alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Created with Sketch.Menu Transparency
	Contact Us Search
Search
 Main navigation

      
      About the CFTC
                          The Commission
                        Chairman & Commissioners
                        CFTC Organization
                        Advisory Committees
                        Budget & Performance
                        Privacy at the CFTC
                        Careers
                        Diversity and Inclusion at the CFTC
                        Industry Oversight
                          Industry Filings
                        Trading Organizations
                        Clearing Organizations
                        Data Repositories
                        Intermediaries
                        Market Surveillance
                        Contracts & Products
                        Rules & Rule Amendments
                        Anti-Money Laundering
                        Law & Regulation
                          Commodity Exchange Act & Regulations
                        How Rules Are Made
                        Holding Wrongdoers Accountable
                        Federal Register
                        Public Comments
                        CFTC Staff Letters
                        Office of Technology Innovation
                        Market Data & Economic Analysis
                          Data at CFTC
                        Commitments of Traders
                        Bank Participation Reports
                        Cotton On-Call
                        Financial Data for FCMS
                        Net Position Changes Data
                        Staff Reports
                        Weekly Swaps Report
                        Cleared Margin Reports
                        Office of the Chief Economist
                        Forms & Submissions
                        Learn & Protect
                          Check Registration & Disciplinary History
                        Submit a Tip
                        Reparations Program
                        RED List
                        Advisories & Articles
                        Videos
                        Publications
                        News & Events
                          Press Releases
                        Public Statements & Remarks
                        Events Carousel Rotation On
              On


External Meetings: Meeting w/Delta Strategy Group (via phone)
  
    



  When
              11/29/2010

  Rulemaking(s)
              II. Definitions

  CFTC Staff
              Chris Iacovella

  Visitor(s)
              Scott Parsons Graham Harper

  Organization(s)
              Delta Strategy Group


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
# L_2012158EN.01002401.xml

| 19.6.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 158/24 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.6.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 158/24

---

DECISION No 1/2012 OF THE COMMUNITY/SWITZERLAND INLAND TRANSPORT COMMITTEE

of 16 May 2012

concerning the granting of a rebate on the performance-based fee on heavy goods vehicle traffic for vehicles of emission class EURO VI

(2012/314/EU)

THE COMMITTEE,

Having regard to the Agreement between the European Community and the Swiss Confederation on the carriage of goods and passengers by rail and road, and in particular Article 51(2) thereof,

Whereas:

| (1) | In accordance with Article 40 of the Agreement, Switzerland has since 1 January 2001 levied a non-discriminatory fee on vehicles for the costs to which they give rise (performance-based fee on heavy goods vehicle traffic). |
| --- | --- |

(1)

In accordance with Article 40 of the Agreement, Switzerland has since 1 January 2001 levied a non-discriminatory fee on vehicles for the costs to which they give rise (performance-based fee on heavy goods vehicle traffic).

| (2) | In accordance with Article 44, the Contracting Parties seek to introduce ecological measures in order to reduce notably exhaust gas and particulate emissions from heavy goods vehicles. |
| --- | --- |

(2)

In accordance with Article 44, the Contracting Parties seek to introduce ecological measures in order to reduce notably exhaust gas and particulate emissions from heavy goods vehicles.

| (3) | In accordance with Article 7(5), each Contracting Party undertakes not to subject vehicles approved in the territory of the other Contracting Party to conditions that are more restrictive than those in force in its own territory, |
| --- | --- |

(3)

In accordance with Article 7(5), each Contracting Party undertakes not to subject vehicles approved in the territory of the other Contracting Party to conditions that are more restrictive than those in force in its own territory,

HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:

Article 1

A rebate of 10 % of the fee applying to their category is temporarily granted to vehicles of emission class EURO VI.

Article 2

The rebate mentioned in Article 1 will be granted only to vehicles with an entry in the vehicle registration certificate or with an equivalent certificate from the national authorities confirming that the vehicle corresponds to emission class EURO VI. The certificate is to be carried in the motor vehicle.

Article 3

The competent Swiss authorities reserve the right to verify compliance with the relevant emission limit values on any EURO VI vehicle which benefits from a fee rebate.

Article 4

Switzerland reserves the right to review the situation concerning the rebate mentioned in Article 1 from 2014 onwards and then to reduce or end the rebate, as appropriate.

Article 5

This Decision shall enter into force on 1 July 2012.

Done at Berne, 16 May 2012.

The President

Peter FÜGLISTALER

The Head of the Delegation of the European Union

Fotis KARAMITSOS

---
Y.` -Ic-P,76474Ntinri,02' • 

to "waive any/all appellate rights regarding certification to adult status" in 

his guilty plea agreement. 2 

Flores also contends that his sentence violates the JJDPA's 

requirements that juvenile offenders generally be incarcerated separately 

from adult offenders, 42 U.S.C. § 5633(a)(13), and subject to "graduated 

sanctions" that include rehabilitative programs, 42 U.S.C. § 5603(24). We 

conclude this contention lacks merit because the cited provisions of the 

JJDPA do not apply to juveniles who have been certified to stand trial as 

adults. 28 C.F.R. § 31.303(d)(1)(v) (states are not prohibited from 

detaining or confining juveniles who have been waived or transferred to 

the adult system in adult facilities); 61 Fed. Reg. 65132-01 response to 

cmt. 3(a) (Dept. of Justice, Dec. 10, 1996) ("The JJDP Act separation 

requirement expressly applies to juveniles who are alleged to be or found 

to be delinquent."); 42 U.S.C. § 5603(24) (defining term "graduated 

sanctions" as used in the JJDPA to apply to "juveniles within the juvenile 

justice system"); see also18 U.S.C. § 5032 (1996) (allowing juveniles to be 

prosecuted as adults in federal courts); In the Matter of Seven Minors, 99 

Nev. 427, 433, 664 P.2d 947, 951 (1983) ("Once in a given case transfer is 

decided upon . . . the youth is no longer presumed to be a child in the eyes 

of the law and no longer entitled to the grace provided by the Juvenile 

Court Act in that particular case."), disapproved of on other grounds by 

2To the extent Flores asserts that the district court lacked 

jurisdiction over his case due to the allegedly improper certification, we 

decline to address this contention because it is not supported by cogent 

argument or citation to authority. See Maresca v. State, 103 Nev. 669, 

673, 748 P.2d 3, 6 (1987). 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 

(0) I947A 

2 
J. 

3 

Matter of William S., 122 Nev. 432, 442 n.23, 132 P.3d 1015, 1021 n.23 

(2006). Accordingly, we 

ORDER the judgment of conviction AFFIRMED. 

/ 

Hardesty 

cc: Hon. Elissa F. Cadish, District Judge 

Matthew D. Carling 

Attorney General/Carson City 

Clark County District Attorney 

Eighth District Court Clerk 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 

(0) 1947A 

ea ilffiliOPERIMEMIDEE
Clarence MOTT, petitioner, v. Darrel VANNOY, Warden.

No. 17-6427.

Supreme Court of the United States

Jan. 8, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied.
Order entered November 21, 2022

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-22-01225-CV

IN RE SUNOCO RETAIL LLC AND DERRICK RAY LEWIS, Relators

Original Proceeding from the 68th Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. DC-20-18306

ORDER

Before Justices Myers, Nowell and Goldstein

Before the Court are relators’ November 21, 2022 Motion for Rehearing and 

November 21, 2022 Second Emergency Motion for Temporary Relief. In their 

motion for temporary relief, relators ask the Court to stay the trial court’s 

November 14, 2022 Order Granting Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel Settlement 

Amounts and Assess Costs Against Defendant Sunoco Retail, LLC pending 

resolution of relators’ motion for rehearing.

We GRANT relators’ second motion for temporary relief and STAY the 

trial court’s November 14, 2022 order pending resolution of relators’ motion for 
rehearing. Relators shall FILE the transcript of the November 14, 2022 hearing on 

plaintiff’s motion to compel within THIRTY DAYS of the date of this order.

/s/ LANA MYERS 

JUSTICE
[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 81 (Wednesday, April 27, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 25008-25009]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-08962]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission


Combined Notice of Filings

    Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural 
Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:

Filings Instituting Proceedings

    Docket Numbers: RP22-833-000.
    Applicants: Southwest Gas Transmission Company, A Limited 
Partnership.
    Description: Compliance filing: Pre-File Settlement in Lieu of Rate 
Filing to be effective April 1, 2022 to be effective N/A.
    Filed Date: 4/20/22.
    Accession Number: 20220420-5172.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 5/2/22.

    Docket Numbers: RP22-834-000.
    Applicants: Columbia Gas Transmission, LLC.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: Negotiated Rate and Non-
Conforming Agreement Clean Up to be effective 5/21/2022.
    Filed Date: 4/21/22.
    Accession Number: 20220421-5086.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 5/3/22.

    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above 
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the 
Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 
p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be 
considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the 
proceeding.
    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system 
(https://elibrary.ferc.gov/idmws/search/fercgensearch.asp) by querying 
the docket number.
    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing 
requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying 
facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/

[[Page 25009]]

docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call (866) 
208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

    Dated: April 21, 2022.
Debbie-Anne A. Reese,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2022-08962 Filed 4-26-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
Lloyd George KENNEY, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 17-8807.

Supreme Court of the United States

June 4, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.
Andre COHEN, petitioner, v. Jay LANE, Superintendent, State Correctional Institution at Fayette, et al.

No. 17-5817.

Supreme Court of the United States

Nov. 6, 2017.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit denied.
**EXHIBIT
      32.2 – CFO Certification**








**ROYAL
          INVEST INTERNATIONAL CORP.**
 
 **CERTIFICATION
      PURSUANT TO**


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


**AS
      ADDED BY**


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








In
          connection with the Amended Annual Report of Royal Invest International
          Corp. (the "Company") on Form 10-KSB/A-2 for the year ended July 31, 2006
          as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
          (the
          "Report"), I, Nathan Lapkin, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify,
          pursuant to 18 U.S.C.ss. 1350, as added by ss. 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 period covered by the Report.





By:
      /s/ Nathan Lapkin


Nathan
      Lapkin


Chief
      Financial Officer





August
          1,
          2007


A
      signed
      original of this written statement required by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
      Act of 2002 ("Section 906"), or other document authenticating, acknowledging,
      or
      otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the
      electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been
      provided to Royal Invest International Corp., and will be retained by Royal
      Invest International Corp. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
      Commission or its staff upon request.
EXHIBIT 32.1 – CEO
Certification








ROYAL INVEST INTERNATIONAL
CORP.





CERTIFICATION PURSUANT
TO


18 U.S.C. SECTION
1350,


AS ADOPTED PURSUNT
TO


SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT
OF 2002








In
connection with the Annual Report of Royal Invest International Corp.
(the "Company") on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2007 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Jerry Gruenbaum, CEO of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.ss. 1350, as
added by ss. 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 period covered by the Report.








By: /s/ Jerry
Gruenbaum


Jerry
Gruenbaum, CEO





April 15,
2008





A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002 ("Section 906"), or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or
otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the
electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been
provided to Royal Invest International Corp., and will be retained by Royal
Invest International Corp. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission or its staff upon request.
Phillip Francis Luke HUGHES, ON BEHALF OF the ESTATE OF Jane K. HUGHES, et al., petitioners, v. BANK OF AMERICA NATIONAL ASSOCIATION.

No. 17-884.

Supreme Court of the United States

Jan. 22, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied.
5840
  |------------|                                                  |------------|
  |    Number  |                                                  |    Share   |
  |  NEO       |                                                  |            |
  |------------|                    NeoSurg                       |------------|
                               TECHNOLOGIES, INC.

                INCORPORATED UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF TEXAS

THIS  CERTIFICATE  IS  TRANSFERABLE  IN                         SEE  REVERSE FOR
NEW  YORK,  N.Y.  AND  RIDGEFIELD  PARK,  N.J.                         CERTAIN
DEFINITIONS                                                 CUSIP  640651  10  5


THIS  CERTIFIES  THAT




is  the  registered  holder  of

        FULLY PAID SHARES OF THE COMMON STOCK, NO PAR VALUE PER SHARE, OF
         ------------------NEOSURG TECHNOLOGIES, INC.-----------------

transferable  on the books of the Bank by the holder hereof in person or by duly
authorized  attorney  on  surrender  of  this  certificate
properly  enclosed.
     This  certificate  is  not  valid until countersigned and registered by the
Transfer  Agent  and  Registrar.
     WITNESS  the facsimile seal of the Bank and the facsimile signatures of its
duly  authorized  officers.

Dated:



                                  [CORPORATE SEAL]
/s/  --------------------     Neosurg Technologies, Inc.      /s/---------------
                                  September 21, 1999              PRESIDENT  AND
SECRETARY                               TEXAS           CHIEF EXECUTIVE  OFFICER
# Official Journal L 218/2014

| | ISSN 1977-0677 |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | L 218 |
| | |
| English edition | Legislation | Volume 5724 July 2014 |

ISSN 1977-0677

Official Journal

of the European Union

L 218

English edition

Legislation

Volume 5724 July 2014

---

| Contents | | II   Non-legislative acts | page |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| | | REGULATIONS |
| | * | Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 796/2014 of 23 July 2014 amending Regulation (EC) No 501/2008 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 3/2008 on information provision and promotion measures for agricultural products on the internal market and in third countries | 1 |
| | | Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 797/2014 of 23 July 2014 establishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables | 3 |
| | | DECISIONS |
| | * | Council Decision 2014/491/CFSP of 22 July 2014 amending Decision 2013/189/CFSP establishing a European Security and Defence College (ESDC) | 6 |

Contents

II   Non-legislative acts

page

REGULATIONS

*

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 796/2014 of 23 July 2014 amending Regulation (EC) No 501/2008 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 3/2008 on information provision and promotion measures for agricultural products on the internal market and in third countries

1

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 797/2014 of 23 July 2014 establishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables

3

DECISIONS

*

Council Decision 2014/491/CFSP of 22 July 2014 amending Decision 2013/189/CFSP establishing a European Security and Defence College (ESDC)

6

| EN | Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.
  The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk. |
| --- | --- |

EN

Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.

The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk.
* 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. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 02-10414 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus ROBERT B. SPEAKS, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 4:01-CR-164-4-A

-------------------- December 12, 2002 Before BARKSDALE, DEMOSS, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Robert B. Speaks appeals his sentence for his guilty-plea conviction of mail fraud and aiding and abetting for his participation in a scheme to fraudulently induce victims to purchase computer systems equipped with automatic telephone dialers. Speaks argues that the district court erred in sentencing him to 13 months in prison under U.S.S.G. § 2F1.1No. 02-10414 -2- because the loss amount was not reduced for the computers still in the victims’ possession. We review the district court’s calculation of loss for clear

error. See United States v. Randall , 157 F.3d 328, 330 (5th Cir. 1998). The district court need only make a reasonable estimate of the loss, given the available information. Id. at 330-31. The district court’s refusal to lower the loss amount for the value of the computers was not clear error. As explained in the presentence report (PSR), the loss amount should not have been reduced for the computer systems because they were worthless. They appeared to be used, assembled with inexpensive hardware, partly or completely inoperable, or had software problems, and did not come with a warranty or with customer or technical support. The information given to the probation officer in preparing the PSR was properly considered since it constituted “available information” relevant to a determination of the equipment’s resale value. See id. Therefore, the district court’s refusal to reduce the loss amount based on the “value” of the computers was not clear error because the computers had no value. Speaks also contends that Beneficial Finance, the lender, benefitted doubly by “writing off” the victims’ losses and by being awarded restitution. However, Speaks had the burden of proving an offset. See United States v. Sheinbaum , 136 F.3d 443, 449 (5th Cir. 1998). He did not present any evidence thatNo. 02-10414 -3- Beneficial Finance had “written off” the bad loans. Nor did Speaks offer any evidence to dispute the district court’s statement that, when Beneficial Finance gets its money back, it will have to reimburse the Government. The district court’s rejection of this loss-calculation argument was not clear error. The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
Mark LEYSE, petitioner, v. LIFETIME ENTERTAINMENT SERVICES, LLC.

No. 17-162.

Supreme Court of the United States

Jan. 8, 2018.

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