alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT
10.10
 
 Upon
receipt of the below-executed Judgment Note, I, Harry Demetriou, promise to lend
International Fuel Technology, Inc. the sum of Five Hundred Thousand Dollars
($500,000) wired to International Fuel Technology’s bank on or before 26
November 2007.
 
 /s/ Harry F.
      Demetriou
              
              Date:  12
      November 2007
 
 JUDGMENT
NOTE
 
 $500,000.00
              
              November
      12, 2007
 
 
 On
January 1, 2009, for value received, the undersigned promises to pay to the
order of Harry Demetriou the sum of Five Hundred Thousand Dollars ($500,000.00)
and interest
on that amount at the rate of fifteen percent (15%)per year, until
paid.
 
 The
undersigned maker agrees that on or after a default, if this note is placed in
the hands of any attorney for collection or if anaction is instituted
upon the obligation stated here in any court of competent jurisdiction, costs
and reasonable attorney's fees will beadded to the then
balance of principal and interest.
 
 The
undersigned maker and guarantor jointly and severally authorize irrevocably any
attorney to appear for the undersigned in a proper court at any time upon
default, and to confess a judgment without process against the undersigned in
favor of the holder of this note for the amount unpaid on it, together with
interest, costs and reasonable attorney
 fees on
the amount due, admitting the allegations of any complaint filed in connection
with this note, and to waive and release all errors which may intervene in any
such proceedings, and consent to immediate enforcement of the judgment, here
ratifying and confirming all that the attorney may do by virtue of
authority.
 
 All
parties to this instrument severally waive presentment for payment, notice of
dishonor, protest and notice of protest.
 
 No
extension or modification will release any of the undersigned from the
obligations of this instrument.
 
 
 INTERNATIONAL
      FUEL TECHNOLOGY, INC.By:
              /s/ Jonathan R.
      BurstIts
      CEOBy:
              /s/ Thomas M.
      PowellIts
      Secretary
  
  EXHIBIT
10.10
 
 GUARANTY
 
 
 The
undersigned, Rex Carr, hereby guarantees the payment of said note upon demand of
default.
 
 /s/ Rex
      CarrREX
      CARR
Release: #4029-97 (Civ 97-2927)

For Release: June 19, 1997

CFTC Files Anti-Fraud Enforcement Action Against Murray Ira Rosenberg
    (d/b/a Pro Broker Services, Inc.) of Mullica Hill, New Jersey
    CFTC Alleges that Rosenberg Cheated and Defrauded a Customer by, Among
    Other Things, Misappropriating $265,000
    WASHINGTON -- The Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) announced
    today the filing of a six-count civil injunctive complaint in the U.S.
    District Court for the District of New Jersey, Camden Division, against Murray Ira Rosenberg (d/b/a Pro Broker Services Inc.) of Mullica
    Hill, New Jersey. Rosenberg was registered with the CFTC as a floor broker
    from April 9, 1985 until January 21, 1995, and he is not currently
    registered with the CFTC in any capacity.

The complaint alleges that from 1993 to 1996, Rosenberg committed fraud
    and other violations of the Commodity Exchange Act (CEA) and CFTC
    regulations, in connection with the offer and sale of commodity futures and
    options contracts.

Specifically, the CFTC complaint alleges that Rosenberg, among other
    things:

misappropriated and converted $265,000 of a customer's funds for his own
    business and personal living expenses;

misrepresented that he would open an account for the customer in the
    customer's name, when instead Rosenberg opened the account in his own
    name;

failed to execute and transmit commodity futures and options trades that
    the customer had requested him to make;

executed trades in the account without the customer's knowledge or
    approval; and

provided the customer with IRS form 1099s containing false
    information.

In addition, the complaint alleges that Rosenberg acted as a futures
    commission merchant without being registered with the CFTC, commingled the
    customer's funds with his own, and failed to provide the customer with the
    appropriate transaction confirmations and account statements.

The CFTC is seeking a permanent injunction prohibiting Rosenberg from
    violating the CEA and CFTC regulations as charged, an order prohibiting
    Rosenberg from trading on or subject to the rules of any contract market,
    and other equitable relief, including an accounting, disgorgement of
    benefits, rescission, and restitution. The CEA also provides for a civil
    monetary penalty of up to $100,000 or triple the monetary gain to the
    defendant, whichever is greater, for each violation of the CEA or CFTC
    regulations.
```
 
 
VIX FUTURES - CBOE FUTURES EXCHANGE                                  Code-1170E1
FUTURES ONLY POSITIONS AS OF 01/05/10                         |
--------------------------------------------------------------| NONREPORTABLE
      NON-COMMERCIAL      |   COMMERCIAL    |      TOTAL      |   POSITIONS
--------------------------|-----------------|-----------------|-----------------
  LONG  | SHORT  |SPREADS |  LONG  | SHORT  |  LONG  | SHORT  |  LONG  | SHORT
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
($1000 X INDEX)                                      OPEN INTEREST:       61,257
COMMITMENTS
   1,012    8,824    3,956   43,209   40,568   48,177   53,348   13,080    7,909

CHANGES FROM 12/29/09 (CHANGE IN OPEN INTEREST:      8,539)
     525     -239      718    3,217    6,147    4,460    6,626    4,079    1,913

PERCENT OF OPEN INTEREST FOR EACH CATEGORY OF TRADERS
     1.7     14.4      6.5     70.5     66.2     78.6     87.1     21.4     12.9

NUMBER OF TRADERS IN EACH CATEGORY (TOTAL TRADERS:       33)
       6        6        8       15       15       26       26
```

----

Updated January 8, 2010
Philip Warren DUFFEY, petitioner, v. Julie L. JONES, Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections.

No. 17-5941.

Supreme Court of the United States

Nov. 13, 2017.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit denied.
Wallace B. CARSON, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 17-5501.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 2, 2017.

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

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 434 Enrolled Bill (ENR)]

        H.R.434

                     One Hundred Sixteenth Congress

                                 of the

                        United States of America

                          AT THE SECOND SESSION

           Begun and held at the City of Washington on Friday,
            the third day of January, two thousand and twenty

                                 An Act

 
To amend the National Trails System Act to provide for the study of the 
      Emancipation National Historic Trail, 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 ``Emancipation National Historic Trail 
Study Act''.
SEC. 2. EMANCIPATION NATIONAL HISTORIC TRAIL STUDY.
    Section 5(c) of the National Trails System Act (16 U.S.C. 1244(c)) 
is amended by adding at the end the following:
        ``(47) Emancipation national historic trail.--The Emancipation 
    National Historic Trail, extending approximately 51 miles from the 
    Osterman Building and Reedy Chapel in Galveston, Texas, along Texas 
    State Highway 3 and Interstate Highway 45 North, to Freedmen's 
    Town, then to Independence Heights and Emancipation Park in 
    Houston, Texas, following the migration route taken by newly freed 
    slaves and other persons of African descent from the major 19th 
    century seaport town of Galveston to the burgeoning community of 
    Freedmen's Town, located in the 4th Ward of Houston, Texas.''.

                               Speaker of the House of Representatives.

                            Vice President of the United States and    
                                               President of the Senate.
```
Rejon TAYLOR, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 16-6392.

Supreme Court of the United States

June 11, 2018.

Petition for rehearing denied.
```
 
 
CRUDE OIL, LIGHT SWEET - ICE FUTURES EUROPE                          Code-067411
OPTION AND FUTURES COMBINED POSITIONS AS OF 12/15/09          |
--------------------------------------------------------------| NONREPORTABLE
      NON-COMMERCIAL      |   COMMERCIAL    |      TOTAL      |   POSITIONS
--------------------------|-----------------|-----------------|-----------------
  Long  | Short  |Spreads |  Long  | Short  |  Long  | Short  |  Long  | Short
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(CONTRACTS OF 1,000 BARRELS)                         OPEN INTEREST:      524,269
COMMITMENTS
  46,167   21,708   89,613  369,240  394,948  505,019  506,269   19,250   18,001

CHANGES FROM 12/08/09 (CHANGE IN OPEN INTEREST:    -11,822)
  10,358  -10,915   -8,342  -12,584    9,584  -10,569   -9,673   -1,253   -2,149

PERCENT OF OPEN INTEREST FOR EACH CATEGORY OF TRADER
     8.8      4.1     17.1     70.4     75.3     96.3     96.6      3.7      3.4

NUMBER OF TRADERS IN EACH CATEGORY (TOTAL TRADERS:      119)
      29       17       39       62       68      106      112
```

----

Updated December 18, 2009
Brandon Jermaine SYKES, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 17-5991.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 16, 2017.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit denied.
Angelique BANKSTON, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 17-8648.

Supreme Court of the United States

May 29, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit denied.
# L_2006144EN.01002401.xml

| 31.5.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 144/24 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

31.5.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 144/24

---

Information concerning the entry into force of an Agreement in the form of an exchange of letters between the European Community and India pursuant to Article XXVIII of GATT 1994 relating to the modification of concessions with respect to rice provided for in Schedule CXL annexed to the GATT 1994, attached to Council Decision 2004/617/EC

This Agreement entered into force on 1 September 2004.

---
# L_2013345EN.01000901.xml

| 19.12.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 345/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.12.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 345/9

---

DECISION OF THE EEA JOINT COMMITTEE

No 140/2013

of 15 July 2013

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 (‘the EEA Agreement’), and in particular Article 98 thereof,

Whereas:

| (1) | Regulation (EU) No 259/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 March 2012 amending Regulation (EC) No 648/2004 as regards the use of phosphates and other phosphorus compounds in consumer laundry detergents and consumer automatic dishwasher detergents (1) is to be incorporated into the EEA Agreement. |
| --- | --- |

(1)

Regulation (EU) No 259/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 March 2012 amending Regulation (EC) No 648/2004 as regards the use of phosphates and other phosphorus compounds in consumer laundry detergents and consumer automatic dishwasher detergents (1) is to be incorporated into the EEA Agreement.

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

(2)

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

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

Article 1

The following indent is added in point 12u (Regulation (EC) No 648/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council) of Chapter XV of Annex II to the EEA Agreement:

| ‘— | 32012 R 0259: Regulation (EU) No 259/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 March 2012 (OJ L 94, 30.3.2012, p. 16).’ |
| --- | --- |

‘—

32012 R 0259: Regulation (EU) No 259/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 March 2012 (OJ L 94, 30.3.2012, p. 16).’

Article 2

The text of Regulation (EU) No 259/2012 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 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 94, 30.3.2012, p. 16.

1

(*1)  No constitutional requirements indicated.

*1

---
---

EXHIBIT 32.1

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

In connection with the Quarterly
Report of Santa Fe Gold Corporation (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the quarter
ended March 31, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
the date hereof (the "Report"), I, W. Pierce Carson, President & Chief
Executive Officer, 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 results of
      operations of the Company, as of, and for the periods presented in the
      Report.

|Date: May 14, 2009 | By: /s/ W. Pierce Carson                              
|------------------ | ------------------------------------------------------
|                   | W. Pierce Carson,                                     
|                   | Chief Executive Officer, President, Director
      and
|                   | Principal Accounting Officer                          

---
EXHIBIT 23.1

Consent of
Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

International
Fuel Technology, Inc.
St. Louis, Missouri

We hereby
consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on
Form S-8 (File Numbers 333-74596, 333-96261, and 333-98699) of our report dated
March 31, 2010 relating to the financial statements of International Fuel
Technology, Inc. appearing in the Companys Annual Report on Form 10-K for the
year ended December 31, 2009. Our report contains an explanatory paragraph
regarding the Companys ability to continue as a going concern.

/s/ BDO
Seidman, LLP

Chicago,
Illinois
March 31, 2010

---
Commodity Futures Trading Commission ♦ Office of Public Affairs ♦ 202-418-5080

Commodity Futures Trading Commission

Office of Public Affairs

Three Lafayette Centre

1155 21st Street, NW

Washington, DC 20581

www.cftc.gov

Q & A – Final Rule on Amendments to Compliance Obligations 

of Commodity Pool Operators and Commodity Trading Advisors

What is the goal of this rulemaking?

In order to better monitor the systemic risks posed by the commodities markets, the Commission is requiring the 

collection of data from CPOs and CTAs. It is additionally amending part 4 to rescind previous exemptions as well as 

modify additional part 4 provisions.

Why are these changes being made?

As stated in the Proposal, Congress enacted the Dodd-Frank Act in response to the financial crisis of 2007 and 2008. 

That Act requires the reporting of certain information by investment advisers related to potential systemic risk. Such 

information facilitates oversight of the investment activities of funds within the context of the rest of a discrete market 

or the economy as a whole. 

The sources of risk delineated in the Dodd-Frank Act are also presented by commodity pools. To provide the 

Commission with similar information to address these risks, the Commission has determined to require registration of 

certain previously exempt CPOs and to further require reporting of information comparable to that required by the Act. 

To implement this enhanced oversight, the Commission proposed, and has now determined to adopt, the revision and 

rescission of certain discretionary exemptions that it previously granted.

What are the changes to registration and compliance that this rule makes?

The Commission is adopting new data collections for CPOs and CTAs that are consistent with a data collection required 

under the Dodd-Frank Act for entities registered with both the Commission and the Securities and Exchange 

Commission. The adopted amendments to part 4 will: rescind the exemption from registration provided in § 4.13(a)(4); 

rescind relief from the certification requirement for annual reports provided to operators of certain pools offered only to 

qualified eligible persons (“QEPs”) under § 4.7(b)(3); modify the criteria for claiming relief under § 4.5; and require the 

annual filing of notices claiming exemptive relief under several sections of the Commission’s regulations. Finally, the 

adopted amendments include new risk disclosure requirements for CPOs and CTAs regarding swap transactions. 

Notably however, the final Rule differs from the Proposal with respect to the following:

 The marketing restriction in § 4.5 no longer contains the clause “(or otherwise seeking investment exposure to)”; 

 § 4.5 will be amended to include an alternative trading threshold test based on the net notional value of a 

registered investment company’s derivatives positions; 

 Annual notices for exemptions and exclusions will be filed on an annual calendar year end basis rather than on 

the anniversary of the filing date; and 

 Changes have been made to the substance of Forms CPO-PQR and CTA-PR and the filing timelines for both 

forms.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

                    <S> <C>
<ARTICLE>           5

<LEGEND>            This schecdule contains summary financial information
                    extracted from form 10-QSB for this period ended March 31,
                    1998 and is qualified in its entirety by reference to 
                    such form 10-QSB.

</LEGEND> 
<MULTIPLIER>        1
<S>                             <C> 
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS 
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>               DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                    MAR-31-1998 
<CASH>                               16,778
<SECURITIES>                              0 
<RECEIVABLES>                             0
<ALLOWANCES>                              0 
<INVENTORY>                               0 
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                     16,778 
<PP&E>                                    0 
<DEPRECIATION>                            0 
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                       16,778 
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                40,184 
<BONDS>                                   0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                     0 
<PREFERRED>                               0 
<COMMON>                                320 
<OTHER-SE>                          (23,406) 
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>         16,778
<SALES>                                   0 
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                          0 
<CGS>                                     0 
<TOTAL-COSTS>                             0   
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                      3,230
<LOSS-PROVISION>                          0 
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                        0 
<INCOME-PRETAX>                      (3,230) 
<INCOME-TAX>                              0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                  (3,230)
<DISCONTINUED>                            0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                           0
<CHANGES>                                 0
<NET-INCOME>                         (3,230)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                          (.01)
<EPS-DILUTED>                          (.01)

        

</TABLE>
#### R. Chambliss *v.*The State.

1. Juror’s Oath.—The county court act of 1876 prescribes the same juror’s oath in criminal cases as that prescribed by the Code of Criminal Procedure, for jurors in criminal cases in the district courts.

3. Same.—It is not necessary that the judgment shall set out the exact language of the oath which was administered to the jury; and, if it merely recites that the jury were “duly sworn,” or “duly impaneled and sworn,”, or “sworn according to law,” this court will presume that the statutory oath was administered.

'3. Same.—But if-the judgment'recites the oath administered, and it was a different oath than that prescribed, the judgment will be set aside. A recital that the jury “were sworn well and truly to try and true verdict render,” imports that a different oath than that prescribed was administered.

Appeal from the County Court of Johnson, Tried below before the Hon. H. W. Barclay, County Judge.

No brief for the appellant.

*George McCormick,*Assistant Attorney General, for the State.

White, J.

The 10th section of “ An act to organize the *397county courts, and define their powers and jurisdiction”' (Acts Fifteenth Legislature, 20), provides that “the oath administered to a juror in a criminal case shall be as follows : “ You do solemnly swear that, in the case of the state of Texas against (A B) the defendant, you will a true verdict render, according to the law and the evidence, so help you, God.” This oath is identical in phraseology with that prescribed for jurors in the district court in criminal cases. Pasc. Dig., Art. 3029.

It seems that it is not necessary or requisite that the exact language of the oath as administered should be set forth or recited in the judgment. If the judgment simply recites that the jury “were duly sworn,” or “ were duly impaneled and sworn,”’ or “ were sworn according to law,” it will be sufficient, and the appellate court will, upon such recital, presume that the oath as prescribed by statute had been administered. But when the judgment attempts to recite, and does recite, the oath which was administered, and it appears therefrom that" a different oath was administered than the one provided by law, such fact will be fatal to the validity of the judgment. 40 Texas, 19; 41 Texas, 189; 41 Texas, 496; 41 Texas, 513; 41 Texas, 560; 42 Texas, 389; 43 Texas, 376; 44 Texas, 511.

The judgment in this case sets out the oath administered to the jury, as follows : “Who were sworn well and truly to try and true verdict render.” This is not the path prescribed by the statute. For this error the judgment is reversed and the cause remanded.

*Reversed and remanded.*