------------------------------
                                      ROBERT M. FELDMAN


                                      H & L CONCEPTS, INC., Maker


                                      By  /s/Burton Schildhouse
                                          ----------------------------------


                                      HEALTH & LEISURE, INC.,
                                      Guarantor

                                      By  /s/Burton Schildhouse
                                          ----------------------------------



                                      -28-
Edwin E. BELL, Jr., et ux., petitioners, v. DYCK-O'NEAL, INC.

No. 16-1122.

Supreme Court of the United States

July 17, 2017.

Petition for rehearing denied.