alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Case 1:07-cv-05804-GEL Document 15-10 Filed 05/02/2008 Page 1 of 17
Case 1:07-cv-05804-GEL Document 15-10 Filed 05/02/2008 Page 2 of 17
Case 1:07-cv-05804-GEL Document 15-10 Filed 05/02/2008 Page 3 of 17
Case 1:07-cv-05804-GEL Document 15-10 Filed 05/02/2008 Page 4 of 17
Case 1:07-cv-05804-GEL Document 15-10 Filed 05/02/2008 Page 5 of 17
Case 1:07-cv-05804-GEL Document 15-10 Filed 05/02/2008 Page 6 of 17
Case 1:07-cv-05804-GEL Document 15-10 Filed 05/02/2008 Page 7 of 17
Case 1:07-cv-05804-GEL Document 15-10 Filed 05/02/2008 Page 8 of 17
Case 1:07-cv-05804-GEL Document 15-10 Filed 05/02/2008 Page 9 of 17
Case 1:07-cv-05804-GEL Document 15-10 Filed 05/02/2008 Page 10 of 17
Case 1:07-cv-05804-GEL Document 15-10 Filed 05/02/2008 Page 11 of 17
Case 1:07-cv-05804-GEL Document 15-10 Filed 05/02/2008 Page 12 of 17
Case 1:07-cv-05804-GEL Document 15-10 Filed 05/02/2008 Page 13 of 17
Case 1:07-cv-05804-GEL Document 15-10 Filed 05/02/2008 Page 14 of 17
Case 1:07-cv-05804-GEL Document 15-10 Filed 05/02/2008 Page 15 of 17
Case 1:07-cv-05804-GEL Document 15-10 Filed 05/02/2008 Page 16 of 17
Case 1:07-cv-05804-GEL Document 15-10 Filed 05/02/2008 Page 17 of 17
Case 1:07-cv-05835-WHP Document 15 Filed 01/15/2008 Page 1 of 7
Case 1:07-cv-05835-WHP Document 15 Filed 01/15/2008 Page 2 of 7
Case 1:07-cv-05835-WHP Document 15 Filed 01/15/2008 Page 3 of 7
Case 1:07-cv-05835-WHP Document 15 Filed 01/15/2008 Page 4 of 7
Case 1:07-cv-05835-WHP Document 15 Filed 01/15/2008 Page 5 of 7
Case 1:07-cv-05835-WHP Document 15 Filed 01/15/2008 Page 6 of 7
Case 1:07-cv-05835-WHP Document 15 Filed 01/15/2008 Page 7 of 7
Case 1:07-cv-05830-CM Document 3 Filed 07/10/2007 Page 1 of 4
Case 1:07-cv-05830-CM Document 3 Filed 07/10/2007 Page 2 of 4
Case 1:07-cv-05830-CM Document 3 Filed 07/10/2007 Page 3 of 4
Case 1:07-cv-05830-CM Document 3 Filed 07/10/2007 Page 4 of 4
### IN THE UNI TED STAT ES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIF TH CIRCU IT

N o
. 0 9

- 2 0 2 2 2 C o n f e r e n c e C a l e n d a r

U N I T E D S T A T E S O F A M E R I C A , P l a i n t i f f

- A p p e l l e e

v
. C A R L O S J A I R S O L I S

- V I V E R O S , a l s o k n o w n a s C a r l o s J

. S o l i s , a l s o k n o w n a s C a r l o s S o l i s - V i v e r o s , a l s o k n o w n a s C a r l o s S o l i s - R i v e r o , a l s o k n o w n a s C a r l o s J a i r S o l i s - R i v e r o , D e f e n d a n t

- A p p e l l a n t

A p p e a l f

r o m t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s D i s t r i c t C o u r t f o r t h e S o u t h e r n D i s t r i c t o f T e x a s U S D C N o
. 4 : 0 8

- C R

- 6 9 4

- 1

B e f o r e S M I T H , P R A D O , a n d H A Y N E S , C i r c u i t J u d g e s
. P E R C U R I A M : * T h e a t t o r n e y a p p o i n t e d t o r e p r e s e n t C a r l o s J a i r S o l i s - V i v e r o s h a s m o v e d f o r l e a v e t o w i t h d r a w a n d h a s f i l e d a b r i e f i n a c c o r d a n c e w i t h A n d e r s v
. C a l i f o r n i a , 3 8 6 U

. S

. 7 3 8 ( 1 9 6 7 )

. S o l i s - V i v e r o s h a s b e e n d e p o r t e d f r o m t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s a n d h a s n o t f i l e d a r e s p o n s e
. O u r i n d e p e n d e n t r e v i e w o f t h e

r e c o r d a n d c o u n s e l ’ s b r i e f d i s c l o s e s n o n o n f r i v o l o u s i s s u e f

o r a p p e a l

. U n i te d S ta te s C o u rt o f A p p ea l s

F i ft h C i rc u i t 

### F I L E D April 20 , 20 10 Lyle W . Cayce Clerk

Purs uant to 5 T H C I R
. R. 47.5 , the cour t has d ete rm ined t hat this op inion sho uld not * be publ ish ed and is not pr ece dent excep t unde r the lim ite d cir cum st ance s se t for th in 5 T H C I R
. R. 47.5 .4. Case: 09-20222 Document: 00511085626 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/20/2010N o
. 0 9

- 2 0 2 2 2

A c c o r d i n g l y , c o u n s e l ’ s m o t i o n f o r l e a v e t o w i t h d r a w i s G R A N T E D , c o u n s e l i s

e x c u s e d f

r o m f u r t h e r r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s h e r e i n , a n d t h e A P P E A L I S D I S M I S S E D i n p a r t a s f

r i v o l o u s , s e e 5 T H C I R

. R

. 4 2

. 2 , a n d i n p a r t a s m o o t

. S e e U n i t e d S t a t e s

v
. R o s e n b a u m - A l a n i s , 4 8 3 F

. 3 d 3 8 1 , 3 8 3 ( 5 t h C i r
. 2 0 0 7 )

.

2 Case: 09-20222 Document: 00511085626 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/20/2010
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Patrick Daniel, Appellant.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Rienzi, J.), rendered April 23, 1986, convicting him of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fourth degree, and criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree (two counts), upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing, of that branch of the defendant’s omnibus motion which was to suppress physical evidence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Contrary to the defendant’s contentions, we conclude that his motion to dismiss the indictment on speedy trial grounds *(see,*CPL 30.30) was properly denied. After subtracting a reasonable time for the People to arrange for the defendant’s arraignment *(see, People v Lopez,*149 AD2d 735) and deducting delays resulting from adjournments consented to, or requested by, the defendant, the total time chargeable to the People is within the permitted six-calendar-month time limit *(see, People v Jones,*105 AD2d 179, *affd*66 NY2d 529).

*743Moreover, the hearing court properly determined that the defendant lacked standing to contest the propriety of the search *(see, People v Wesley,*73 NY2d 351; *People v Ponder,*54 NY2d 160). At bar, the defendant informed the police that he did not reside in the apartment in which the drugs were found, that he did not possess a key to the apartment, and that he kept no property therein. Since, by virtue of the foregoing, the defendant failed to establish a reasonable expectation of privacy in the premises, he was without standing to contest the validity of the search *(see, People v Wesley, supra; People v Ponder, supra; People v Prochilo,*41 NY2d 759; *People v Yukl,*25 NY2d 585, *cert denied*400 US 851; *People v Torres,*97 AD2d 802).

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution *(see, People v Contes,*60 NY2d 620), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence (CPL 470.15 [5]). Kunzeman, J. P., Kooper, Harwood and Rosenblatt, JJ., concur.
<PAGE>   1
                                                                      EXHIBIT 23


                       CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statement of
Bancinsurance Corporation's 1984 Stock Option Plan and the 1994 Stock Option
Plan on Form S-8 of our report dated March 13, 2000, on our audits of the
consolidated financial statements of Bancinsurance Corporation as of December
31, 1999 and 1998 and for the years ended December 31 1999, 1998 and 1997 which
report is incorporated by reference in this Annual Report on Form 10-K and our
report dated March 13, 2000 on the financial statement schedules of
Bancinsurance Corporation as of December 31, 1999 and 1998 and for the years
ended December 31, 1999, 1998 and 1997, included in this Annual Report on Form
10-K.


/s/PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP


Columbus, Ohio
March 13, 2000
Case 1:07-cv-05836-LAP     Document 7      Filed 03/19/2008     Page 1 of 1
Case 1:07-cv-05861-RMB-GWG Document 51 Filed 03/07/2008 Page 1 of 7
Case 1:07-cv-05861-RMB-GWG Document 51 Filed 03/07/2008 Page 2 of 7
Case 1:07-cv-05861-RMB-GWG Document 51 Filed 03/07/2008 Page 3 of 7
Case 1:07-cv-05861-RMB-GWG Document 51 Filed 03/07/2008 Page 4 of 7
Case 1:07-cv-05861-RMB-GWG Document 51 Filed 03/07/2008 Page 5 of 7
Case 1:07-cv-05861-RMB-GWG Document 51 Filed 03/07/2008 Page 6 of 7
Case 1:07-cv-05861-RMB-GWG Document 51 Filed 03/07/2008 Page 7 of 7
Case 7:07-cv-05947-CLB     Document 5      Filed 08/28/2007     Page 1 of 3

Case 7:07-cv-05947-CLB     Document 5      Filed 08/28/2007     Page 2 of 3

Case 7:07-cv-05947-CLB     Document 5      Filed 08/28/2007     Page 3 of 3
#### McLEAN OIL CO. v. ASHWORTH HEIRS et al.

(Circuit Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

April 2, 1923.)

No. 3988.

Courts <§=>405(5)—Appeal from decree dismissing for want of jurisdiction transferred to Supreme Court.

Where the decree appealed from dismissed the bill on the ground the court was without jurisdiction to determine it, so that the appeal should have been taken to the Supreme Court, it will be transferred to that court in compliance with Act Sept. 14, 1922.

Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the Eastern District of Texas; W. Eee Estes, Judge.

(@saFor other cases see same topic & KEY-NUMBER in -all Key-Numbered Digests & Indexes-

*74Suit in equity by the McLean Oil' Company against the Ashworth Heirs and others. From a decree dismissing the bill for want of jurisdiction, complainant appeals.

Appeal transferred to the Supreme Court.

See, also, 283 Fed. 422.

W. D. Gordon, of Beaumont, Tex., for appellant.

Oliver J. Todd, of Beaumont, Tex., for appellees.

Before WALKER, BRYAN, and KING, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

It appearing that the decree appealed from dismissed the suit on the ground that the court was without jurisdiction to determine it, and that the appeal should have been taken to the Supreme Court of the United States, in compliance with the Act of Congress approved September 14, 1922 (42 Stat. 837, c. 305), it is ordered that said appeal be transferred to the Supreme Court of the United States at the cost of the appellant.
Case 1:07-cv-05798-CM-HBP Document 29 Filed 10/22/2007 Page 1 of 3Case 1:07-cv-05798-CM-HBP Document 29 Filed 10/22/2007 Page 2 of 3Case 1:07-cv-05798-CM-HBP Document 29 Filed 10/22/2007 Page 3 of 3
October 26, 2006

Via E-Mail

Office of the Acting Secretary
Commodity Futures Trading Commission
Three Lafayette Centre

1155 21st Street, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20581

Re: Rule Certification. NYMEX Submission 06.125: Notification
of Housekeeping Change to Exchange Rule 9.30(C).

Dear Ms. Eileen Donovan:

The New York Mercantile Exchange ("NY MEX" or the "Exchange") is notifying the
Commodity Futures Trading Commission (“CFTC” or “Commission’’) of a housekeeping change
to Exchange Rule 9.30(C), Hedge Notice.

The housekeeping change removes the reference to Rule 9.26 (accountability levels) from
Section (C), which pertains to position limits (Rule 9.27) only. Pursuant to Section 5c(c) of the
Commodity Exchange Act (“Act”) and CFTC Rule 40.6, the Exchange hereby certifies that the
attached correction complies with the Act, including regulations under the Act.

Should you have any questions concerning the above, please contact me at (212)
299-2897.

Very truly yours,

Thomas F. LaSala
Senior Vice President
Compliance and Risk Management

ee: Nancy Minett
Brian Regan


(Bold/strikethrough indicates deletions.)

Rule 9.30(C) — Hedge Notice

Sections (A) through (B)(vi) remain unchanged.

C) Any person who has received from the President or his designee written authorization to

exceed position limits imposed by Rule $26-er 9.27 must file with the Exchange an updated
Hedge Notice annually.
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA

No. 15-0448

Filed June 10, 2015

IN THE INTEREST OF A.F. and P.F.,

Minor Children,

A.R., Mother,

Appellant,

C.F., Father,

Appellant.

________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Colin J. Witt, District 

Associate Judge.

A father appeals from the order terminating his parental rights. 

AFFIRMED. 

Christine Bisignano, Windsor Heights, for mother.

Jacob L. Mason of J.L. Mason Law, P.L.L.C., Ankeny, and Lori Holm, Des 

Moines, for appellant father.

Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Kathrine S. Miller-Todd, Assistant 

Attorney General, John P. Sarcone, County Attorney, and Annie Fox Reynolds, 

Assistant County Attorney, for appellee State.

Nicole G. Nolan of the Youth Law Center, Des Moines, for minor children.

Considered by Danilson, C.J., and Vaitheswaran and Doyle, JJ.
2

PER CURIAM

A father appeals the termination of his parental rights.1 This record 

contains clear and convincing evidence supporting the termination of the father’s 

parental rights pursuant to Iowa Code section 232.116(1)(h) (2013).2 Upon our 

de novo review, see In re A.M., 843 N.W.2d 100, 110 (Iowa 2014), we find that at 

the time the termination order was filed, the children were both under three years 

of age, had been adjudicated children in need of assistance and out of the 

father’s custody for more than six months, and could not be returned safely to the 

father’s care due to his on-going substance abuse, unresolved mental health 

issues, and erratic behavior,3 which we need not catalog further here. The father 

himself testified he was “absolutely not” in a position to take custody of the 

children during the second day of the termination trial in February 2015, and only 

that it “could be possible” he would be able to care for them if a six-month 

extension were granted. The juvenile court concluded the father did not have the 

ability or willingness to commit to change if additional time was granted. We 

agree. Moreover, termination of his parental rights best provides for the longterm interests of the children, see Iowa Code § 232.116(2), and there is no 

statutory reason to avoid termination. See id. § 232.116(3). We therefore affirm.

AFFIRMED.

 

1 The mother’s appeal was dismissed by order of the supreme court on May 8, 2015.

2 The father argues termination was not proper because the juvenile court did not 

terminate his parental rights pursuant to other paragraphs of section 232.116(1). This 

argument is without merit. To affirm, we need only find clear and convincing evidence 

supports one ground relied upon by the juvenile court, see In re D.W., 791 N.W.2d 703, 

707 (Iowa 2010), and there is clear and convincing evidence the children would be at 

risk of adjudicatory harm if returned to the father at present. 

3 We note the juvenile court found, “[The father] may be and likely is battling mental 

illness, but he truly presented himself as nothing short of a menace in this case.”
#### In the Matter of Robert H., Appellant.

In a juvenile delinquency proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 3, the appeal is from an order of disposition of the Family Court, Richmond County (Cognetta, J.), dated March 31, 1988, which, upon a fact-finding order of the same court, dated January 22, 1988, made after a hearing, finding that the appellant had committed acts which, if committed by an adult, would have constituted the crime of sodomy in the first degree (11 counts), adjudged him to be a juvenile delinquent and placed him with the New York State Division for Youth, Title III, for a period of 18 months. The appeal brings up for review the fact-finding order dated January 22, 1988.

Ordered that the order of disposition is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

*573The appellant argues that the presentment agency’s failure to state with specificity the dates of the alleged incidents which formed the basis of the crimes charged violated his constitutional rights "to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation” (US Const 6th, 14th Amends; *see,*NY Const, art I, § 6) and to "due process of law” (US Const 5th, 14th Amends; *see,*NY Const, art I, § 6). We disagree.

Initially, we find that the three-month time period specified in the petition, for each of the first nine counts, and as further modified by the affirmation in opposition to the appellant’s motion to dismiss the petition, the 10-day period specified with respect to the tenth and eleventh counts, complied with the statutory requirement that a petition must contain, in relevant part, "a statement in each count that the crime charged therein was committed on, or on or about, a designated date, or during a designated period of time” (Family Ct Act § 311.1 [3] [g]; *cf., People v Morris,*61 NY2d 290, 294).

In addition, since the appellant, who was given an adjournment, was able to prepare and did present a defense to all of the charges, and he does not claim that his ability " 'to plead the judgment in bar of any further prosecution for the same crime’ ” has been impaired *(People v Morris, supra,*at 295, quoting from *Rosen v United States,*161 US 29, 34), it cannot be said that the appellant’s constitutional notice and due process rights have been violated *(cf, People v Rogers,*141 AD2d 870). Lawrence, J. P., Sullivan, Harwood and Balletta, JJ., concur.
William J. Smith (WJS-9137) 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK 

IN RE: WORLD TRADE CENTER LOWER 

MANHATTAN DISASTER SITE LITIGATION 21 MC 102 (AKH) 

EDWARD MOORE (AND WIFE, RUTH 

MOORE) 

NOTICE OF THE 

BROOKFIELD 

V. PARTIES' ADOPTION 

OF AMENDED ANSWER 

TO MASTER 

COMPLAINT 

100 CHURCH, LLC, ET. AL., 

CASE NUMBER: (AKH) 

07 CV 5562 

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE THAT Defendants Brookfield Financial 

Properties, Inc., Brookfield Financial Properties, L.P., Brookfield Properties One 

WFC Co. LLC flWa WFP Tower A Co. L.P., Brookfield Properties One WFC G.P. 

Corp. E/k/a WFP Tower A Co. GP Corp., BFP Tower C Co. LLC, BFP Tower C 

MM LLC, and WFP Retail Co. L.P. (collectively the "Brookfield Parties"), as and 

for their responses to the allegations set forth in the Complaint by Adoption (CheckOff Complaint) Related to the Master Complaint filed in the above referenced 

action, hereby adopt the Brookfield Parties' Amended Answer to Master 

Complaint, dated October 16, 2007, which was filed in the matter of In re World 

Trade Center Lower Manhattan Disaster Site Litigation, 21 MC 102 (AKH). 

Case 1:07-cv-05562-AKH Document 21 Filed 02/12/2008 Page 1 of 2
WHEREFORE, the Brookfield Parties demand judgment dismissing the 

above captioned action as against each of them, together with their cost and 

disbursements. 

Dated: New York, New York 

January 3( 2008 

Faust, Goetz, Schenker & Blee, LLP 

ByJWilllam J.STfiit~l~J~I9137) 

At~ornevS for the B·rookfield Parties 

Tw'b\ Recfo r S t.re~t,: ~Ofh'~~~i r~ 

New Pzbrk, NY 10006 

(2'12) 363-6900 

Case 1:07-cv-05562-AKH Document 21 Filed 02/12/2008 Page 2 of 2
Exhibit 10.7.4
 
   rd
 Attention:
    
    Mr. John DaltonGeneral Manager, Log Supply
  Amended Chip Supply Arrangement
    1.
    
    the volume of Chips to be sold to NorskeCanada by Western for the period from July
29, 2005 to December 31, 2005 will be (***) Volumetric Units (i.e. based on an annual
commitment of (***) Volumetric Units for that five month period);




---



##### 



2.
    
    should Western give notice to NorskeCanada by December 31, 2005 that Western wishes
to terminate NorskeCanadas right to any Chips in excess of the annual commitment of (***)
Volumetric Units, then:
 (a)
    
    as of the date of receipt of Westerns notice, NorskeCanada will cease to
have the first right to purchase the Surplus Chips; and
 (b)
    
    the annual commitment of Chips to be sold to NorskeCanada by Western will
continue at (***) Volumetric Units per year for the balance of the Term; and
 3.
    
    otherwise, the annual commitment of Chips to be sold to NorskeCanada for the period
from January 1, 2006 to July 28, 2006 will be (***) Volumetric Units (i.e. based on an
annual commitment of (***) Volumetric Units for that 7 month period), (***) Volumetric
Units per year for each of the next two years after July 28, 2006 and (***) Volumetric
Units per year for the balance of the Term.
    
 Per:Brian NordmanVice-President, Fibre Supply
 
 WESTERN FOREST PRODUCTS INC.Per:
  - 2 -
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK 

United States of America, 

07 Cr 566 (GBD) 

- against - 

Terrence McGee,

 Defendant 

______________________________________ 

 

NOTICE OF CHANGE OF ADDRESS

To: Attorney Admission Clerk and All Other Parties 

Pursuant to Local Rule 1.3 of this Court, please take notice of the following attorney 

information change(s) for: Louis R. Aidala 

 Attorney 

 I am a U.S.D.C., Southern District of New York attorney. My Bar 

Number is: 

 LA 9471 

 Address: 546 Fifth Avenue, 6th Floor, New York, NY 10036-5000

 Telephone Number: 212 750 9700

 Fax Number: 212 750 8297

 E-mail Address: lraidala@aol.com

 

Dated: June 3, 2008 Louis R. Aidala 

 

Case 1:07-cr-00566-GBD Document 48 Filed 06/03/2008 Page 1 of 1
Case 1:07-cv-05355-AKH Document 10 Filed 01/28/2008 Page 1 of 5Case 1:07-cv-05355-AKH Document 10 Filed 01/28/2008 Page 2 of 5Case 1:07-cv-05355-AKH Document 10 Filed 01/28/2008 Page 3 of 5Case 1:07-cv-05355-AKH Document 10 Filed 01/28/2008 Page 4 of 5Case 1:07-cv-05355-AKH Document 10 Filed 01/28/2008 Page 5 of 5
March 4, 2019

Via the CFTC Web Submission Portal

Assistant Secretary of the Commission for FOIA Matters 

Commodity Futures Trading Commission

Three Lafayette Centre 

1155 21st Street, N.W. 

Washington, D.C. 20581

Re: FOIA Confidential Treatment Request: Petition Pursuant to Regulation 145.9(d) 

To Whom It May Concern:

On this date, trueEX LLC (“trueEX”) submitted a notice, 2019-01S, to the Commodity 

Futures Trading Commission (the "Commission") via the Commission Portal to notify it of 

the fees trueEX intends to charge for activity on its swap execution facility effective April 

16, 2019. Exhibit A to 2019-01S details the fee schedule and is the Confidential Material 

for which trueEX is requesting confidential treatment.

By this petition, trueEX requests confidential treatment pursuant to Section 145.9(d) of 

the Commission’s regulations of the Confidential Material. A copy of this Confidential 

Material is attached.

Pursuant to Sections 8(a) of the Act, and Commission Regulation § 145.9(d), trueEX 

requests confidential treatment of the Confidential Material on the grounds that disclosure 

of such material would reveal trade secrets of trueEX and/or reveal confidential 

commercial information of trueEX. The Confidential Material is proprietary to trueEX and 

contain highly sensitive and confidential business and technology information; in addition 

to violating trueEX’s proprietary rights, the disclosure of the Confidential Materials would 

grant competitors an unfair competitive advantage and/or compromise the competitive 

advantages possessed by trueEX. Accordingly, trueEX is requesting the Commission to 

take appropriate steps to keep Confidential Material submitted to them confidential and 

to restrict the re-distribution of the Confidential Material.

Pursuant to Commission Regulation § 145.9(d)(5), trueEX hereby requests that the 

Confidential Material be afforded confidential treatment in perpetuity.

trueEX requests that the Commission notify the undersigned immediately after receiving 

any FOIA request, any court order, subpoena, or summons seeking to access the 

Confidential Material in whole or in part. trueEX further requests notification (through the 

undersigned) in the event that the Commission intends to disclose the Confidential 

Material in whole or in part to Congress or to any other governmental agency or unit 

pursuant to Section 8 of the CEA. trueEX does not waive its notification rights under
Section 8(f) of the CEA with respect to any subpoena or summons with respect to the 

Confidential Material in whole or in part.

Should you have any questions regarding the above, please do not hesitate to contact 

me by telephone at (312) 320-8934 or by email at fran@trueex.com.

Sincerely, 

Fran Kenck

Chief Compliance Officer