alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2007166EN.01002701.xml

| 20.7.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 166/27 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.7.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 166/27

---

Statement issued by the French delegation on the occasion of the Council Decision authorising the Presidency to sign the draft reply to the letter from the US Secretary of the Treasury regarding access to SWIFT data

(2007/C 166/11)

The French delegation has requested that the following statement be entered in the minutes of the Council adopting the abovementioned ‘A’ item, and that it be published in the Official Journal of the European Union (‘C’ series):

Official Journal of the European Union

‘France accepts the signature by the Presidency of the Council of the letter referred to in 10741/07 JAI 319 ECOFIN 270 ADD 1 REV 1 RESTREINT UE, insofar as the Commission and the Council Legal Service confirm (see DS 568/2/07 REV 2 and 10908/07) that the commitments by the US authorities, SWIFT's compliance with Safe Harbour principles, and the procedure followed by the Commission and the Council will ensure that Community provisions on data protection are complied with. The French delegation stresses the role which will fall to the eminent European in checking that the US authorities' undertakings are carried out, and considers that Coreper must be kept closely informed of the proper performance of that mission.’

The Council is therefore invited to decide that this statement should be published in Official Journal of the European Union (‘C’ series), together with the texts referred to in paragraph 3 of 11039/07 JAI 341 ECOFIN 287.

Official Journal of the European Union

---
CHRISTOPHER M. CHARLES

,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA

,

Appellee

. IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D 17

- 1645

_ ____________________________/

Opinion filed August 16, 2017.

An appeal from the Circuit Court for Duval County

. Russell L. Healey , Judge

.

Christopher M. Charles, pro se

, Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee , for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

B.L. THOMAS, C.J., and WOLF and WINOKUR, JJ., CONCUR.
Exhibit 99.1



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 Indevus Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (the
Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended December 31, 2002 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Glenn L. Cooper, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. section 1350, as adopted pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge: (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.



By:

/S/    GLENN L. COOPERChief Executive OfficerMay 13, 2003
**Exhibit 99.2**

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

In connection with the Quarterly Report of ACTV,  Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q/A for the period ending June 30,  2002 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof  (the “Report”), I, Christopher C. Cline, Chief Financial Officer of  the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant  to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

| 1)     |   | The Report fully complies with the requirements      of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and                                    |
|--------|--------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   |   |                                                                                                                                                          |
| 2)     |   | The information contained in the Report fairly      presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of      operations of the Company. |

 

By: /s/ Christopher C. Cline  Name: Christopher C. Cline  Title: Chief Financial Officer

----
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

MDG DOWNINGTOWN, L.P.,

Respondent

v.

MATTHEW KANAPESKY,

Petitioner :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 623 MAL 2022

Petition for Allowance of Appeal

from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 13th day of July, 2023

, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is

DENIED

.
Tavares J. WRIGHT, petitioner, v. FLORIDA.

No. 17-5575.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 16, 2017.

On petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Florida. Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed *in forma pauperis* and petition for writ of certiorari granted. Judgment vacated, and case remanded to the Supreme Court of Florida for further consideration in light of *Moore v. Texas,* 581 U.S. ----, 137 S.Ct. 1039, 197 L.Ed.2d 416 (2017).
I 

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 4203 

To amend title 18, United States Code, to strengthen enforcement of spousal 

court-ordered property distributions, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

AUGUST 23, 2019 

Mr. COSTA (for himself, Mr. OLSON, Mrs. LESKO, and Ms. ESCOBAR) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To amend title 18, United States Code, to strengthen enforcement of spousal court-ordered property distributions, 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 ‘‘Jane’s Law’’. 

5 SEC. 2. SPOUSAL OBLIGATIONS. 

6 (a) IN GENERAL.—Chapter 11A of title 18, United 

7 States Code, is amended by adding at the end the fol8 lowing: 


jbell on DSK3GLQ082PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 4203 IH

1 ‘‘§ 228A. Failure to pay legal spousal court-ordered 

2 property distribution 

3 ‘‘(a) OFFENSE.—Whoever knowingly, travels in inter4 state or foreign commerce, with the intent to evade compli5 ance with a court ordered property distribution as part 

6 of a separation or divorce settlement involving more than 

7 $5,000, with respect to a spouse or former spouse, shall 

8 be fined under this title or imprisoned for not more than 

9 two years or both. 

10 ‘‘(b) MANDATORY RESTITUTION.—Upon a conviction 

11 under this section, the court shall order restitution under 

12 section 3663A in an amount equal to the total unpaid 

13 property distribution. 

14 ‘‘(c) DEFINITION.—The term ‘court ordered property 

15 distribution’ means any amount determined under a court 

16 order pursuant to the law of a State or of an Indian tribe 

17 to be due from a spouse or former spouse as an equitable 

18 or other distribution to a spouse or former spouse of assets 

19 in connection with a separation or divorce.’’. 

20 (b) CLERICAL AMENDMENTS.— 

21 (1) TABLE OF SECTIONS.—The table of sections 

22 at the beginning of chapter 11A of title 18, United 

23 States Code, is amended by adding at the end the 

24 following new item: 

‘‘228A. Failure to pay legal spousal court-ordered property distribution.’’. 


jbell on DSK3GLQ082PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 4203 IH

1 (2) TABLE OF CHAPTERS.—The item in the 

2 table of chapters for part I of title 18, United States 

3 Code, relating to chapter 11A is amended to read as 

4 follows: 

‘‘11A. Child support and spousal obligations ......................... 228’’. 

Æ 


jbell on DSK3GLQ082PROD with BILLS
# L_2005268EN.01002301.xml

| 13.10.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 268/23 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.10.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 268/23

---

DECISION OF THE EEA JOINT COMMITTEE No 87/2005

of 10 June 2005

amending Annex XXII (Company law) 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 XXII to the Agreement was amended by Decision of the EEA Joint Committee No 71/2005 of 29 April 2005 (1). |
| --- | --- |

(1)

Annex XXII to the Agreement was amended by Decision of the EEA Joint Committee No 71/2005 of 29 April 2005 (1).

| (2) | Commission Regulation (EC) No 211/2005 of 4 February 2005 amending Regulation (EC) No 1725/2003 adopting certain international accounting standards in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1606/2002 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS) 1 and 2 and International Accounting Standards (IASs) No 12, 16, 19, 32, 33, 38 and 39 (2) is to be incorporated into the Agreement, |
| --- | --- |

(2)

Commission Regulation (EC) No 211/2005 of 4 February 2005 amending Regulation (EC) No 1725/2003 adopting certain international accounting standards in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1606/2002 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS) 1 and 2 and International Accounting Standards (IASs) No 12, 16, 19, 32, 33, 38 and 39 (2) is to be incorporated into the Agreement,

HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:

Article 1

The following indent shall be added in point 10ba (Commission Regulation (EC) No 1725/2003) of Annex XXII to the Agreement:

| ‘— | 32005 R 0211: Commission Regulation (EC) No 211/2005 of 4 February 2005 (OJ L 41, 11.2.2005, p. 1).’ |
| --- | --- |

‘—

32005 R 0211: Commission Regulation (EC) No 211/2005 of 4 February 2005 (OJ L 41, 11.2.2005, p. 1).’

Article 2

The texts of Regulation (EC) No 211/2005 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 20 days after its adoption, 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 June 2005.

For the EEA Joint Committee

The President

Richard WRIGHT

---

(1)  
  OJ L 239, 15.9.2005, p. 62.

1

(2)  
  OJ L 41, 11.2.2005, p. 1.

2

(*1)  No constitutional requirements indicated.

*1

---
# Fourth Court of Appeals **San Antonio, Texas**

MEMORANDUM OPINION

N o. 04

- 14

- 00540

- CV

Levi and Michelle MCKENZIE
, Appellants

v. COMMUNITY COMMUNITY NATIONAL BANK
, Appellee
From the 38th Judicial District Court, Medina County, Texas Trial Court No. 13

- 05

- 21843

- CV The Honorable Camile G. Dubose, Judge Presiding

PER CURIAM
Sitting: Karen Angelini, Justice Sandee Bryan Marion, Justice Marialyn Barnard, Justice

Delivered and Filed: October 29, 2014

DIS MISSED
Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 5 provides the following:
A party who is not excused by statute or these rules from paying costs must pay

— at the time an item is presented for filing

— whatever fees are required by statute or Supreme Court order. The appellate court may enforce t his rule by any order that is just.

T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 5.
Because Appellant s Levi and Michelle McKenzie failed to pay the filing fee in this appeal,

on August 28, 2014 , we ordered appellant s to either (1) pay the applicable filing fee or (2) provide

writt en proof to this court that they are excused by statute or these rules from paying the filing fee.04

- 14

- 00540

- CV

See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 20.1 (providing that party who qualifies as indigent under Rule 20 may proceed
without advance payment of costs). We warned that if appellant s failed to respond by September

8, 2014 , this appeal would be dismissed. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 42.3(c).
Appellant s , however, failed to pay the filing fee or provide written proof that they are
excused from paying the filing fee by the date ordered. We, therefore, dismiss this appeal. See id.

PER CURIAM

- 2

-
Order entered July 20, 2018

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-16-00534-CV

KELLY D. HOLLINGSWORTH, ET AL., Appellants

V.

WALAAL CORPORATION D/B/A AMBASSADOR CAB, ET AL., Appellees

On Appeal from the 134th Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. DC-14-03638

ORDER

Before the Court is appellees’ July 18, 2018 unopposed motion seeking a sixty-day 

extension of time to file a brief. We GRANT the motion to the extent that appellees shall file a 

brief by August 20, 2018.

/s/ ADA BROWN 

JUSTICE
```
  
 
WHEAT - KANSAS CITY BOARD OF TRADE                                   Code-001612
OPTION AND FUTURES COMBINED POSITIONS AS OF 04/14/09          |
--------------------------------------------------------------| NONREPORTABLE
      NON-COMMERCIAL      |   COMMERCIAL    |      TOTAL      |   POSITIONS
--------------------------|-----------------|-----------------|-----------------
  Long  | Short  |Spreads |  Long  | Short  |  Long  | Short  |  Long  | Short
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(CONTRACTS OF 5,000 BUSHELS)                         OPEN INTEREST:       87,801
COMMITMENTS
  23,523    8,434   11,902   35,019   44,443   70,444   64,779   17,357   23,022

CHANGES FROM 04/07/09 (CHANGE IN OPEN INTEREST:      1,264)
     -67      594    1,125    1,093      -95    2,151    1,625     -888     -361

PERCENT OF OPEN INTEREST FOR EACH CATEGORY OF TRADER
    26.8      9.6     13.6     39.9     50.6     80.2     73.8     19.8     26.2

NUMBER OF TRADERS IN EACH CATEGORY (TOTAL TRADERS:      134)
      38       19       27       61       58      112       94
```

----

Updated April 17, 2009
I 

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 418 

To authorize the State of Utah to select certain lands that are available 

for disposal under the Pony Express Resource Management Plan to 

be used for the support and benefit of State institutions, and for other 

purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 9, 2019 

Mr. STEWART introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Natural Resources 

A BILL 

To authorize the State of Utah to select certain lands that 

are available for disposal under the Pony Express Resource Management Plan to be used for the support 

and benefit of State institutions, 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 ‘‘Confirming State Land 

5 Grants for Education Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION. 

7 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subject to valid existing rights, 

8 the State of Utah may select any lands in T6S and T7S, 


pbinns on DSK79D2C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 418 IH

1 R1W, Salt Lake Base and Meridian, that are owned by 

2 the United States, under the administrative jurisdiction 

3 of the Bureau of Land Management, and identified as 

4 available for disposal by land exchange in the Record of 

5 Decision for the Pony Express Resource Management 

6 Plan and Rangeland Program Summary for Utah County 

7 (January 1990), as amended by the Pony Express Plan 

8 Amendment (November 1997), in fulfillment of the land 

9 grants made in sections 6, 8, and 12 of the Act of July 

10 16, 1894 (28 Stat. 107) as generally depicted on the map 

11 entitled ‘‘Proposed Utah County Quantity Grants’’ and 

12 dated June 27, 2017, to further the purposes of the State 

13 of Utah School and Institutional Trust Lands Administra14 tion, without further land use planning action by the Bu15 reau of Land Management. 

16 (b) APPLICATION.—The criteria listed in Decision 3 

17 of the Lands Program of the resource management plan 

18 described in subsection (a) shall not apply to any land se19 lected under subsection (a). 

20 (c) EFFECT ON LIMITATION.—Nothing in this Act af21 fects the limitation established under section 2815(d) of 

22 the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 

23 2000 (Public Law 106–65). 

Æ 


pbinns on DSK79D2C42PROD with BILLS
Pursuant to 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5 , the court has determined that this opinionshould not * be publishe d and is not precedent except under the limited circu mstance s set forth in 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5 .4. 

### INTHE UNI TED S TATESCOU RT OFAPPEALS

FORTHE FIFTH CIRCU IT

N o. 08- 50801 Su m m ar y Cal endar UN I TE D S TA TE S OF AM ERI CA P l ai n t i f f- A pp el l ee v. JO A Q U IN H E R N A N D E Z - H O LG U I N , a l s okno w n as Joaqu i n AH erna n dez, al so kn ow n as M au ri ci o R am i rez- H erna n dez D e fe nda nt - Appe l l ant

A pp ealf

rom t h e U n i t ed S t ates D i st ri ctC ou rt f or t h e W est ernD i st ri ctof T exas U SDC N o . 3 : 0 8 - CR- 0 0 8 5 9 - ALL B e fo r e J O L L Y , B E N AV ID E S , a n dH AY N E S , C ir c u it J u d g e s . P E R C U R IA M: * Joaq u i n H erna n dez-H ol gu i n ( H erna n dez) ap pea l s the 30 - m on t h sentence im p o s e dfo llo w in gh is g u iltyp le a co n v ic tio n fo rille g a l re e n tr ya fte rre m o v a l in vi ol ati on of

8 U . S . C . § 1326 . H e contends that hi s s en t en ce i s not en t i t l ed to a p r e s u mp t i o n o f

r e a s o n a b l e n e s s b e c a u s e i twa s c a l c u l a t e dp u r s u a n tt o U. S . S . G. § 2L 1. 2, w h i ch h e argu es i s not sup ported by em pi ri calevi den ce. H e f u rt h er United States Court of App eals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D May 29, 2009 Cha rl es R. F ulb ru g e II I ClerkN o. 08- 50801

2 c o n te n d s th a t h is s e n te n c e w a s g r e a te r th a n n e c e s s a r yto a c c o m p lis h th e g o a ls o f s e n te n c in glis te din 1 8 U .S .C . § 3 5 5 3 (a )(2 ). H erna n dez’ s c on t en t i on t h at hi s s en t en ce i s n oten t i t l ed to a presu m pti on of r eas onabl enes s bec ause t he r el evant gui del i ne i s nots upport ed byem pi r i c al e v id e n c e is w ith o u t m e r it. Se eUni t e d St at e s v . Mo ndr ago n- Sant i ag o, F . 3d

, 2 0 0 9 W L 7 8 2 8 9 4 , * 9 (5 th C ir . M a r . 2 6 , 2 0 0 9 ). H e r n a n d e z ’ s s e n te n c e is p r e s u m p tiv e lyre a s o n a b le . S ee Un i t ed S t ate s v. A lon zo, 4 3 5 F . 3 d55 1 , 55 4 ( 5 th C i r. 2006) . M or eo ver , t he di st r i c tc our taddr es se d t he fac t or s se toutat 18 U . S. C. § 355 3( a) w he n i m po s i ng hi s se nt e nc e . H e r nand e z ha s fail e d t o r e but t h e presum pti on of

reasonab l en ess. AF F I RMED.
Eliseo LOPEZ-DOMINGUEZ, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 17-6594.

Supreme Court of the United States

Dec. 4, 2017.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied.
Billy R. MELOT, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 16-9687.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 2, 2017.

Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed *in forma pauperis* denied, and petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit dismissed. See Rule 39.8.
Robin M. SIMS, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 17-5297.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 2, 2017.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit denied.
N OTE : This o rder is non precedential. 

# United States **Court of Appeals**  **for the Federal Circuit**

______________________ MARK C. JACKSON, Appellant,

v.

UNITED STATES, Appellee.

______________________

2014

- 5121

______________________ Appeal from the United States Court of Federal Claims in No. 1:14

- cv

- 00277

- NBF, Judge Nancy B. Fir estone.

______________________

ON MOTION

______________________

P ER C URIAM

.

O R D E R

Mark C. Jackson files a motion for “Order of Redress.” To the extent that Jackson is arguing the merits of his appeal, those arguments belong in his briefs

. Accordingly

, I T I S O RDERED T HAT : Case: 14-5121 Document: 13 Page: 1 Filed: 09/25/2014JACKSON v. US 2

The motion is denied.

F OR THE C OURT

/s/ Daniel E. O’Toole Daniel E. O’Toole Clerk of Court

s26 Case: 14-5121 Document: 13 Page: 2 Filed: 09/25/2014
Richard Lavonte BLANKS, Sr., petitioner, v. Richard J. GRAHAM, Jr., Warden, et al.

No. 17-6006.

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.
II-00934

From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

Marj Woodruff <maj awo@earthlink, net>

Thursday, December 2, 2010 9:54 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.

Marj Woodruff

1237 n maplewood

Chicago, IL 60622
Lonnie SNELLING, petitioner, v. Jesse WOODFIN, et al.

No. 17-1329.

Supreme Court of the United States

May 29, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals of Missouri, Eastern District denied.