alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
U.S. Department of the Treasury 

Emergency Rental Assistance (ERA1) Program Authorized by the Consolidated 

Appropriations Act, 2021 

Notice Regarding ERA1 Assistance Provided for December 2022 

May 3, 2023 

*** 

As you know, ERA1 Grantees may not provide prospective rental or utility assistance, or cover 

costs for other expenses related to housing, or housing stability services, for any period beyond 

the end of the period of performance. The period of performance for ERA1 awards ended on 

September 30, 2022, except for funds received through reallocation, for which the period of 

performance was extended 90 days and ended on December 29, 2022. 

However, as long as the reallocated funds were originally obligated for eligible ERA1 expenses 

before December 29, 2022, Treasury is granting a forbearance to allow financial assistance to 

cover December 30 and 31, 2022. This forbearance will not penalize grantees who provided 

tenants with December rental, utility, and other direct financial assistance to cover the full month 

of eligible expenses. It will reduce the administrative burden on grantees that would result from 

retroactively pro-rating assistance and avoid the creation of additional housing security issues for 

those who received financial assistance that covered the full month of December 2022. 

Please note that under no circumstances may grantees obligate funds after the conclusion of the 

period of performance. Additionally, Treasury will not grant any similar type of forbearance to 

payments covering any period after December 31, 2022. Such payments are ineligible and will 

be considered a failure to comply with the ERA1 Award Terms. 

*** 

If you have any questions, please refer to our ERA Self-Service Resources or contact us by email 

at emergencyrentalassistance@treasury.gov
#### Rayfield MOORE, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 71-188.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

April 15, 1971.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Palm Beach County; James R. Knott, Judge.

Appeal quashed.
##### 



Exhibit 11 CT COMMUNICATIONS, INC.
AND SUBSIDIARIES Computation of Earnings Per Share
(in thousands, except per share data) Three months ended June 30,
    
    Six months ended June 30,2004
    
    2003
    
    2004
    
    2003Computation of share totals used in
computing earnings per share:Basic weighted average number of
shares outstanding
    
    
    18,876
    
    
    
    18,740
    
    
    
    18,855
    
    
    
    18,728Incremental shares arising from
outstanding stock options
    
    
    175
    
    
    
    42
    
    
    
    144
    
    
    
    20Total weighted average number of
diluted shares outstanding
    
    
    19,051
    
    
    
    18,782
    
    
    
    18,999
    
    
    
    18,748Income from continuing operations
    
    $
    4,110
    
    
    $
    10,782
    
    
    $
    7,602
    
    
    $
    13,264Loss from discontinued operations
    
    
    
    
    
    
    (424
    )
    
    
    
    
    
    
    (424
    )Net income
    
    $
    4,110
    
    
    $
    10,358
    
    
    $
    7,602
    
    
    $
    12,840Net income for common stock
    
    $
    4,105
    
    
    $
    10,353
    
    
    $
    7,592
    
    
    $
    12,830Basic earnings (loss) per share:Continuing operations
    
    $
    0.22
    
    
    $
    0.58
    
    
    $
    0.40
    
    
    $
    0.71Discontinued operations
    
    
    
    
    
    
    (0.02
    )
    
    
    
    
    
    
    (0.02
    )Net income for common stock
    
    
    0.22
    
    
    
    0.55
    
    
    
    0.40
    
    
    
    0.69Diluted earnings (loss) per share:Continuing operations
    
    $
    0.22
    
    
    $
    0.57
    
    
    $
    0.40
    
    
    $
    0.71Discontinued operations
    
    
    
    
    
    
    (0.02
    )
    
    
    
    
    
    
    (0.02
    )Net income for common stock
    
    
    0.22
    
    
    
    0.55
    
    
    
    0.40
    
    
    
    0.68
## F IRST 

## D ISTRICT 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL 

## S TATE OF 

## F LORIDA

_____________________________
No. 1D 20 22

- 2791

_____________________________
R EINALDO C ORTES , Appellant,

v.

S TATE O F F LORIDA , Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Dixie County

. Jennifer Johnson , Judge

. May 2, 2024

P ER C URIAM

.
A FFIRMED

. R OBERTS , K ELSEY , and W INOKUR , JJ., concur

.

_____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331

.

_____________________________2 Reinaldo Cortes, pro se
, Appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee
, for Appellee.
#### Emile SQUARE v. LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY and U. S. Plywood-Champion Papers, Inc.

No. 53173.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Feb. 19, 1973.

In re: Emile Square applying for Cer-tiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, Parish of Livingston. 270 So.2d 335.

Writ refused. On the facts found by the Court of Appeal, the result is correct.

TATE, J.,

dissents. The Court of Appeal was in error in not considering the lay evidence, accepted as correct by the trier of fact. See Williams v. Hudson East, 261 La. 959, 261 So.2d 629 (1972).

DIXON, J., dissents from the refusal.
SSA TERMINALS (LOCAL 1414) 

Page 37.1.861
Page 37.1.862
Page 37.1.863

 
Page 37.1.864
Page 37.1.865

 

SSA TERMINALS (LOCAL 1484) 

Page 37.1.867

Page 37.1.869
Page 37.1.870
Page 37.1.871

Page 37.1.873
Page 37.1.874

D tomo v su 
SSA TERMINALS 

Page 37.1.875
ST CLAIRE CADILLAC 

Page 37.1.876
Page 37.1.877
Page 37.1.878
 

Page 37.1.879
Page 37.1.880
256 La. 351

#### X-L FINANCE COMPANY, Incorporated v. Eugene M. & Louise P. BONVILLION, and Mildred P. & Joseph T. Cadlere.

No. 50574.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

June 26, 1970.

In re: Eugene M. and Louise P. Bon-villion applying for certiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, Parish of Orleans.

It is ordered that the writ of review issue; that the Court of Appeal send up the record in duplicate of the case; and that counsel for plaintiff and defendant be notified.
#### Kevin MEEHAN, Petitioner, v. FLORIDA PAROLE & PROBATION COMMISSION and Louie L. Wainwright, Respondents.

No. 73-867.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Nov. 6, 1973.

Habeas corpus denied.
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 Annual Report of Monar International Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the year ended July 31, 2013, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “report”), I, Robert G. Clarke, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, 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 this Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.





Dated this 18th day of November, 2013.








ROBERT G. CLARKERobert G. ClarkeChief Executive Officer
Transaction Summary

Treasury agreed to make a loan totaling $8.4 million to Timco Engine Center, Inc. (the 

Company), a wholly owned subsidiary of Oscoda Engine Services Corp. The Company is a 

repair station with approximately 25 U.S. employees in March 2020.

Treasury made the loan pursuant to section 4003(b)(1) of the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and 

Economic Security (CARES) Act. The loan is secured by engines and spare parts, accounts 

receivable, ground support equipment, and tooling and inventory. The loan has an interest rate 

equal to LIBOR plus 3.5% and matures on November 5, 2025. The Company may draw the loan 

proceeds in a single draw through November 19, 2020. The loan proceeds will be used to 

provide liquidity to continue the Company’s operations. The transaction agreement includes 

covenants by the Company to comply with certain restrictions on employee compensation, stock 

repurchases, dividends, and reductions in employment levels, as required by the CARES Act.

The loan constitutes senior indebtedness of the Company, and Treasury will receive 3% 

payment-in-kind annual interest on the loan in accordance with section 4003(d) of the CARES 

Act.
Order filed December 2, 2015

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________ NO. 14

- 15

- 00991

- CV

____________ IN RE DENBURY RESOUR CES, INC. AND DENBUR Y ONSHORE, LLC , Relator

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING WRIT OF MANDAMUS 157th District Court Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 2015

- 09546



### ORDER
On November 25, 2015, relators, Denbury Resources, Inc. and Denbury Onshore, LLC, filed a petition for writ of mandamus in this court. See Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. § 22.221 (West 2004); see also Tex. R. App. P. 52. Relators also filed a motion for temporary relief. See Tex. R. App. P. 52.8(b), 52.10.
The Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure require that the typeface of computer

- generated do cuments filed with the court of appeals be “no smaller than
14

- point except for footnotes, which must be no small er than 12

- point.” Tex. R.App. P. 9.4(e). Relators’ petition for writ of mandamus do es not comply with the
stated typeface size.
Furthermore, Rule 9.4(i)(2)(B) sets forth the maximum length for a computer

- generated petition in an original proceeding. See Tex. R. App. P. 9.4(i)(2)(B). A party must include a certificate of compliance stating the number
of words in the document. Tex . R. App. P. 9.4(i)(3)

. R elators’ petition does not contain the required certificate of compliance.

W e ORDER relators to file a n amended petition for writ of mandamus that compl ies with the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure on or before December 7
, 201 5

. See Tex. R. App. P. 9.4(k). We also request real parties in interest to file a response to the petition on or before December 21 , 2015.

We further DENY relator’s motion for temporary relief.

PER CURIAM
of a witness while she was testifying at trial by other witnesses who would

have been excluded. Appellant has failed to demonstrate prejudice. Appellant failed to satisfy his burden of proof at the evidentiary hearing when he presented no evidence that the testifying witness was in fact intimidated into changing her testimony, what her testimony would have been had she not been intimidated, or how it would have affected the outcome at trial. We therefore conclude that the district court did not err in denying this claim.

Second, appellant argues that counsel was ineffective for failing to object to the prosecutor's misstatement of law in closing argument concerning the definitions of willfulness, premeditation, and deliberation. Appellant has failed to demonstrate deficiency or prejudice. Despite carrying the burden of proof, appellant failed to question either trial counsel at his evidentiary hearing about their decision not to object to the misstatement of the law. See Doleman v. State, 112 Nev. 843, 848, 921 P.2d 278, 280-81 (1996) (noting that strategic decisions are "virtually unchallengeable") (quoting Howard v. State, 106 Nev. 713, 722, 800 P.2d 175, 180 (1990), abrogated on other grounds by Harte v. State, 116 Nev. 1054, 1072 n.6, 13 P.3d 420, 432 n.6 (2000))). Further, appellant failed to provide this court with complete trial transcripts such that this court cannot review the district court's conclusion that he was not prejudiced. See Greene v. State, 96 Nev. 555, 558, 612 P.2d 686, 688 (1980) ("The burden to make a proper appellate record rests on appellant."). We therefore conclude that the district court did not err in denying this claim.

Appellant's remaining claims—the district court erred in denying a motion to continue trial; the State improperly excluded the only minority potential juror; and the State misstated the law in closing

SUPREME COURT

OF NEVADA 2
(0) 1947A

### J.

argument at trial—could have been raised in appellant's direct appeal. Appellant failed to demonstrate good cause for his failure to do so. NRS 34.810(1)(b); see also Franklin a State, 

### 110 Nev. 750, 751-52, 877 P.2d 1058, 1059 (1994), overruled on other grounds by Thomas v. State, 

### 115 Nev. 148, 979 P.2d 222 (1999). Accordingly, we

ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED.

, 

### J. Hardesty

fi 

### D1 14 9% J. Douglas

cc: Hon. Lidia Stiglich, District Judge Story Law Group Attorney General/Carson City Washoe County District Attorney Washoe District Court Clerk

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 

### 3

(0) 1947A
C OURT OF A PPEALS FOR THE

F IRST D ISTRICT OF T EXAS AT H OUSTON

M EMORANDUM O RDER

Appellate case name: Stuart Wilson and Frida Wilson v. Jeremiah Magaro, Individually and

Chase Drywall Ltd.

Appellate case number: 01

- 12

- 00952

- CV

Trial court case number: 2012

- 07300

Trial court: 157th District Court of Harris County

Appellants’ Motion for Leave to File Appellants’ Supplemental Brief is GRANTED. It is

so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: /s/ Laura Carter Higley

Acting individually

Date:

__ June 25, 2013

____________________
#### Diana Marie DANSIG, formerly Diana Marie Roman, Appellant, v. Robert L. ROMAN, Appellee.

No. 77-1645.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

May 16, 1978.

James P. O’Flarity of Law Offices of James P. O’Flarity, Fort Lauderdale, for appellant.

No appearance for appellee.

ANSTEAD, Judge.

It appears from the record before this court that an order was entered by the trial court rescinding a previous order and deciding other substantive issues without notice or an opportunity to be heard by one of the parties. This was not proper. *Lieberman v. Marshall,*236 So.2d 120 (Fla.1970).

Accordingly, the trial court’s order of June 29, 1977 is hereby reversed with directions for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

REVERSED.

DOWNEY, C. J., and DAUKSCH, J., concur.
O rder filed March 16, 2016

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14

- 15

- 00408

- CV

____________ RUDY GUILLEN AND ALL OCCUPANTS , Appellant

V. U.S. BANK, N.A., Appellee

On Appeal from the Co Civil Ct at Law No 1

Harris County, Texas Tr ial Court Cause No. 1059227



### O R D E R

The clerk’s record was filed May 15, 2015 . Our review has determined that a relevant
item has been omitted from the clerk's record. See Tex. R. App. P. 34.5(c). The record does

not contain Trial court order setting supersedeas bond pursua nt to Texas Property Code 24.007 filed April 30, 2015.
The Harris County District Clerk is directed to file a supplemental clerk’s record on or before March 22, 2016, containing Trial court order setting supersedeas bond pursuant to Texas Property Code 24.007 filed Ap ril 30, 2015.
If the omitted item is not part of the case file, the district clerk is directed to file a supplemental clerk’s record containing a certified statement that the omitted item is not a part of the case file.

PER CURIAM
US TREASURY FINANCING SCHEDULE FOR 1st QUARTER 2006

BILLIONS OF DOLLARS

ANNOUNCEMENT AUCTION SETTLEMENT OFFERED MATURING NEW

ISSUE DATE DATE DATE AMOUNT AMOUNT MONEY

4-WK 3-MO 6-MO

4-WEEK AND 12/29 1/3 1/4 10.00 19.00 17.00 49.00 -3.00

3&6 MONTH BILLS 1/5 1/9 1/11 8.00 19.00 16.00 46.00 -3.00

1/12 1/17 1/18 8.00 19.00 16.00 48.00 -5.00

1/19 1/23 1/25 8.00 19.00 16.00 52.00 -9.00

1/26 1/30 2/1 12.00 20.00 17.00 42.00 7.00

2/2 2/6 2/8 19.00 20.00 17.00 40.00 16.00

2/9 2/13 2/15 19.00 20.00 17.00 40.00 16.00

2/16 2/21 2/22 24.00 21.00 18.00 40.00 23.00

2/23 2/27 3/1 24.00 21.00 18.00 43.00 20.00

3/2 3/6 3/8 24.00 21.00 18.00 49.00 14.00

3/19 3/13 3/15 24.00 20.00 18.00 48.00 14.00

3/16 3/20 3/22 24.00 20.00 18.00 53.00 9.00

3/23 3/27 3/29 17.00 19.00 17.00 54.00 -1.00

702.00 604.00 98.00

CASH MANAGEMENT BILLS

12-DAY BILL 2/27 3/1 3/3 15.00 15.00 0.00

Matures 3/15

7-DAY BILL 3/3 3/6 3/8 25.00 25.00 0.00

Matures 3/15

0.00

COUPONS

CHANGE

IN SIZE

10-Year TIPS 1/9 1/12 1/17 8.00 8.00

20-Year TIPS (R) 1/19 1/24 1/31 8.00 8.00

2-Year Note 1/19 1/25 1/31 20.00 25.61 -5.61

5-Year Note 1/19 1/26 1/31 13.00 13.00

3-Year Note 2/1 2/7 2/15 18.00 18.00

10-Year Note 2/1 2/8 2/15 13.00 13.57 -0.57

30-Year Note 2/1 2/9 2/15 15.00 3.71* 11.29

2-Year Note 2/20 2/22 2/28 20.00 26.00 -6.00

5-Year Note 2/20 2/23 2/28 13.00 13.00

10-Year Note (R) 3/6 3/9 3/15 8.00 8.00

2-Year Note 3/20 3/22 3/31 20.00 26.01 -6.01

5-year Note 3/20 3/23 3/31 13.00 13.00

169.00 106.69 74.11

*20-year bonds

R = Reopening Treasury announced a Q4 NET CASH RAISED THIS QUARTER: 172.11

A = Announced borrowing need of $171

Actual Amounts in Italics billion on October 31st
UNITED STATES

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Washington, DC 20549

 

**FORM N-Q**

**QUARTERLY SCHEDULE OF PORTFOLIO HOLDINGS OF REGISTERED**

**MANAGEMENT INVESTMENT COMPANY**

**_______________________________**

Investment Company Act file number  811-4632

The European Equity Fund, Inc.

(Exact name of registrant as specified in charter)

 

345 Park Avenue

New York, NY  10154

(Address of principal executive offices)             (Zip code)

 

Paul Schubert

345 Park Avenue

New York, NY  10154-0004

(Name and address of agent for service)

Registrant's telephone number, including area code:  (212) 454-7190

Date of fiscal year end:  12/31

Date of reporting period: 9/30/09

 

ITEM 1.  SCHEDULE OF INVESTMENTS

 

**THE EUROPEAN EQUITY FUND, INC.**
# Dividends

# Footnotes

# CPP Missed Payments

# CPP MP Footnotes

# CDCI Missed Payments

# CDCI MP Footnotes
#### In re FLORIDA TRAFFIC COURT RULES.

No. 43164.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Dec. 20, 1972.

PER CURIAM.

The Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure adopted December 6, 1972, governs the procedure in vehicular and pedestrian and traffic offenses only insofar as such rules are made applicable by the Florida Rules of Practice and Procedure for traffic courts. F.R.Cr.P., Rule 3.010, 33 F.S.A. Upon request of the Traffic Court Review Committee, Rule 6.13 of the Florida Rules of Practice and Procedure for traffic courts is amended so as to read in the manner and form set forth in the appendage. This amendment shall govern all proceedings within its scope after 12:01 a. m., February 1, 1973. All conflicting rules and statutes are hereby superseded. Statutes not superseded shall remain in effect as rules promulgated by the Supreme Court.

It is so ordered.

ROBERTS, C. J., and ERVIN, ADKINS, BOYD, McCAIN and DEKLE, JJ., concur.

6.13. PRACTICE AS IN CRIMINAL RULES

When trial by jury is requested and authorized, such trial shall be governed by the following Rules of Criminal Procedure so far as they may be applicable:

3.030, 3.040, 3.050, 3.060, 3.070, 3.080, 3.-090, 3.100, 3.110, 3.180, 3.190, 3.220(d), 3.'-230, 3.231, 3.240, 3.280, 3.281, 3.290, 3.300, 3.310, 3.320, 3.330, 3.340, 3.350, 3.360, 3.370, 3.390, 3.391, 3.400, 3.410, 3.420, 3.430, 3.440, 3.450, 3.451, 3.470, 3.500, 3.510, 3.520, 3.530, 3.540, 3.560, 3.570, 3.580, 3.590, 3.600, 3.610, 3.620, 3.630, 3.640, 3.650, 3.670, 3.680, 3.690, 3.700, 3.722, 3.730.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM FORM 10Q OF
COX COMMUNICATIONS FOR THE SIX MONTHS ENDED JUNE 30, 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-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                          81,464
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  344,963
<ALLOWANCES>                                   (19,992)
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                       7,100,651
<DEPRECIATION>                              (1,852,653)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              27,951,755
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                        1,152,158
<PREFERRED>                                      4,836
<COMMON>                                       604,940
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               (27,951,755)
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            (1,658,823)
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  538,349
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               561,648
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             264,705
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              1,509,661
<INCOME-TAX>                                   313,107
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          1,196,554
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 1,158,745
<EPS-BASIC>                                       1.92<F1>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.89<F1>
<FN>
<F1>EPS BASIC AND EPS DILUTED HAVE BEEN RESTATED TO REFLECT A TWO-FOR-ONE STOCK
SPLIT ON MAY 21, 1999. INTERIM FILINGS SUBSEQUENT TO THE STOCK SPLIT HAVE BEEN
ADJUSTED TO REFLECT THE STOCK SPLIT.
</FN>


</TABLE>
#### MISSISSIPPI STATE HIGHWAY COMMISSION v. Mrs. J. C. LISENBEA et al.

No. 45934.

Supreme Court of Mississippi.

Nov. 9, 1970.

Sam P. Cooper, Jr., Picayune, for appellant.

Stewart & Prichard, Picayune, for ap-pellees.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

GALEN COLLINS,

Defendant Below,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF DELAWARE,

Plaintiff Below,

Appellee.

§

§ No. 355, 2015

§

§

§

§ Court Below—Superior Court

§ of the State of Delaware,

§ in and for New Castle County

§ Cr. ID 1411011358

§ 

§

Submitted: August 10, 2015

 Decided: August 31, 2015

O R D E R

This 31st day of August 2015, it appears to the Court that, on July 9, 2015, 

the Senior Court Clerk issued a notice to the appellant to show cause why this 

appeal should not be dismissed for his failure to file his notice of appeal in a timely 

manner. The appellant failed to respond to the notice to show cause within the 

required ten-day period. The Court directed the appellant’s trial counsel to 

respond. Counsel indicated that he represented the appellant in entering a guilty 

plea, and the appellant never indicated a desire to appeal. Under the 

circumstances, dismissal of this action is deemed to be unopposed.

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the within appeal is 

DISMISSED.

BY THE COURT:

/s/ Leo E. Strine, Jr.

Chief Justice
2023 U.S. Treasury Market Conference

November 16, 2023
Figure 1: Implied Yield Volatility

2
Figures 2 & 3: Treasury Yield Volatility and Liquidity

3
Figure 4: Average Daily Treasury Trading Volumes by Week

4
Figure 5: Weekly Share of Participant Activity in the Interdealer 

Electronic Market

5