alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
## COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02

- 15

- 00236

- CR

Harold Schatz

v.

The State of Texas §

§

§

§

§ From County Criminal Court No. 10

of Tarrant County (G850947

- A2584676)

August 13, 2015

Opinion by Justice Gabriel

(p)



### JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that

the appeal should be dismissed. It is ordered that the appeal is dismissed for

want of jurisdiction.

SECOND D ISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

By /s/ Lee Gabriel

Justice Lee Gabriel
#                                                 ADM Christopher W. Grady                                                                                            

#### USS George H. W. Bush

#### ADM Christopher W. Grady

07 December 2021

Tags:
**USFFC
Case 1:07-cv-05861-RMB-GWG Document 29 Filed 11/28/2007 Page 1 of 3
Case 1:07-cv-05861-RMB-GWG Document 29 Filed 11/28/2007 Page 2 of 3
Case 1:07-cv-05861-RMB-GWG Document 29 Filed 11/28/2007 Page 3 of 3
AEGIS SEF | 2829 Technology Forest Boulevard, Suite 260 | The Woodlands, Texas 77381

January 27, 2023

Submitted via Portal

Mr. Christopher J. Kirkpatrick

Office of the Secretariat

U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission

Three Lafayette Centre

1155 21st Street, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20581

Re: Confidential Treatment Request –AEGIS SEF Exhibit N-1 Participant

Agreement and Exhibit N-3 Market Participant Addendum

Dear Sir:

AEGIS SEF, LLC (“AEGIS SEF”) hereby requests that the U.S. Commodity Futures Trading

Commission (the “Commission”) accord confidential treatment to Exhibit N-1 Participant 

Agreement, Exhibit N-3 Market Participant Addendum, and associated redlines

(“Exhibits”), which was submitted to the Commission as 40.6(d) Weekly Notification of 

Amended Terms and Conditions on this date. This request pertains to all material in the Exhibit. 

The Exhibit bears the designation “Confidential Treatment Requested by AEGIS SEF, LLC.”

This request for confidential treatment is made pursuant to Commission Regulations 40.8, as 

Exhibit contains information that would reveal the trade secrets or confidential commercial or 

financial information of AEGIS SEF and its

affiliates. 

Please contact the undersigned at 832-413-5973 or afurman@aegis-hedging.com with any 

questions regarding this matter.

Andrew Furman

Chief Compliance Officer

AEGIS SEF, LLC

2829 Technology Forest Blvd

Suite 260

The Woodlands, TX 77381
Case 1:07-cv-05804-GEL Document 16 Filed 05/02/2008 Page 1 of 1
Case 1:07-cv-05794-MGC Document 22-9 Filed 09/17/2008 Page 1 of 8
Case 1:07-cv-05794-MGC Document 22-9 Filed 09/17/2008 Page 2 of 8
Case 1:07-cv-05794-MGC Document 22-9 Filed 09/17/2008 Page 3 of 8
Case 1:07-cv-05794-MGC Document 22-9 Filed 09/17/2008 Page 4 of 8
Case 1:07-cv-05794-MGC Document 22-9 Filed 09/17/2008 Page 5 of 8
Case 1:07-cv-05794-MGC Document 22-9 Filed 09/17/2008 Page 6 of 8
Case 1:07-cv-05794-MGC Document 22-9 Filed 09/17/2008 Page 7 of 8
Case 1:07-cv-05794-MGC Document 22-9 Filed 09/17/2008 Page 8 of 8
September 23, 2005

30

BY EMAIL

Office of the Secretariat

Commodity Futures Trading Commission
Three Lafayette Centre

1155 21st Street, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20581

i939.

a

20 35 WY 92 dao SH

ba
=
=,

Re: Certification: New York Mercantile Exchange, Inc.
Submission #05.171 (Listing of Additional Strike Prices for the
Gold, Copper, Heating Oil and Natural Gas Option Contracts)

Dear CFTC Commissioners:
Pursuant to COMEX Rule 15.03(c), COMEX Rule 17.04 and NYMEX Rule 300.20, the
President of the New York Mercantile Exchange, Inc. (“Exchange”) has directed that additional

strike prices be added for certain contract months in the Gold, Copper, Heating Oil and Natural
Gas option contracts as detailed below:

(A) On September 22, 2005, the Exchange added a call and a put:

1. atthe strike prices of 21000 and 26000 for the November 2005 contract
month of the Natural Gas option contract;

2. atthe strike price of 164 for the December 2005 contract month of the
Copper option contract;

3. atthe strike price of 14650 for the December 2005 contract month of the
Natural Gas option contract;

4. atthe strike prices of 28400 and 55000 for the December 2005 contract
month of the Heating Oil option contract;

5. at the strike price of 24700 for the January 2006 contract month of the
Heating Oil option contract;

6. at the strike price of 16800 for the February 2006 contract month of the
Natural Gas option contract;

7. atthe strike price of 13250 for the March 2006 contract month of the
Natural Gas option contract;


CFTC Commissioners
September 23, 2005
Page 2

8. at the strike price of 530 for the April 2006 contract month of the Gold
option contract;

9. atthe strike price of 23800 for the April 2006 contract month of the
Heating Oil option contract;

10. at the strike price of 10500 for the September 2006 contract month of the
Natural Gas option contract;

11. at the strike prices of 465, 475 and 620 for the December 2006 contract
month of the Gold option contract; and

12. at the strike price of 510 for the June 2007 contract month of the Gold
option contract.

Pursuant to the terms of COMEX Rule 15.03(c), COMEX Rule 17.04 and NYMEX Rule
300.20, the strike prices noted above are in increments that are consistent with the pricing for the
underlying futures contract. COMEX Rule 15.03(c), COMEX Rule 17.04 and NYMEX Rule
300.20 permit such directed strike prices to be effective upon adoption, provided that notice to
the CFTC is given within three business days of the strike price listing.

Should you have any questions concerning the above, please contact the undersigned
at (212) 299-2207.

Very truly yours,

Brian Regan
Vice President & Counsel

ce: Christopher K. Bowen
George Henderson
Michael Campanelli
Donna Talamo
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED APRIL 9, 2020

NO. 03-20-00197-CR

Carlos Gomez a/k/a Carlos Ulloa, Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

APPEAL FROM THE 147TH DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY

BEFORE JUSTICES GOODWIN, KELLY, AND SMITH

DISMISSED FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION-- OPINION BY JUSTICE KELLY

This is an appeal from the judgment of conviction rendered by the trial court. Having reviewed 

the record, it appears that the Court lacks jurisdiction over this appeal. Therefore, the Court 

dismisses the appeal for want of jurisdiction. Because appellant is indigent and unable to pay 

costs, no adjudication of costs is made.
(106 So. 57)

#### Ex parte C. M. McMAHEN & SONS.

(6 Div. 513.)

(Supreme Court of Alabama.

Oct. 29, 1925.)

1. Appeal and error'<&wkey;>l 012(1) — Where evidence is given ore tenus, finding on evidence not disturbed, unless judgment against weight of evidence, though statute permits review of findings without exceptions thereto.

Rule that, where evidence is ore tenus, finding of trial court will not be disturbed, unless conclusion *and judgment*is contrary *to great*weight of evidence, applies to Code 1907, § 5359, as amended by Acts 1915, p. 824, and recodified as section 8599 of Code 1923, permitting review of findings of trial court on evidence without reserving exceptions thereto.

2. Appeal and error c&wkey;>io95 — Supreme Court will not review finding of fact made by Court of Appeals.

Supreme Court will not review finding of fact made by Court of Appeals.

Certiorari to Court of Appeals.

Petition of C. M. McMahen & Sons for certiorari to the Court of Appeals "to review and revise the judgment and decision of that court in the case of C. M. McMahen & Sons v. L. & N. R. R. Co., 100 So. 56.

Writ denied.

M. B. Grace, of Birmingham, for petitioner.

Jones & Thomas, of Montgomery, and McClellan, Rice *&*Stone, of Birmingham, opposed.

THOMAS, J.

[1] The effect of section 5359, Code of 1907, as amended by the act of 1915, p. 824 (and as recodified as section 8599, Code of 1923), was recently adverted to in Fleming v. Moore (Ala. Sup.) 105 So. 679.1 The rule of Hackett v. Cash, 196 Ala. 403, 406, 72 So. 52, was held applicable to these statutes.

[2] This court has often declared that it will not review the finding of fact made by the Court of Appeals. Ex parte Steverson, 177 Ala. 389, 58 So. 992; Ex parte Williams, 182 Ala. 34, 62 So. 63; Postal Tel.-Cable Co. v. Minderhout, 195 Ala. 420, 71 So. 91; Moragne v. State, 200 Ala. 689, 77 So. 322, L. R. A. 1918E, 948; Ex parte McNeil, 204 Ala. 81, 85 So. 569; Ex parte Sansom, 205 Ala. 54, 87 So. 408; Ex parte Galloway, 209 Ala. 469, 96 So. 369.

The writ is denied.

ANDERSON, C. J., and SOMERVILLE and BOULDIN, JJ., concur.

1

**Ante, p. 692.
## NUMBER 13
- 10
- 00 6 51
- CV
COURT OF APPEALS
THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
CORPUS CHRISTI
- EDINBURG

____________________________________________________________ BOBBY KELLY, TDCJ
- CID #626124 , A ppellant ,

v. ERNEST GUTERREZ, JR., ET AL. , A ppellees

.

____________________________________________________________

On a ppeal from the 34 3rd District Court

of Bee County, Texas.

____________________________________________________________



## MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Justices Rodriguez, Vela, and Perkes Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam Appellant, Bobby Kelly , filed an appeal from a n order entered by the 93rd District
Court of Bee County, Texas, in cause number B

- 09

- 1241

- CV

- C . Appellant ha s filed a
motion to voluntarily dismiss the appeal on grounds he no longer wants to prosecute the appeal. Appellant request s that this Court dismiss the appeal.2

The Court, having considered the documents on file and appellant ’ s motion to dismiss the appeal, is of the opinion that the mo tion should be granted. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 42.1(a). Appellant ’ s motion to dismiss is granted, and the appeal is hereby DISMISSED. Costs will be taxed against appellant. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 42.1(d) ("Absent agreement of the parties, the court will tax c osts against the appellant."). Having dismissed the appeal at appellant ’ s request, no motion for rehearing will be entertained,
and our mandate will issue forthwith.

PER CURIAM
D elivered and filed the 13th day of October , 20 1 1

.
## F IRST 

## D ISTRICT 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL 

## S TATE OF 

## F LORIDA

_____________________________
No. 1D 19

- 0359

_____________________________
T HOMAS W. P ICKERING ,
Petitioner
,

v.

S TATE OF F LORIDA , Respondent

.

_____________________________

Petition for Belated Appeal

— Original Jurisdiction

.

June 20, 2019

P ER C URIAM

. The petition for belated appeal is denied on the merits.

R OWE , M AKAR , and K ELSEY , JJ., concur

.

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

.

_____________________________

Thomas W. Pickering, pro se
, Petitioner

.2 Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee
, for Respondent

.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-6295

JAHHAD MELEIK,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

SUPERINTENDENT ROBERT JONES; CAPTAIN MARQUIS BETZ,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, 

District Judge. (5:12-ct-03100-BO)

Submitted: May 22, 2014 Decided: May 29, 2014

Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, and HAMILTON and DAVIS, Senior 

Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Jahhad Meleik, Appellant Pro Se. Jodi Harrison, NORTH CAROLINA 

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Jahhad Meleik appeals the district court’s order 

denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) complaint. We 

have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. 

Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district 

court. Meleik v. Jones, No. 5:12-ct-03100-BO (E.D.N.C. Feb. 4, 

2014). 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 

process.

AFFIRMED
EX-10.1






Exhibit 10.1




FIRST AMENDMENT




This is the First Amendment to the Employment Agreement (the “Agreement”) entered into between
Phupinder Gill (“Employee”) and Chicago Mercantile Exchange Inc. (“CME” or “Employer”) which became
effective on November 7, 2003.



Any capitalized terms used but not defined in this First Amendment shall have the meaning set
forth in the Agreement.



This First Amendment is effective this 20th day of December, 2005. Except as set
forth herein, all provisions of the Agreement shall remain unchanged and in full force and effect.



Paragraph 2 of the Agreement is hereby amended as follows:



2) Agreement Term. Employee shall be employed hereunder for a term commencing on January 1,
2004, and expiring on December 31, [2007] 2010, unless sooner terminated as herein provided
(“Agreement Term”). The Agreement Term may be extended or renewed only by the mutual written
agreement of the parties.



Paragraph 6(d) of the Agreement is hereby amended as follows:




	 	d)	 	Termination Without Cause. Upon 30 days prior written notice to Employee, Employer
may terminate this Agreement for any reason other than a reason set forth in sections (a), (b)
or (c) of this Section 6. If, during the Agreement Term, Employer terminates the employment
of Employee hereunder for any reason other than a reason set forth in subsections (a), (b) or
(c) of this Section 6:






	 	(1)	 	Employee shall be entitled to receive accrued Base Salary through the date of
the termination of his employment, and other employee benefits to which Employee is
entitled upon his termination of employment with Employer, in accordance with the terms
of the plans and programs of Employer; [and]






	 	(2)	 	a one time lump sum severance payment equal to 2 times his Base Salary as of
the date of Employee’s termination for the remaining term of the Agreement, but not
more than 24 months of his Base Salary as of the date of the Employee’s termination,
subject to Employee’s execution of a general release in a form and of a substance
satisfactory to CME; and






	 	(3)	 	payment of Employee’s premiums for continued coverage under CME’s group
health plan for twelve (12) months beginning the first day of the month following the
date of termination, if Employee elects, and to the extent Employee is and remains
eligible for, such continued coverage under COBRA.





	 	 	 	 	 
	CHICAGO MERCANTILE EXCHANGE INC.	 	 	 	PHUPINDER GILL
	By:/s/ Craig S. Donohue

	 	By:
	 	/s/ Phupinder Gill
	 

	 	 	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 
	Title: Chief Executive Officer

	 	Title:
	 	President and COO






** Additions have been underlined and deletions have been bracketed.
Case 1:07-cv-05561-AKH Document 15 Filed 09/18/2007 Page 1 of 2
Case 1:07-cv-05561-AKH Document 15 Filed 09/18/2007 Page 2 of 2
Exhibit
32.2




CERTIFICATION
OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER


PURSUANT
TO


18 U.S.C.
SECTION 1350,


AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002








I,
James J. Jacobs, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Amendment
No. 3 to the Annual Report of Houston American Energy Corp. on Form 10-K/A
for the year ended December 31, 2007 fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that
information contained in such Form 10-K/A fairly presents in all material
respects the financial condition and results of operations of Houston American
Energy Corp.








By:  /s/
      James J. JacobsName:
      James J. JacobsTitle:   Chief
      Financial OfficerDated:
      December 9, 2008
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Edward Blaine MINTZ, a/k/a Edward Blain Mintz, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 12-8003.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: April 25, 2013.

Decided: May 6, 2013.

*226Edward Blaine Mintz, Appellant Pro Se. Amy Elizabeth Ray, Assistant United States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Edward Blaine Mintz appeals the district court’s order denying his motion to appoint new counsel and for an extension of time to file a motion to reconsider the denial of his motion to reduce sentence. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. *United States v. Mintz,*No. 1:08-cr-00040-MR-l (W.D.N.C. Nov. 7, 2012). 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 process.

*AFFIRMED.*
EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

| Date:      | August 19, 2009                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               |   |   |   |
|------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|--------|--------|
|       |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          |   |   |   |
| Signature: | /s/ Harris A. Lichtenstein, Ph.D.                                                           |   |   |   |
|       | Name: Harris A. Lichtenstein, Ph.D.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      |   |   |   |
|       | Title:  President, Chief Executive Officer and DirectorOmnimmune Holdings, Inc.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          |   |   |   |
T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he pa ne l una ni m ous l yc onc l ude s thi s c a s e i s s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on ** w ith o u t o r a l a r g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2). NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T UN I T E D S T AT E S OF AME R I C A, P l ai nt i ff

- A pp el l ee , v. J OR GE AN T ON I O A GU I L A, D e f

e n d a n t - A p p e lla n t. N o. 10- 50209 D . C . N o . 3 : 0 5 - c r - 0 1 9 1 9 - D MS

ME MOR AN DU M *

A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f o rth e S o u th e rn D is tr ic t o f C a lif o rn ia D a naM . S abr a w , D i s tr i c tJudge , P r e s i di ng S ubm i tt e d A ugus t23, 2010 ** B e f o r e : L E A V Y , H A W K I N S , a n dT H O M A S , C ir c u it Ju d g e s . J or ge A nt oni o A gui l aappe a l s f r om the s e nt e nc e i m pos e d f ol l ow i ng r e voc a t i on of

s upe rvi s e d r e l e a s e . W e ha ve j ur i s di c t i on unde r28 U . S . C . § 1291, a nd w e va c a t e a nd r e m a nd. A g u ilac o n te n d s th e d is tr ic t c o u rt ab u s e dits d is c r e tio n b ys e n te n c in g h im 

# FI LED AU G 24 2010 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS10- 50209 2 base d o n an o ff

ense of un l aw ful se xu al i nt er course w i th a m i no r thatnever oc c urr e d. W e va c a t e a nd r e m a nd f orr e s e nt e nc i ng be c aus e i ti s notc l e a rf r om the r e c or d w he the rthe di s tr i c tc ourtc ons i de r e d the non- e xi s t e ntof f e ns e i n i m pos i ng its s e n te n c e a t th e r e v o c a tio n h e a r in g . See, e. g . , U n i ted Sta tes v. R o dri

g u ezM art i nez , 25 F . 3d 797, 800 n. 3 ( 9th C i r . 1994) ( r e m a ndi ng on a nothe rgr ound, but s t a t i ng tha t“ the r e c or d i s unc l e a ra s t o w he the rthe s e nt e nc i ng c ourtc ons i de r e d a 19 74 narc ot i cs conv i ct i on t o b e e vi dence of R od ri gu ez ’ s r ec i di vi stnature” ). W e do notr e a c h A gui l a ’ s r e m a i ni ng c ont e nt i on. S E NT E NC E V AC AT E D A ND RE MAND E D.
I 

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1972 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 

1100 West Kent Avenue in Missoula, Montana, as the ‘‘Jeannette Rankin 

Post Office Building’’. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 28, 2019 

Mr. GIANFORTE introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Oversight and Reform 

A BILL 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service 

located at 1100 West Kent Avenue in Missoula, Montana, as the ‘‘Jeannette Rankin Post Office Building’’. 

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

3 SECTION 1. JEANNETTE RANKIN POST OFFICE BUILDING. 

4 (a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States 

5 Postal Service located at 1100 West Kent Avenue in Mis6 soula, Montana, shall be known and designated as the 

7 ‘‘Jeannette Rankin Post Office Building’’. 

8 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, reg9 ulation, document, paper, or other record of the United 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
2 

•HR 1972 IH

1 States to the facility referred to in subsection (a) shall 

2 be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘Jeannette Rankin 

3 Post Office Building’’. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
HEDGE
Street

October 11, 2005

VIA EMAIL: secretary@cftc.gov

Ms. Jean A. Webb

Secretary of the Commission
Commodity Futures Trading Commission
3 Lafayette Centre

1155 21st Street, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20581

RE: Rule Certification: HedgeStreet® will not list any new Corn or
Soybean Production Contracts, pursuant to Section S5c(c)(1) and Part
40.6(a)

Dear Secretary Webb:

HedgeStreet, Inc, (“HedgeStreet”) hereby notifies the Commission that as of the
close of business Tuesday, October 11, 2005, HedgeStreet will not list for trading
any new Soybean Production or Corn Production contracts. The Soybean and Corn
Production contract specifications are contained in HedgeStreet Rule 12.56 and
12.57, respectively. All of the current Soybean and Corn Production contracts
currently trading on HedgeStreet have a Last Trading Date of today, Tuesday,
October 11, 2005. Therefore, there will be no open interest in any Soybean or Corn
Production contracts as the Settlement Date for such contracts is tomorrow,
Wednesday, October 12, 2005.

No substantive opposing views were expressed to HedgeStreet with respect-to these
additions.

Should you have any questions regarding the above, please do not hesitate to
contact Stephanie Ford by telephone at (650) 638-3511 or by email at

sford@hedgestreet.com.

Sincerely,

Stephanie Ford
Vice President, Legal & Compliance

ce: Clarissa Manansala — HedgeStreet , Inc.

1825 S. Grant Street
Sulte 500
San Mateo, CA 94402
Tek: 850.638.3500
www-.hedgestreet.com Fax: 650.638.3501