alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
II-00038

From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

Katheleen Ballou <kallou@netscape.net>

Thursday, December 9, 2010 10:04 PM

dfadefinitions <dfadefinitions@CFTC.gov>

Re: No loopholes in Dodd-Frank

1) Securities and Exchange Commission/Commodities Futures Trading Commission, Re: Commercial Risk (CFTC PIN

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 (PIN 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.

Katheleen Ballou

2003 N. Villas Ln.

Chandler, AZ 85224
Jack D. HALL, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR the EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN.

No. 18-8174.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 29, 2019.

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 Sixth Circuit dismissed. See Rule 39.8. As petitioner has repeatedly abused this Court's process, the Clerk is directed not to accept any further petitions in noncriminal matters from petitioner unless the docketing fee required by Rule 38(a) is paid and petition submitted in compliance with Rule 33.1. See *Martin v. District of Columbia Court of Appeals,*506 U.S. 1, 113 S.Ct. 397, 121 L.Ed.2d 305 (1992) (*per curiam* ).
Exhibit 32

                            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 Annual Report of Australian Oil & Gas Corporation (the
"Company") on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2008 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, E.
Geoffrey Albers, the Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the
Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to 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.




Dated: March 30, 2009                               /s/ E. Geoffrey Albers
                                                    ----------------------
                                                    E. Geoffrey Albers
                                                    Chief Executive Officer and
                                                    Chief Financial Officer
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER

Appellate case name: Albert Morris v. Wells Fargo Bank

Appellate case number: 01-19-00610-CV

Trial court case number: 15-DCV-221475

Trial court: 434th District Court of Fort Bend County

Appellant’s motion to recall the mandate issued in this appeal is DENIED.

Judge’s signature: ___/s/Sarah B. Landau____________________________________

 Acting for the Court

Panel consists of Justices Lloyd, Goodman, and Landau

Date: __December 15, 2020____
I

106TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 1282

To amend title 11, United States Code, to limit the value of certain real

and personal property that an individual debtor may elect to exempt

under State or local law; to make nondischargeable consumer debts

for luxury goods and services acquired in the 90-day period ending

on the date a case is commenced under such title; and to permit parties

in interest to request the dismissal of cases under chapter 7 of such

title.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

MARCH 25, 1999

Mr. BARRETT of Wisconsin introduced the following bill; which was referred

to the Committee on the Judiciary

A BILL

To amend title 11, United States Code, to limit the value

of certain real and personal property that an individual

debtor may elect to exempt under State or local law;

to make nondischargeable consumer debts for luxury

goods and services acquired in the 90-day period ending

on the date a case is commenced under such title; and

to permit parties in interest to request the dismissal

of cases under chapter 7 of such title.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
2

•HR 1282 IH

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Individual Bankruptcy

3 Abuse Reform Act of 1999’’.

4 SEC. 2. LIMITATION ON EXEMPT PROPERTY.

5 Section 522 of title 11, United States Code, is

6 amended—

7 (1) in subsection (b)(2)(A) by inserting ‘‘sub8 ject to subsection (n),’’ before ‘‘any property’’; and

9 (2) by adding at the end the following:

10 ‘‘(n) As a result of electing under subsection

11 (b)(2)(A) to exempt property under State or local law, a

12 debtor may not exempt an interest that exceeds $100,000

13 in value, in the aggregate, in—

14 ‘‘(1) real or personal property that the debtor

15 or a dependent of the debtor uses as a residence;

16 ‘‘(2) a cooperative that owns property that the

17 debtor or a dependent of the debtor uses as a resi18 dence; or

19 ‘‘(3) a burial plot for the debtor or a dependent

20 of the debtor.’’.

21 SEC. 3. NONDISCHARGEABLE DEBTS FOR LUXURY GOODS

22 AND SERVICES.

23 Section 523(a)(2)(C) of title 11, United States Code,

24 is amended by striking ‘‘60’’ the first place it appears and

25 inserting ‘‘90’’.
3

•HR 1282 IH

1 SEC. 4. MOTIONS BY PARTIES IN INTEREST TO DISMISS

2 CHAPTER 7 CASES.

3 Section 707(b) of title 11, United States Code, is

4 amended by striking ‘‘but not at the request or suggestion

5 of’’ and inserting ‘‘or’’.

6 SEC. 5. EFFECTIVE DATE; APPLICATION OF AMENDMENTS.

7 (a) EFFECTIVE DATE.—Except as provided in sub8 section (b), this Act and the amendments made by this

9 Act shall take effect on the date of the enactment of this

10 Act.

11 (b) APPLICATION OF AMENDMENTS.—The amend12 ments made by this Act shall apply only with respect to

13 cases commenced under title 11 of the United States Code

14 on or after the date of the enactment of this Act.

Æ
Betty Caitlin Nicole SMITH, petitioner, v. Zachary Taylor DANIEL.

No. 18-8559.

Supreme Court of the United States

May 13, 2019.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District denied.
James E. WHITNEY, petitioner, v. Donald J. TRUMP, President of the United States.

No. 18-5050.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 1, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit denied.
**THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS**

**Post Office Box 12248**

**Austin, Texas 78711**

**(512) 463-1312**

April 11, 2008

Mr. Vernon Childs Howerton Jr.

Looper Reed & McGraw, PC

1601 Elm Street, Suite 4100

Dallas, TX 75201

Mr. Michael L. Knapek

Jackson Walker L.L.P.

901 Main Street, Suite 6000

Dallas, TX 75202-3748

RE:Case Number:  06-0660

Court of Appeals Number:  05-04-00157-CV

Trial Court Number:  01-06011-K

Style:MEDICAL CITY DALLAS, LTD.

v.

CARLISLE CORPORATION D/B/A CARLISLE SYNTEC SYSTEMS

Dear Counsel:

Today the Supreme Court of Texas delivered the enclosed opinion and judgment in the above-referenced cause.  (Justice Hecht not sitting)

Sincerely,

Blake A. Hawthorne, Clerk

by Claudia Jenks, Chief Deputy Clerk

Enclosures

**Case No. 06-0660Page 1**
***EPR***

 

**EVANCIC PERRAULTROBERTSON**

**CERTIFIEDGENERAL ACCOUNTANTS**

 

 

April 4,2003

 

 

 

**JamesB. Parsons**

ParsonsLaw Firm

500 108thAve. N.E.

Suite1710

Bellevue,WA 98004

 

DearJames:

 

**Re:   Prime Equipment**

 

We herebyapprove the Parsons Law Firm to use the following financial statements in theform 10-KSB report.

 

   -    Consolidated financial statements of Prime Equipment Inc.for the year ended December 31, 2002.

 

If youhave any questions, please contact our office at (604) 936-4377.

 

Yourstruly

**EvancicPerrault Robertgson**

 

/s/Robert Tanaka

 

RobertTanaka, C.A.

 

/tw

 

cc:   Perry Guglielmi

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2ndFloor Herco Centre, 566 Lougheed Highway, Coquitlam, B.C. V33K 3S3

Telephone(604) 936-4377   Fax (604) 936-8376

Websitewww.eprcoq.com   Email:  epr@eproq.com

 

OfficesAcross Canada

 

AffiliatesArount the World
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
consolidated balance sheet as of July 1, 2000 and the consolidated statement of
operations for the six months ended July 1, 2000 and is qualified in its
entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                                    <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                      DEC-30-2000
<PERIOD-START>                         JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                           JUL-01-2000
<CASH>                                      13,160
<SECURITIES>                                     0
<RECEIVABLES>                                3,036
<ALLOWANCES>                                   232
<INVENTORY>                                 56,072
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            76,044
<PP&E>                                     229,845
<DEPRECIATION>                              59,720
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             373,090
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                      120,342
<BONDS>                                    125,213
<COMMON>                                         0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                            0
<PREFERRED>                                     23
<OTHER-SE>                                 163,019
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               373,090
<SALES>                                    424,013
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                           424,013
<CGS>                                      291,150
<TOTAL-COSTS>                              291,150
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                           135,021
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               (27)
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           3,757
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             (5,888)
<INCOME-TAX>                                (2,442)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                         (3,446)
<DISCONTINUED>                                   0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                  0
<CHANGES>                                        0
<NET-INCOME>                                (3,446)
<EPS-BASIC>                                  (0.15)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                (0.15)


</TABLE>
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

June 21, 2018

No. 04-18-00349-CV

IN RE Venkateswar Rao KODATI

Original Mandamus Proceeding1

ORDER

Sitting: Karen Angelini, Justice

Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

Irene Rios, Justice

On May 29, 2018, relator filed a petition for writ of mandamus and a motion for 

emergency temporary relief. This court believes a serious question concerning the mandamus 

relief sought requires further consideration. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(b). The respondent and the 

real party in interest may file a response to the petition for writ of mandamus in this court no 

later than July 9, 2018. Any such response must conform to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 

52.4. 

Relator’s request for a stay is GRANTED IN PART. That portion of the trial court’s 

May 16, 2018 “Order Vacating Prior Order and Orders on Clarification, Motion for Enforcement 

and for Contempt” ordering relator to pay a fine of $500.00 is hereby STAYED pending final 

resolution of the petition for writ of mandamus. All other relief requested in relator’s motion for 

emergency temporary relief is DENIED.

It is so ORDERED on June 21, 2018.

PER CURIAM

ATTESTED TO: _____________________________

Keith E. Hottle, 

Clerk of Court

 

1 This proceeding arises out of Cause No. 2015-CI-02059, styled In the Interest of M.P.K. and P.S.K., Children, 

pending in the 73rd Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas, the Honorable Renée Yanta presiding.
```
  
 
WHEAT - MINNEAPOLIS GRAIN EXCHANGE                                   Code-001626
OPTION AND FUTURES COMBINED POSITIONS AS OF 10/18/11          |
--------------------------------------------------------------| NONREPORTABLE
      NON-COMMERCIAL      |   COMMERCIAL    |      TOTAL      |   POSITIONS
--------------------------|-----------------|-----------------|-----------------
  Long  | Short  |Spreads |  Long  | Short  |  Long  | Short  |  Long  | Short
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(CONTRACTS OF 5,000 BUSHELS)                         OPEN INTEREST:       43,229
COMMITMENTS
  11,154    1,212    3,770   15,306   27,800   30,229   32,782   13,000   10,447

CHANGES FROM 10/11/11 (CHANGE IN OPEN INTEREST:       -656)
     170      -64     -676      188      641     -318      -98     -337     -557

PERCENT OF OPEN INTEREST FOR EACH CATEGORY OF TRADER
    25.8      2.8      8.7     35.4     64.3     69.9     75.8     30.1     24.2

NUMBER OF TRADERS IN EACH CATEGORY (TOTAL TRADERS:       51)
      14        5       14       24       20       46       37
```

----

Updated October 21, 2011
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM FORM 10-Q
AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                       1,734,221
<SECURITIES>                                 5,991,841
<RECEIVABLES>                                7,056,662
<ALLOWANCES>                                   187,750
<INVENTORY>                                 13,655,514
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            29,044,781
<PP&E>                                       8,555,056
<DEPRECIATION>                               3,375,513
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              37,249,301
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        6,813,444
<BONDS>                                        278,254
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        53,692
<OTHER-SE>                                  24,223,605
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                37,249,301
<SALES>                                      5,074,513
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             5,074,513
<CGS>                                        3,242,280
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                3,242,280
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                16,000
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              10,314
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (1,734,100)
<INCOME-TAX>                                 (595,000)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (1,139,100)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (1,139,100)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.21)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.21)
        

</TABLE>
Ernest HUNTER, petitioner, v. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.

No. 18-137.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 1, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the District of Columbia Court of Appeals denied.
Appeal Ordered Withdrawn and Opinion issued February 22,1999

In The

Court of Appeals

Jfftftlf district of utexas at Dallas

No. 05-98-00955-CR

EX PARTE ROBERT PETER PIAZZA

On Appeal from the 199th District Court

Collin County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 199-80229-97

?S/9^

OPINION PER CURIAM

Before ChiefJustice Thomas andJustices Kinkeade and O'Neill

Appellant has filed amotion to withdraw the appeal. Appellant's counsel has approved

the motion.

This Court hereby GRANTS the motion and ORDERS the appeal withdrawn and that

this decision be certified below for observance. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.2(a).

PER CURIAM

Do Not Publish

Tex. R. App. P. 47
Fifth Court of Appeals

Case Party & Attorney Address List

Page: 1

Date Printed: 02/22/1999

Case Number: 05-98-00955-CR Date Filed: 05/05/1998

Style: Ex Parte: Piazza, Robert Peter

v.

APP Thomas G. Pappas

ATT 015455300

Burleson Pate & Gibson, LLP

P. O. Box 190623, LB-10

2414 North Akard Street, Suite 700

Dallas, TX 75201

Phone 214/871-4900

CLK Collin County District Clerk

DCK 000000199

199th Judicial District Court

Collin County Courthouse

210 S. McDonald Street

McKinney, TX 75069

JDG Judge

JDG 000000199

199th Judicial District Court

Collin County Courthouse

210 S. McDonald Street

McKinney, TX 75069

STA Lauri J. Walthall- Blake

ATT 000788613

Assistant Criminal District Attorney

Collin County Courthouse

210 South McDonald Street

McKinney, TX 75069

Phone 214/548-4323
05-98-955-CR

CC: Clerk -

CC: Judge -

Author of opinion ChiefJustice Thomas

Trial Court Judge Stephens

Rehear denied

**THIS OPINION IS RELEASED FOR PUBLICATION YES / NO
1 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. 98-10319 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

ROBERT MITCHELL HICKS,

Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 3:97-CR-289-ALL-H

- - - - - - - - - - January 6, 1999 Before DAVIS, DUHÉ, and PARKER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: 1

Robert Hicks appeals his conviction of bank fraud, 18 U.S.C.

§ 1344(2), and bank robbery, 18 U.S.C. § 2113(b). He argues that

insufficient evidence existed to support his bank fraud conviction

because the Government failed to prove beyond a rea sonable doubt

that (1) he made any fraudulent representations to NationsBank, and

(2) he possessed the specific intent to defraud NationsBank. He

further argues that insufficien t evidence existed to support his

bank robbery conviction because the Government failed to provebeyond a reasonable doubt that he possessed the specific intent to

steal NationsBank’s money.

We have reviewed the record and the briefs of the parties and

conclude that sufficient evidence existed to suppor t the jury’s

finding that (1) Hicks made fraudulent representations to

NationsBank, see United States v. Hord , 6 F.3d 276, 285 (5th Cir.

1993), and (2) Hicks possessed the specific intent to commit both

crimes, see United States v. Khamis
, 674 F.2d 390, 393-94 (5th Cir.

1992). The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
Electronically Filed

Intermediate Court of Appeals

CAAP-13-0005534

26-FEB-2016

08:41 AM
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 19
- 7047

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,

v. JUSTIN BARRON MCCARTY , Defendant

- Appellant

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina , at Raleigh

. Terrence W. Boyle, Chief District Judge. ( 5:05

- cr - 00259

- BO

- 2 )

Submitted : March 10, 2020 Decided: March 12, 2020

Before NIEMEYER and AGEE , Circuit Judges , and SHEDD, Senior Circuit Judge

.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

. Justin Barron McCarty , Appellant Pro Se

. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Justin Barron McCarty appeals the district court’s order denying his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2018) motion for a sentence reduction. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district co urt. United States v. McCarty , No. 5:05

- cr - 00259

- BO

- 2 (E.D.N.C., July 1, 2019). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional p rocess. AFFIRMED
Larry HOUSEHOLDER, et al., applicants, v. OHIO A. PHILIP RANDOLPH INSTITUTE, et al.

No. 18A1165.

Supreme Court of the United States

May 24, 2019.

Application for stay presented to Justice SOTOMAYOR and by her referred to the Court is granted, and it is ordered that the order of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, case No. 1:18-CV-00357, entered May 3, 2019, is stayed pending the timely filing and disposition of an appeal in this Court or further order of this Court.
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04-19-00266-CR

Jose Luis GONZALES,

Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 175th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2018CR12836

Honorable Catherine Torres-Stahl, Judge Presiding

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice

Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice

Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice

Delivered and Filed: June 12, 2019

DISMISSED

The trial court’s certification in this appeal states: “[T]his criminal case is a plea-bargain 

case, and the defendant has NO right of appeal.” 

“In a plea bargain case . . . a defendant may appeal only: (a) those matters that were raised 

by written motion filed and ruled on before trial, or (b) after getting the trial court’s permission to

appeal.” TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2(a)(2). The clerk’s record, which contains a written plea bargain, 

establishes the punishment assessed by the court does not exceed the punishment recommended 

by the prosecutor and agreed to by the defendant. See id. The clerk’s record does not include a 
04-19-00266-CR

- 2 -

written motion filed and ruled upon before trial, nor does it indicate the trial court gave its 

permission to appeal. See id. The trial court’s certification, therefore, appears to accurately reflect 

that this is a plea-bargain case and appellant does not have a right to appeal.

We must dismiss an appeal “if a certification that shows the defendant has the right of 

appeal has not been made part of the record.” TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2(d). We issued an order stating 

this appeal would be dismissed unless an amended trial court certification was made part of the 

appellate record by May 30, 2019. See TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2(d); Daniels v. State, 110 S.W.3d 174 

(Tex. App.—San Antonio 2003, no pet.). No such amended trial court certification has been filed. 

Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed pursuant to Rule 25.2(d).

PER CURIAM

DO NOT PUBLISH