alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
```
 
 
VIX FUTURES - CBOE FUTURES EXCHANGE                                  Code-1170E1
FUTURES ONLY POSITIONS AS OF 02/09/10                         |
--------------------------------------------------------------| NONREPORTABLE
      NON-COMMERCIAL      |   COMMERCIAL    |      TOTAL      |   POSITIONS
--------------------------|-----------------|-----------------|-----------------
  LONG  | SHORT  |SPREADS |  LONG  | SHORT  |  LONG  | SHORT  |  LONG  | SHORT
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
($1000 X INDEX)                                      OPEN INTEREST:       48,999
COMMITMENTS
   3,881    4,910    5,898   31,711   31,721   41,490   42,529    7,509    6,470

CHANGES FROM 02/02/10 (CHANGE IN OPEN INTEREST:      1,039)
     140   -1,226      492      822    1,468    1,454      734     -415      305

PERCENT OF OPEN INTEREST FOR EACH CATEGORY OF TRADERS
     7.9     10.0     12.0     64.7     64.7     84.7     86.8     15.3     13.2

NUMBER OF TRADERS IN EACH CATEGORY (TOTAL TRADERS:       39)
      10        7       10       17       16       33       30
```

----

Updated February 7, 2010
### THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13

- 22

- 00558

- CR

THE STATE OF TEXAS

v. GERALD CASTRO

On Appeal from the 445th District Court of Cameron County , Texas Trial Court Cause No. 2022

- DHC

- 05206

JUDGMENT THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered th is cause on appeal, concludes the appeal should be dismissed as moot

. The Court orders the appeal DISMISSED AS MOOT in accordance with its opinion

. We further order this decision certified below for observance. February 9, 2023
# L_2013291EN.01000101.xml

| 31.10.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 291/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

31.10.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 291/1

---

DECISION OF THE EEA JOINT COMMITTEE

No 51/2013

of 3 May 2013

amending Annex I (Veterinary and phytosanitary matters) to the EEA Agreement

THE EEA JOINT COMMITTEE,

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

Whereas:

| (1) | Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 45/2012 of 19 January 2012 amending the Annex to Council Regulation (EC) No 21/2004 as regards the content of the movement documents (1) is to be incorporated into the EEA Agreement. |
| --- | --- |

(1)

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 45/2012 of 19 January 2012 amending the Annex to Council Regulation (EC) No 21/2004 as regards the content of the movement documents (1) is to be incorporated into the EEA Agreement.

| (2) | This Decision concerns legislation regarding veterinary matters. Legislation regarding veterinary matters shall not apply to Liechtenstein as long as the application of the Agreement between the European Community and the Swiss Confederation on trade in agricultural products is extended to Liechtenstein, as specified in the sectoral adaptations to Annex I to the EEA Agreement. This Decision is therefore not to apply to Liechtenstein. |
| --- | --- |

(2)

This Decision concerns legislation regarding veterinary matters. Legislation regarding veterinary matters shall not apply to Liechtenstein as long as the application of the Agreement between the European Community and the Swiss Confederation on trade in agricultural products is extended to Liechtenstein, as specified in the sectoral adaptations to Annex I to the EEA Agreement. This Decision is therefore not to apply to Liechtenstein.

| (3) | Annex I to the EEA Agreement should therefore be amended accordingly, |
| --- | --- |

(3)

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

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

Article 1

The following indent is added in point 7b (Council Regulation (EC) No 21/2004) in Part 1.1 of Chapter I of Annex I to the EEA Agreement:

| ‘— | 32012 R 0045: Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 45/2012 of 19 January 2012 (OJ L 17, 20.1.2012, p. 1).’ |
| --- | --- |

‘—

32012 R 0045: Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 45/2012 of 19 January 2012 (OJ L 17, 20.1.2012, p. 1).’

Article 2

The text of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 45/2012 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 4 May 2013, provided that all the notifications under Article 103(1) of the EEA Agreement have been made (*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, 3 May 2013.

For the EEA Joint Committee

The President

Gianluca GRIPPA

---

(1)  
  OJ L 17, 20.1.2012, p. 1.

1

(*1)  No constitutional requirements indicated.

*1

---
Demetrius Sharron DAVIS, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 16-9642.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 30, 2017.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit denied.
Wilbert Patrick STEWART, petitioner, v. Lorie DAVIS, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division.

No. 17-5556.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 16, 2017.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied.
1 Filed 3/20/14 J.M. v. L.H. CA4/2 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOURTH APPELL ATE DISTRICT

DIVISION TWO

J.M., Plaintiff and Respondent,

v. L.H., Defendant and Appellant. E053375 (Super.Ct.No. TED006074)

OPINION

APPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside County. Mark Ashton Cope, Judge. Dismissed. L.H., in pro. per., for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent. L.H. (Mother) and J.M. (Father) share a daughter, A.H. The central issue in Mother’s and Father’s litigation is child custody. The fam ily court determined Mother is a vexatious litigant. (Code Ci v. Proc., § 391, subd. (b).) In April 2011, the trial court denied Mother’s request to f ile a motion. Mother contends the family court erred by denying her request to file a motion. We dismiss the appeal as moot.2 PROCEDURAL HISTORY On March 4, 2010, Mother was deemed a vexatious litigant. In April 2011, Mother requested permission to file new litigati on. Specifically, Mother wanted to file a motion to quash and dismi ss the vexatious litigant finding. On April 27, 2011, the Assistant Presiding Judge of the Superior Court denied Mo ther’s request to file the motion. Mother’s notice of appeal concerns the ruling made on April 27, 2011. On January 10, 2014, the trial court vacated the finding Mother is a vexatious litigant. 1 , 2

DISCUSSION Mother contends the family court erred in 2011 by denying her permission to file a motion to quash or dismiss the vexatious litigant finding. “When no effective relief can be granted, an appeal is moot a nd will be dismissed. [Citation.]” ( In re Jessica K. (2000) 79 Cal.App.4th 1313, 1315-1316.) Th e finding that Mother is a vexatious litigant has been v acated by the trial court. We ca n offer Mother no further relief in regard to her motion. If we reversed the matt er and directed the trial court to file the motion and hold a hearing, th ere would be no vexatious litigant finding to quash or dismiss. Accordingly, we dismiss Mother’s appeal as moot.

1 In a separate order, we took judici al notice of the January 10, 2014, minute order in Riverside County Superior Court case No. TED006074. (Evid. Code, § 452, subd. (d).)

2 The minute order reflects the court v acated the vexatious litigant finding made on “3/04/09.” We infer this is a typographical error, as the vexatious litigant finding was originally entered on March 4, 2010—not 2009.3 DISPOSITION Mother’s appeal is dismissed as moot. The parties are to bear their own costs on appeal.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

MILLER J.

We concur:

RAMIREZ P. J.

RICHLI J.
I 

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 4336 

To amend the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act to align open 

enrollment periods for Exchange plans with the deadline for filing Federal income tax returns, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

SEPTEMBER 16, 2019 

Mr. BERA (for himself, Mr. PETERS, and Mr. AGUILAR) introduced the 

following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce 

A BILL 

To amend the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act 

to align open enrollment periods for Exchange plans 

with the deadline for filing Federal income tax returns, 

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 ‘‘Easy Enrollment Act 

5 of 2019’’. 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
2 

•HR 4336 IH

1 SEC. 2. ALIGNING OPEN ENROLLMENT PERIODS FOR EX2 CHANGE PLANS WITH DEADLINE FOR FILING 

3 FEDERAL INCOME TAX RETURNS. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subparagraph (B) of section 

5 1311(c)(6) of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care 

6 Act (42 U.S.C. 18031(c)(6)) is amended to read as fol7 lows: 

8 ‘‘(B) annual open enrollment periods— 

9 ‘‘(i) for calendar years after the initial 

10 enrollment period and before 2021, as de11 termined by the Secretary; and 

12 ‘‘(ii) for 2021 and subsequent cal13 endar years, that begin on a date specified 

14 by the Secretary and end on April 15 of 

15 each such calendar year;’’. 

16 (b) REGULATIONS.—Not later than 180 days after 

17 the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of 

18 Health and Human Services shall promulgate regulations 

19 to carry out the amendment made by subsection (a). 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

## FILED February 23, 2006 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-40946 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus GAUDENCIO VILLA-GUTIERREZ, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 7:04-CR-1081-1

-------------------- Before GARZA, DENNIS, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Gaudencio Villa-Gutierrez pleaded guilty to being found in the United States after deportation and was sentenced to 30 months of imprisonment and two years of supervised release. Villa-Gutierrez argues that the district court erred in treating his prior state conviction for attempted possession of narcotic drugs as an aggravated felony. He concedes that his argument is foreclosed by current Fifth Circuit law, citing United States v. Rivera , 265 F.3d 310, 312-13 (5th Cir. 2001) and United States v. Hinojosa-Lopez , 130 F.3d 691, 693-94 (5th Cir.No. 05-40946 -2- 1997). Thus, the district court did not err in applying the eight-level adjustment to his offense level pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(1)(C) based on his prior state felony drug conviction. United States v. Villegas , 404 F.3d 355, 359 (5th Cir. 2005). Jerome v. United States , 318 U.S. 101 (1943) does not affect the binding precedential value of Rivera and Hinojosa-Lopez

. Villa-Gutierrez argues that the felony and aggravated felony provisions of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(1) and (2) are unconstitutional. Specifically, he argues that the viability of Almendarez-Torres v. United States , 523 U.S. 224 (1998), is in doubt in light of later Supreme Court cases. Villa-Gutierrez’s constitutional challenge is foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres . Although Villa-Gutierrez contends that Almendarez-Torres was incorrectly decided and that a majority of the Supreme Court would overrule Almendarez-Torres in light of Apprendi v. New Jersey , we have repeatedly rejected such arguments on the basis that Almendarez-Torres remains binding.
See United States v. Garza-Lopez , 410 F.3d 268, 276 (5th Cir.), cert. denied , 126 S. Ct. 298 (2005). Villa-Gutierrez properly concedes that his argument is foreclosed in light of Almendarez-Torres and circuit precedent, but he raises it here to preserve it for further review.
AFFIRMED.
Kiias STOCKTON, petitioner, v. WARDEN, FCI WILLIAMSBURG.

No. 17-8785.

Supreme Court of the United States

June 11, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied.
Jermaine N. TURNER, petitioner, v. Doctor BOWLES.

No. 17-8314.

Supreme Court of the United States

June 4, 2018.

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

No. 17-7785.

Supreme Court of the United States

June 25, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit denied.
Usoalii Nikotemo MILLER, petitioner, v. CARRINGTON MORTGAGE SERVICES, INC., et al.

No. 17M47.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 30, 2017.

Motion to direct the Clerk to file a petition for writ of certiorari out of time denied.
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4149 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 4149

 To prohibit the closure, consolidation, or elimination of offices of 
                  the Environmental Protection Agency.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             August 2, 2019

Mrs. Dingell (for herself and Ms. Tlaib) introduced the following bill; 
  which was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and in 
     addition to the Committees on Agriculture, Transportation and 
Infrastructure, and Science, Space, and Technology, for a period to be 
subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration 
  of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee 
                               concerned

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To prohibit the closure, consolidation, or elimination of offices of 
                  the Environmental Protection Agency.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Recognizing the Environmental Gains 
In Overcoming Negligence Act'' or the ``REGION Act''.

SEC. 2. REGIONAL AND PROGRAM OFFICES OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 
              AGENCY.

    No office of the Environmental Protection Agency, including any 
region, regional office, or program office, shall be closed, 
consolidated, or eliminated using funds made available in any 
appropriations Act for any fiscal year.
                                 <all>
```
**Exhibit 32.2**

 

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO**

**18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**

**AS ADOPTEDPURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 906OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

Pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned officer of iParty Corp (the “Company”)hereby certifies that to his knowledge, on the date hereof the Company’s annualreport on Form 10-K for the annual period ended December 27, 2008,filed on the date hereof with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”)fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), asapplicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the informationcontained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

 
| Date: March 23, 2009 | /s/ DAVID ROBERTSON        |
|---------------------------|----------------------------|
|                      | David Robertson            |
| * *                  | *Chief Financial  Officer* |

 

----
Albert FRANKLIN, Jr., petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 16-6825.

Supreme Court of the United States

Jan. 9, 2017.

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

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4356 Referred in Senate (RFS)]

<DOC>
116th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 4356

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           November 13, 2019

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
     To amend the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act to allow certain 
 individuals to terminate contracts for telephone, multichannel video 
    programming, or internet access service, and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Protecting Families of Fallen 
Servicemembers Act''.

SEC. 2. TERMINATION OF CONTRACTS FOR TELEPHONE, MULTICHANNEL VIDEO 
              PROGRAMMING, OR INTERNET ACCESS SERVICE BY CERTAIN 
              INDIVIDUALS UNDER SERVICEMEMBERS CIVIL RELIEF ACT.

    Section 305A(a) of the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act (50 U.S.C. 
3956(a)) is amended by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
            ``(4) Additional individuals covered.--For purposes of this 
        section, the following individuals shall be treated as a 
        servicemember covered by paragraph (1):
                    ``(A) A spouse or dependent of a servicemember who 
                dies while in military service or a spouse or dependent 
                of a member of the reserve components who dies while 
                performing duty described in subparagraph (C).
                    ``(B) A spouse or dependent of a servicemember who 
                incurs a catastrophic injury or illness (as that term 
                is defined in section 439(g) of title 37, United States 
                Code), if the servicemember incurs the catastrophic 
                injury or illness while in military service or 
                performing duty described in subparagraph (C).
                    ``(C) A member of the reserve components performing 
                military service or performing full-time National Guard 
                duty, active Guard and Reserve duty, or inactive-duty 
                training (as such terms are defined in section 101(d) 
                of title 10, United States Code).''.

            Passed the House of Representatives November 12, 2019.

            Attest:

                                             CHERYL L. JOHNSON,

                                                                 Clerk.
```
# L_2013345EN.01001201.xml

| 19.12.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 345/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.12.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 345/12

---

DECISION OF THE EEA JOINT COMMITTEE

No 143/2013

of 15 July 2013

amending Annex XIII (Transport) to the EEA Agreement

THE EEA JOINT COMMITTEE,

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

Whereas:

| (1) | Commission Directive 2012/36/EU of 19 November 2012 amending Directive 2006/126/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on driving licences (1) is to be incorporated into the EEA Agreement. |
| --- | --- |

(1)

Commission Directive 2012/36/EU of 19 November 2012 amending Directive 2006/126/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on driving licences (1) is to be incorporated into the EEA Agreement.

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

(2)

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

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

Article 1

The following indent is added in point 24f (Directive 2006/126/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council) of Annex XIII to the EEA Agreement:

| ‘— | 32012 L 0036: Commission Directive 2012/36/EU of 19 November 2012 (OJ L 321, 20.11.2012, p. 54).’ |
| --- | --- |

‘—

32012 L 0036: Commission Directive 2012/36/EU of 19 November 2012 (OJ L 321, 20.11.2012, p. 54).’

Article 2

The text of Directive 2012/36/EU in the Icelandic and Norwegian languages, to be published in the EEA Supplement to the Official Journal of the European Union, shall be authentic.

Article 3

This Decision shall enter into force on 16 July 2013, provided that all the notifications under Article 103(1) of the EEA Agreement have been made (*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, 15 July 2013.

For the EEA Joint Committee

The President

Thórir IBSEN

---

(1)  
  OJ L 321, 20.11.2012, p. 54.

1

(*1)  No constitutional requirements indicated.

*1

---
II-00794

From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

Ralph and Kelly Hochendoner <kandr@gorge.net>

Thursday, December 2, 2010 11:17 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.

Ralph and Kelly Hochendoner

367 NE Spring St

White Salmon, WA 98672
TOMITA TECHNOLOGIES USA, LLC, et al., petitioners, v. NINTENDO CO., LTD., et al.

No. 17-292.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 2, 2017.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit denied.
Edward L. BROWN, petitioner, v. ILLINOIS.

No. 17-5906.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 30, 2017.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Appellate Court of Illinois, Second District denied.
Leanora NELSON, petitioner, v. LEVY CENTER LLC, et al.

No. 16-1516.

Supreme Court of the United States

Nov. 27, 2017.

Petition for rehearing denied.