UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Before The
COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION

�

Our review of the record and the parties' appellate submissions establishes that the findings and conclusions of the presiding officer are supported by the weight of the evidence; we adopt them.¹ �� We further conclude that there was no error material to the outcome of this proceeding.�� Complainant Christman's allegations of bias are unsupported in law and fact. The parties have not raised important questions of law or policy meriting extended discussion.

Accordingly, we affirm the initial decision.

IT IS SO ORDERED.²

By the Commission (Chairperson BORN, and Commissioners TULL, HOLUM, SPEARS, and NEWSOME).

_______________________
Jean A. Webb
Secretary of the Commission
Commodity Futures Trading Commission

Dated:� October 16, 1998

1 The evidentiary hearing before the presiding officer occurred on December 30, 1997, not on January 13, 1998, as reported in the initial decision.� At the hearing, the presiding officer received substantial evidence on why, given the parties' course of conduct, it was reasonable to liquidate the contracts.

2 Under Sections 6(c) and 14(e) of the Commodity Exchange Act (7 U.S.C. �� 9, 18(e) (1994)), a party may appeal a reparation order of the Commission to the United States Court of Appeals for only the circuit in which a hearing was held. The statute also states that such an appeal must be filed within 15 days after the notice of the reparation order.