alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMISSION
FORM DCM

CONTRACT MARKET
APPLICATION OR AMENDMENT TO APPLICATION FOR DESIGNATION

COVER SHEET

Aristotle Exchange DCM, Inc.
Exact name of Applicant as specified in charter

205 Pennsylvania Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20003
Address of principal executive offices

[X] If this is an APPLICATION for designation, complete in full and check here.

[ ] If this is an AMENDMENT to an application, or to an existing designation, list all
items that are amended and check here.

GENERAL INFORMATION

1. Name under which the business of the designated contract market is or will be
conducted, if different than name specified above (include acronyms, if any):

Aristotle Exchange

2. If name of designated contract market is being amended, state previous designated
contract market name:

Not Applicable

3. Contact information, including mailing address if different than address specified
above:

Not Applicable
Number and Street

City State Country Zip Code
202-543-8345
Main Phone number Fax

Website URL E-mail Address
Case 1:07-cv-05562-AKH Document 19 Filed 01/28/2008 Page 1 of 5Case 1:07-cv-05562-AKH Document 19 Filed 01/28/2008 Page 2 of 5Case 1:07-cv-05562-AKH Document 19 Filed 01/28/2008 Page 3 of 5Case 1:07-cv-05562-AKH Document 19 Filed 01/28/2008 Page 4 of 5Case 1:07-cv-05562-AKH Document 19 Filed 01/28/2008 Page 5 of 5
Case 1:07-cr-00566-GBD Document 31-6 Filed 04/22/2008 Page 1 of 2
Case 1:07-cr-00566-GBD Document 31-6 Filed 04/22/2008 Page 2 of 2
<PAGE>
                                                                   EXHIBIT 99.1


                           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 Quarterly Report of Summit Brokerage Services, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended June 30, 2002 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), Marshall
T. Leeds, as Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and Mark F. Caulfield, as
Chief Financial Officer of the Company, each certifies, 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 Section 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.

                                    /s/ Marshall T. Leeds
                                    -------------------------------------------
                                    Marshall T. Leeds
                                    Chief Executive Officer
                                    August 16, 2002

                                    /s/ Mark F. Caulfield
                                    -------------------------------------------
                                    Mark F. Caulfield
                                    Chief Financial Officer
                                    August 16, 2002
<PAGE>

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

            In connection with the accompanying Annual Report on Form 10-KSB for
the period ended March 31, 2004 (the "Report") of GFY Foods, Inc., a Nevada
corporation (the "Company"), I, Edward E. Schwalb, Chief Financial Officer of
the Company, hereby 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 the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.


Dated: August 23, 2004                       /s/ Edward E. Schwalb
                                             ---------------------------
                                                 EDWARD E. SCHWALB
                                                 Chief Financial Officer
Case 7:07-cv-05815-KMK-MDF Document 8 Filed 06/25/2007 Page 1 of 5
Case 7:07-cv-05815-KMK-MDF Document 8 Filed 06/25/2007 Page 2 of 5
Case 7:07-cv-05815-KMK-MDF Document 8 Filed 06/25/2007 Page 3 of 5
Case 7:07-cv-05815-KMK-MDF Document 8 Filed 06/25/2007 Page 4 of 5
Case 7:07-cv-05815-KMK-MDF Document 8 Filed 06/25/2007 Page 5 of 5
Untitled Document





BAUM & COMPANY, P.A.

  Certified Public Accountants 

  1515 University Drive – Suite 226 

  Coral Springs, Florida 33071

 

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS

 

We hereby consent to the use in the Registration Statement on
  Form SB-2 of Who’s Your Daddy, Inc. (a development stage company (formerly
  Snocone Systems Inc.) of our review report, dated November 3, 2005, on the balance
  sheet of Who’s Your Daddy Inc. (a development stage company) as at September
  30, 2005 and the related statements of operations and cash flows for the period
  then ended.

 

	Coral Springs, Florida 
	                 
                           
                           
                           
                           
                           
                           
                           
                     / Baum & Company,
      P.A./ 
	January 4, 2006
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Kenneth Wayne GOODE, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 13-6468.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: May 8, 2013.

Decided: May 23, 2013.

*189Kenneth Wayne Goode, Appellant Pro Se. Jennifer P. May-Parker, Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Before SHEDD and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Kenneth Wayne Goode seeks to appeal the district court’s order treating his Fed.R.Crim.P. 36 motion as a successive 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp.2012) motion, and dismissing it on that basis. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certifícate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2006). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. *Slack v. McDaniel,*529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); *see Miller-El v. Cockrell,*537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. *Slack,*529 U.S. at 484-85, 120 S.Ct. 1595.

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Goode has not made the requisite showing. *See United States v. Winestock,*340 F.3d 200, 208 (4th Cir.2003). Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal.

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.

*DISMISSED.*
144 So. 915

#### Annie BUTLER v. STATE.

8 Div. 460.

Supreme Court of Alabama.

Nov. 17, 1932.

Fred S. Parnell, of Florence, for petitioner. Thos. E. Knight, Jr., Atty. Gen., opposed.

GARDNER, J.

Petition of Annie Butler for certiorari to Court of Appeals to review and revise the judgment and decision of that court in Butler v. State, 142 So. 920.

Writ denied.

ANDERSON, C. J., and BOULDIN and FOSTER, JJ., concur.
#### Kathleen Schleich, as Administratrix of the Estate of Edward Schleich, Deceased, Respondent, v Martin A. Gruber et al., Defendants, and Long Beach Memorial Hospital, Appellant.

In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant Long Beach Memorial Hospital appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (McCabe, J.), dated April 30, 1986, as denied its cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as it is asserted against it, with leave to renew the application upon conclusion of discovery.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

On February 5, 1984, the decedent, 23-year-old Edward Schleich, was examined at the emergency room of Long Beach Memorial Hospital as a result of a complaint of pain in his left foot. The decedent had had a history of repeated episodes of trauma in that area. X rays of the foot were taken which revealed a small cyst along the proximal aspect of the first metatarsal. No treatment was provided to the decedent. The attending physician recommended that the decedent see his own doctor as well as an orthopedist.

It was subsequently discovered that the decedent had a malignancy in the left foot, which thereupon resulted in an amputation of his leg below the knee. The decedent died in March 1985 as a result of the malignancy.

By notice of motion dated January 27, 1986, the decedent’s administratrix moved to amend the complaint and to add causes of action to recover damages for wrongful death and conscious pain and suffering. In support of the motion, the plaintiff submitted, *inter alia,*an affidavit from a doctor supporting the allegations of the complaint that the hospital had negligently cared for the decedent. The hospital cross-moved for summary judgment, based upon a physician’s affidavit absolving it of any such liability.

The hospital argues that it met its burden of making a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, stressing the fact that the plaintiff failed to come forward with probative evidence in response to its cross motion. A motion for summary judgment, irrespective of who initiates it, empowers the court to search the record and to award a judgment where appropriate. Here, in deciding the cross motion, the affidavit of a doctor, included in the motion to amend the complaint, as well as any other papers, could be considered by the court in reaching its decision *(Fertico Belgium v Phosphate Chems. Export Assn.,*100 AD2d 165).

*225The cross motion for summary judgment was properly denied with leave to renew after the completion of discovery, because here there was sufficient reason to believe that there were pertinent facts essential to the plaintiffs case, which are exclusively within the knowledge and control of the hospital, and which may be revealed through pretrial discovery *(see, Blue Bird Coach Lines v 107 Del. Ave.,*125 AD2d 971). Mollen, P. J., Thompson, Bracken and Brown, JJ., concur.
## Breadcrumb

-  Colorado Water Science Center 
-  Science 

#           Groundwater Protection Plan for the Ute Mountain Ute Tribe      

  Active

      By Colorado Water Science Center      April 1, 2016    

            -              Overview           
            -              Publications           
            -              Partners           

The objective of this project is to update the Ute Mountain Ute Tribe’s (UMUT) existing Groundwater Protection Plan to protect their valuable groundwater resources in Colorado, Utah, and New Mexico.

### Contacts

####             Suzanne S Paschke, PhD (Former Employee)          

##### Deputy Director

Colorado Water Science Center

### Explore Search

                      - Water Availability
                      - Water Quality
                      - Surface Water
                      - Groundwater
                      - Water
                      - groundwater
                      - white mesa
                      - Ute tribe

View All **

Below are publications associated with this project.

April 21, 2016

####                 The source of groundwater and solutes to Many Devils Wash at a former uranium mill site in Shiprock, New Mexico              

Water Resources Mission Area, New Mexico Water Science Center

January 1, 2011

####                 Assessment of potential migration of radionuclides and trace elements from the White Mesa uranium mill to the Ute Mountain Ute Reservation and surrounding areas, southeastern Utah              

Water Resources Mission Area, Utah Water Science Center, Wyoming-Montana Water Science Center

Below are partners associated with this project.

#### Ute Mountain Ute Tribe

The objective of this project is to update the Ute Mountain Ute Tribe’s (UMUT) existing Groundwater Protection Plan to protect their valuable groundwater resources in Colorado, Utah, and New Mexico.

### Contacts

####             Suzanne S Paschke, PhD (Former Employee)          

##### Deputy Director

Colorado Water Science Center

### Explore Search

                      - Water Availability
                      - Water Quality
                      - Surface Water
                      - Groundwater
                      - Water
                      - groundwater
                      - white mesa
                      - Ute tribe

View All **

Below are publications associated with this project.

April 21, 2016

####                 The source of groundwater and solutes to Many Devils Wash at a former uranium mill site in Shiprock, New Mexico              

Water Resources Mission Area, New Mexico Water Science Center

January 1, 2011

####                 Assessment of potential migration of radionuclides and trace elements from the White Mesa uranium mill to the Ute Mountain Ute Reservation and surrounding areas, southeastern Utah              

Water Resources Mission Area, Utah Water Science Center, Wyoming-Montana Water Science Center

Below are partners associated with this project.

#### Ute Mountain Ute Tribe
#### John Marshall, Appellant, v Catherine Katsaros et al., Respondents.

In a proceeding pursuant to Judiciary Law § 475 to determine and enforce an attorney’s lien, the petitioner John Marshall appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (LeVine, J.), dated November 28, 1988, which denied his motion, *inter alia,*for summary judgment, a protective order, consolidation of the proceeding with a motion for similar relief and an immediate hearing to determine and enforce an attorney’s lien, and which granted the cross motion of the respondent James Katsaros to dismiss the petition as to him.

Ordered that the order is modified by deleting therefrom the words "at the conclusion of the matrimonial action” and substituting therefor the words "at a hearing to be held expeditiously”, and by adding after the words "petitioner’s claim against James Katsaros is dismissed on the grounds of collateral estoppel” the provision "the petitioner’s motion for a protective order is granted”; as so modified, the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Queens County, for a hearing in accordance herewith.

*543This proceeding to determine and enforce an attorney’s lien was properly dismissed against the husband. In a proceeding pursuant to Judiciary Law § 475, one who is not a client is not a proper party *(see, Cooper v Cranin,*104 AD2d 550; *Rochfort v Metropolitan Ry. Co.,*50 App Div 261). Although an attorney may elect to assert a cause of action against a spouse in a plenary, common-law action on the theory that legal services rendered to the other spouse were necessaries, the attorney cannot pursue a common-law action and a special proceeding at the same time *(see, Berkowitz v Berkowitz,*49 AD2d 872). Having elected to enforce a lien in a special proceeding, a common-law action against the husband is precluded.

We agree with the Supreme Court that summary judgment was not appropriate on this record. Questions of fact were presented by the wife’s counterclaim as to whether the appellant withdrew with cause or without cause and, if he withdrew with cause, as to the value of the legal services rendered to the wife.

The Supreme Court should not allow discovery to impede the expeditious disposition of the appellant’s claim. The respondent wife demonstrated neither need for discovery nor that the information sought was necessary to the resolution of the fee issue *(see, Matter of Shore,*109 AD2d 842; *cf, Gargano v V. C. & J. Constr. Corp.,*148 AD2d 492).

Finally, the appellant is entitled to an expedited hearing to determine and enforce the lien *(see, Rosen v Rosen,*97 AD2d 837). Because the issues to be determined are identical to those to be resolved in *Katsaros v Katsaros*(152 AD2d 539 [decided herewith]), only one hearing is necessary. Bracken, J. P., Rubin, Sullivan and Harwood, JJ., concur.
February 3, 2006

Via e-Mail

Office of the Secretariat

Commodity Futures Trading Commission
Three Lafayette Centre

1155 21* Street, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20581

Re: Rule Certification. NYMEX Submission 06.19 — Notification of
Amendment to NYMEX Division Rule 6.21G.

Dear Ms. Jean Webb:

The New York Mercantile Exchange, Inc. (“NYMEX” or the “Exchange’”’) hereby
notifies the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (“CFTC”) of an amendment to NYMEX
Rule 6.21G, Participation by NYMEX Floor Members in Special Program for Over-the-Counter
Trading with FCM Guarantee.

Effective February 4, 2006, the amendment extends the provisions of Rule 6.21G through
August 4, 2006. The amendment reflects an extension granted by the CFTC, effective February
4, 2006, to its Order allowing NYMEX Floor Members to trade in OTC markets under specified
conditions. Pursuant to Section 5ce(c) of the Commodity Exchange Act (“Act”) and CFTC Rule
40.6, the Exchange hereby certifies that the new amendments comply with the Act, including
regulations under the Act.

Should you have any questions concerning the above, please contact the undersigned at
212-299-2940.

Very truly yours,

Nancy M. Minett
Vice President, Compliance Department

Attachments
ce: Thomas LaSala
Brian Regan


Amendment to NYMEX Rule 6.21G
(Underlining in bold indicates additions; strike-outs indicate deletions.)

Rule 6.21G, Participation by NYMEX Floor Members in Special Program for Over-the-
Counter Trading with FCM Guarantee

(A) This program is effective until February August 4, 2006, or until such other date as
announced by the Exchange. The over-the-counter (OTC) contracts, agreements or transactions
must be executed pursuant to Section 2(h)(1) of the Commodity Exchange Act (Act), which in
effect provides among other things that such transactions shall be subject to CFTC anti-fraud and
anti-manipulation authority and also may not be entered into on a trading facility. This program
generally allows a NYMEX Floor Member to enter into trading in certain OTC contracts on the
basis of a FCM guarantee without needing to satisfy the total assets requirements otherwise
necessary under the Act for such trading. In order to maintain eligibility for this program, a
NYMEX Floor Member must continue to satisfy all of the conditions contained in this rule.

Sections (B) through (F) remain unchanged.)
# C_2009323EN.01000801.xml

| 31.12.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 323/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

31.12.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 323/8

---

Authorisation for State aid pursuant to Articles 107 and 108 TFEU

Cases where the Commission raises no objections

(Text with EEA relevance)

2009/C 323/03

| Date of adoption of the decision | 3.12.2009 |
| --- | --- |
| Reference number of State Aid | N 467/09 |
| Member State | Romania |
| Region | — |
| Title (and/or name of the beneficiary) | Schema de ajutor de stat pentru sprijinirea investițiilor în extinderea și modernizarea rețelelor de distribuție a energiei electrice și a gazelor naturale |
| Legal basis | Schema de ajutor de stat pentru sprijinirea investițiilor în extinderea și modernizarea rețelelor de distribuție a energiei electrice și a gazelor naturale;
  Programul Operațional „Creșterea Competitivității” 2007-2013 |
| Type of measure | Aid scheme |
| Objective | Regional development, Energy saving |
| Form of aid | Direct grant |
| Budget | Overall budget: EUR 28,4 million |
| Intensity | 50 % |
| Duration (period) | until 31.12.2013 |
| Economic sectors | Electricity, gas and water supply |
| Name and address of the granting authority | Ministerul Economiei |
| Autoritatea de Management pentru POS CCE |
| Calea Victoriei nr. 152 |
| 010096 București |
| ROMÂNIA |

Date of adoption of the decision

3.12.2009

Reference number of State Aid

N 467/09

Member State

Romania

Region

—

Title (and/or name of the beneficiary)

Schema de ajutor de stat pentru sprijinirea investițiilor în extinderea și modernizarea rețelelor de distribuție a energiei electrice și a gazelor naturale

Legal basis

Schema de ajutor de stat pentru sprijinirea investițiilor în extinderea și modernizarea rețelelor de distribuție a energiei electrice și a gazelor naturale;

Programul Operațional „Creșterea Competitivității” 2007-2013

Type of measure

Aid scheme

Objective

Regional development, Energy saving

Form of aid

Direct grant

Budget

Overall budget: EUR 28,4 million

Intensity

50 %

Duration (period)

until 31.12.2013

Economic sectors

Electricity, gas and water supply

Name and address of the granting authority

Ministerul Economiei

Autoritatea de Management pentru POS CCE

Calea Victoriei nr. 152

010096 București

ROMÂNIA

Other information

—

The authentic text(s) of the decision, from which all confidential information has been removed, can be found at:

http://ec.europa.eu/community_law/state_aids/state_aids_texts_en.htm

---
#### In re GILLESPIE.

(District Court, E. D. New York.

December 29, 1913.)

Bankruptcy (§ 138*)—Rights of Bankrupt—Assignments of Future Salary.

Attempted assignment by a bankrupt of salary *held*ineffective as to salary earned after tbe bankruptcy, and a stay restraining payment to the bankrupt vacated.

¡Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Bankruptcy, Cent. Dig. §§ 193-204, 206-209; Dec. Dig. § 138.*]

In Bankruptcy. In the matter of Daniel O’C. Gillespie, bankrupt. On motion to vacate stay.

Granted in part.

Allen Caruthers, of New York City, for bankrupt.

Williams &.Hamburger, of New York City, for respondent.

*

For other cases see same topic & § number in Dec. & Am. Digs. 1907 to date, &'Kep’r Indexes

CHATFIELD, District Judge.

The stay as to 10 per cent, of salary held by the city under a garnishee execution cannot be vacated until a discharge has been obtained. As to all other portions of salary earned since the adjudication, there seems to be no assignment, of any rights in existence at the time of assignment and transferable by the assignee, or which could be transferred by the giving of a power of attorney. Hence there is no security as to any property which the trustee could claim even if discharge be denied.

As to the salary over 10 per cent., therefore, the application to vacate stay against the city paymaster, or the city, will be granted, and all creditors named will be restrained from interference with the after-acquired salary over the 10 per cent, named.
Case 1:07-cv-05425-AKH Document 10 Filed 09/04/2008 Page 1 of 2Case 1:07-cv-05425-AKH Document 10 Filed 09/04/2008 Page 2 of 2
Case 1:07-cv-05794-MGC Document 17-6 Filed 09/10/2008 Page 1 of 3
Case 1:07-cv-05794-MGC Document 17-6 Filed 09/10/2008 Page 2 of 3
Case 1:07-cv-05794-MGC Document 17-6 Filed 09/10/2008 Page 3 of 3