alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
The HONORABLE EDWARD L. FILIPPINE, United States Distric t 1 Judge for the Eastern District of Missouri, who adopted the Report andRecommendation of the HONORABLE LAWRENCE O. DAVIS, Unite d States Magistrate Judge for the Eastern District of Missouri.



## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 96-2050

___________ Michael Williams, * * Petitioner - Appellant, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * Eastern District of Missouri. Mike Bowersox, * * [UNPUBLISHED] Respondent - Appellee. *

___________ Submitted: January 13, 1997 Filed: March 4, 1997

___________ Before LOKEN, BRIGHT, and MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. Michael Williams was convicted of first degree murder after he entereda home in which three adults and numerous children wer e present and shot Kevin Clark, who had reneged on a drug debt. The Missouri Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction and the de nial of post-c onvictionrelief. State v. Williams , 853 S.W.2d 371 (Mo . App. 1993). Williams then filed this petition for a writ of habeas corpus, presenting eight claims that he had previously prese nted to th e state courts. The district court denied the petition, an d 1 Williams appeals. We affirm.-2--3-

On appeal, Williams first argues that the trial record doe s no t reflect that he knowingly and intelligently waived hi s constitutional right to testif y in his own defense. This issue is procedurally defaulted, as it was in El-Tabech v. Hopkins , 9 97 F.2d 386, 389 (8th Cir. 1993). Williams only raised in the state courts and in the district court the claim that he was denied his r ight to effect ive assistance of counsel because counsel failed to infor m Willia ms of his right to testify and failed to call him as a witness. The state courts found that Williams knew of his r ight to testify and, following counsel's advice, decided not to do so.
Williams next contends (I) that he was denied the right t o offer testimony in his defense when the trial court excluded tw o wit nesses who had not been timely endorsed as defense witnesses , and (ii) that trial counsel wa s ineffective for failing to endorse these witnesses. Properly deferring to the fact-finding of th e state courts, the Magistrate J udge concluded that the exclusion of the se witnesses did not deny Williams a fundamentally fair tria l because "[t]heir testimony would have been dubious at best an d co mpletelycollateral to the question of petitioner's guilt o r innoce nce," and that trial counsel's failure to endorse resulte d fro mher "strategic decision to not call these witnesses becaus e she found their testimony unbelievable." Having carefully r eviewed the trial and post-conviction record, we reject these contentions for the re asons given by the state courts and by the distric t court. See 8th Cir. Rule 47B. The judgment of the district court is affirmed.
A true copy.

Attest:-4- CLERK, U. S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
# L_2010332EN.01005001.xml

| 16.12.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 332/50 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.12.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 332/50

---

DECISION OF THE EEA JOINT COMMITTEE

No 100/2010

of 1 October 2010

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 83/2010 of 2 July 2010 (1). |
| --- | --- |

(1)

Annex II to the Agreement was amended by Decision of the EEA Joint Committee No 83/2010 of 2 July 2010 (1).

| (2) | Commission Regulation (EU) No 178/2010 of 2 March 2010 amending Regulation (EC) No 401/2006 as regards groundnuts (peanuts), other oilseeds, tree nuts, apricot kernels, liquorice and vegetable oil (2) is to be incorporated into the Agreement. |
| --- | --- |

(2)

Commission Regulation (EU) No 178/2010 of 2 March 2010 amending Regulation (EC) No 401/2006 as regards groundnuts (peanuts), other oilseeds, tree nuts, apricot kernels, liquorice and vegetable oil (2) is to be incorporated into the Agreement.

| (3) | This Decision is not to apply to Liechtenstein, |
| --- | --- |

(3)

This Decision is not to apply to Liechtenstein,

HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:

Article 1

The following shall be added in point 54zzzl (Commission Regulation (EC) No 401/2006) of Chapter XII of Annex II to the Agreement:

‘, as amended by:

| — | 32010 R 0178: Commission Regulation (EU) No 178/2010 of 2 March 2010 (OJ L 52, 3.3.2010, p. 32).’. |
| --- | --- |

—

32010 R 0178: Commission Regulation (EU) No 178/2010 of 2 March 2010 (OJ L 52, 3.3.2010, p. 32).’.

Article 2

The text of Regulation (EU) No 178/2010 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 1 November 2010, 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, 1 October 2010.

For the EEA Joint Committee

The President

Stefán Haukur JÓHANNESSON

---

(1)  
  OJ L 277, 21.10.2010, p. 37.

1

(2)  
  OJ L 52, 3.3.2010, p. 32.

2

(*1)  No constitutional requirements indicated.

*1

---
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 with TriOptima
  
    



  Unique trading IDs; safeguarding anonymity
      
  When
              08/17/2010

  Rulemaking(s)
              XVIII. Real Time Reporting

  Organization(s)
              TriOptima


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
Release: #4074-97 (Civ. 97-CV-3141)

For Release: November 5, 1997

PENNSYLVANIA COURT ISSUES PERMANENT INJUNCTION
    AGAINST

ROBERT H. RUTMAN IN CFTC ANTI-FRAUD ENFORCEMENT
    ACTION,

EFFECTIVELY BARRING HIM FROM THE FUTURES
    INDUSTRY

WASHINGTON -- The Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) announced
    today that the Honorable Harvey Bartle, III of the U.S. District Court for
    the Eastern District of Pennsylvania entered a consent order of permanent
    injunction against Robert H. Rutman of Ambler, Pennsylvania, a
    defendant in a CFTC anti-fraud complaint filed on May 1, 1997 (CFTC News
    Release #4019-97, May 8, 1997).

The court's order of permanent injunction issued on October 30, 1997,
    finds that Rutman violated the anti-fraud, registration, and recordkeeping
    provisions of the Commodity Exchange Act (CEA) as charged and also
    prohibits further such violations of federal commodity law. The order also
    permanently prohibits Rutman from seeking or applying for registration with
    the CFTC in any capacity (or acting in any capacity that would require
    registration) and from trading on any futures exchange, either for himself
    or on behalf of others, effectively barring him from the futures
    industry.

The CFTC charged Rutman with fraudulently soliciting at least one
    customer, acting in an unregistered capacity, commingling customer funds
    with his own, and failing to provide required risk disclosure statements,
    transaction confirmations, and account statements, among other violations
    of the CEA and CFTC regulations. The court previously entered a consent
    preliminary injunction against Rutman on June 25, 1997.
# Fourth Court of Appeals
**San Antonio, Texas**

August 15, 2019

No. 04

- 19

- 00226

- CR

Jose Trinidad GONZALEZ

, Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas, Appellee

F rom the 226th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas Trial Court No. 2018CR0458 The Honorable Velia J. Meza, Judge Presiding



### ORDER

T he reporter’s r ecord was due to be filed with this court on July 29 , 2019

. See T EX

. R.

A PP

. P. 35.1. On August 9 , 2019

, court reporter David R. Zarate filed a notification of late
record

. H e advised the court that he has been unable to complete the record because of the size
of the record and his other duties. He estimate s the size of the record to be 1,500 pages and
request s an extension of time to file the record until October 11, 2019.

T he reporter’s request for an extension of time to file the reporter’s record is GRANTED

IN PART. See id. R. 35.3(c) (limiting an extension in a regular appeal to thirty days). The reporter’s record is due on August 28, 2019. See id.

If the reporter’s record is not filed with this court by August 28, 2019, any requests for additional time to file the record must be accompanied by a signed, written status report. The report must describe the transcript by day with the date, description, page counts, and remarks for each day. The page counts must include the total number of pages, the number of pages edited, proofread, and formatted into the required electronic form (including bookmarks). The report may describe any unusual aspects of the rec ord. The report must describe any problems the court reporter reasonably believes may delay the completion of the record beyond the extended date. A preferred form for the status report, with an accompanying example, is
attached to this order.______ ___________________________ Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said court on this 15th day of August, 2019

.

___________________________________ KEITH E. HOTTLE

, Clerk of Court
# L_2006147EN.01003601.xml

| 1.6.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 147/36 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.6.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 147/36

---

DECISION OF THE EEA JOINT COMMITTEE

No 23/2006

of 10 March 2006

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 115/2005 of 30 September 2005 (1). |
| --- | --- |

(1)

Annex II to the Agreement was amended by Decision of the EEA Joint Committee No 115/2005 of 30 September 2005 (1).

| (2) | Council Regulation (EC) No 1567/2005 of 20 September 2005 amending Regulation (EEC) No 2092/91 on organic production of agricultural products and indications referring thereto on agricultural products and foodstuffs (2) is to be incorporated into the Agreement, |
| --- | --- |

(2)

Council Regulation (EC) No 1567/2005 of 20 September 2005 amending Regulation (EEC) No 2092/91 on organic production of agricultural products and indications referring thereto on agricultural products and foodstuffs (2) is to be incorporated into the Agreement,

HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:

Article 1

The following indent shall be added in point 54b (Council Regulation (EEC) No 2092/91) of Chapter XII of Annex II to the Agreement:

| ‘— | 32005 R 1567: Council Regulation (EC) No 1567/2005 of 20 September 2005 (OJ L 252, 28.9.2005, p. 1).’ |
| --- | --- |

‘—

32005 R 1567: Council Regulation (EC) No 1567/2005 of 20 September 2005 (OJ L 252, 28.9.2005, p. 1).’

Article 2

The texts of Regulation (EC) No 1567/2005 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 11 March 2006, 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, 10 March 2006.

For the EEA Joint Committee

The President

R. WRIGHT

---

(1)  
  OJ L 339, 22.12.2005, p. 16.

1

(2)  
  OJ L 252, 28.9.2005, p. 1.

2

(*1)  No constitutional requirements indicated.

*1

---
SAS INSTITUTE INC., petitioner, v. Joseph MATAL, Interim Director, United States Patent and Trademark Office, et al.

No. 16-969.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 10, 2017.

Motion of respondent ComplementSoft, LLC for divided argument denied.
Jonathan COBB, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 17-5847.

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.
# L_2005239EN.01004201.xml

| 15.9.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 239/42 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.9.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 239/42

---

DECISION OF THE EEA JOINT COMMITTEE No 61/2005

of 29 April 2005

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 8/2005 of 8 February 2005 (1). |
| --- | --- |

(1)

Annex II to the Agreement was amended by Decision of the EEA Joint Committee No 8/2005 of 8 February 2005 (1).

| (2) | Commission Regulation (EC) No 2076/2004 of 3 December 2004 adapting for the first time Annex I of Regulation (EC) No 2003/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council relating to fertilisers (EDDHSA and triple superphosphate) (2) is to be incorporated into the Agreement, |
| --- | --- |

(2)

Commission Regulation (EC) No 2076/2004 of 3 December 2004 adapting for the first time Annex I of Regulation (EC) No 2003/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council relating to fertilisers (EDDHSA and triple superphosphate) (2) is to be incorporated into the Agreement,

HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:

Article 1

The following shall be added in point 1 (Regulation (EC) No 2003/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council) of Chapter XIV of Annex II to the Agreement:

‘, as amended by:

| — | 32004 R 2076: Commission Regulation (EC) No 2076/2004 of 3 December 2004 (OJ L 359, 4.12.2004, p. 25).’ |
| --- | --- |

—

32004 R 2076: Commission Regulation (EC) No 2076/2004 of 3 December 2004 (OJ L 359, 4.12.2004, p. 25).’

Article 2

The text of Regulation (EC) No 2076/2004 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 30 April 2005, 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, 29 April 2005.

For the EEA Joint Committee

The President

Richard WRIGHT

---

(1)  
  OJ L 161, 23.6.2005, p. 17.

1

(2)  
  OJ L 359, 4.12.2004, p. 25.

2

(*1)  No constitutional requirements indicated.

*1

---
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

LORENZO LOPEZ,

 Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

 Appellee.

§

§

§

§

§

§ 

No. 08-17-00033-CR

Appeal from the

County Court at Law No. 7 

of El Paso County, Texas 

(TC#20150C06037) 

J U D G M E N T

The Court has considered this cause on the record and concludes there was error in the 

judgment. We therefore reverse the conviction and remand the cause for new trial, in accordance 

with the opinion of the Court. This decision shall be certified below for observance.

IT IS SO ORDERED THIS 29TH DAY OF MAY, 2019.

YVONNE T. RODRIGUEZ, Justice

Before McClure, C.J., Rodriguez, and Palafox, JJ.
Talanivalu Ygnacio OLOTOA, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 17-7344.

Supreme Court of the United States

Feb. 20, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.
Jovan HOWARD, petitioner, v. FLORIDA.

No. 16-8362.

Supreme Court of the United States

July 17, 2017.

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

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                       7,959,477
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  188,519
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             8,147,996
<PP&E>                                      50,631,214
<DEPRECIATION>                              36,304,391
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              22,474,819
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        6,321,430
<BONDS>                                      3,581,414
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                  12,571,975
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                22,474,819
<SALES>                                      4,019,900
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             4,701,746
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             4,184,351
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             198,239
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                319,156
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            319,156
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   319,156
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
Bradley Joseph STEIGER, petitioner, v. ALABAMA.

No. 17-5652.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 30, 2017.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Alabama denied.
EXHIBIT 31.1



CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER PURSUANT TO

EXCHANGE ACT RULE 15d-14(a)

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 302

OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



I, Russell S. Slack, President and Principal Executive Officer of IKON Receivables, LLC, the senior officer in charge of securitization of the
depositor/the senior officer in charge of the servicing function of the servicer, certify that:



1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K/A of IKON Receivables, LLC; and all reports containing distribution information filed in respect of
periods included in the year covered by this annual report;



2.
To the best of my knowledge, the information in these reports, taken as a whole, 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;



3. To the
best of my knowledge, the financial information required to be provided to the trustee by the servicer under the governing documents of the issuer is included in these reports; and



4. Except as disclosed in these reports, the servicer has fulfilled its servicing obligations and minimum servicing
standards.



Date: February 6, 2004



|                                         
|-----------------------------------------
|/s/    RUSSELL S. SLACK                  
|Russell S. Slack                         
|President and Principal Executive Officer