alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit U 

Exhibit U 

Attach as Exhibit U, any information (described with particularity) included in the application that will be subject to a 

request for confidential treatment pursuant to § 145.9 of the Commission’s regulations. 

Response: 

The Exchange requests confidential treatment pursuant to § 38.3(a)(3) and § 145.9(d) of the Commission’s regulations 

for this Form DCM and for all documents, files, addenda, and other materials, except for the transmittal letter, the 

petition for confidential treatment, the Form DCM Cover Sheet, documents establishing the Exchange’s legal status or 

governance structure (Certificate of Formation, Limited Liability Company Agreement and Certificate of Good 

Standing, Exhibits G-1 through G-3), and the Exchange’s Rulebook (Exhibit M-1). The Exchange also is not seeking 

confidential treatment of Exhibits H (pending material litigation), J (affiliate balance sheet) or R (trade practice rules. 

Specifically, the Exchange requests confidential information of the following materials, including attachments thereto: 

1. Exhibit A – Ownership information 

2. Exhibit B – Officers and directors and their qualifications 

3. Exhibit C – Board composition and fitness 

4. Exhibit D – Organizational structure 

5. Exhibit E – Personnel qualifications 

6. Exhibit F – Staffing requirements 

7. Exhibit I – Financial resources (financial statements, projected operating expenses and resources, etc.) 

8. Exhibit K – Fees 

9. Exhibit N – Third party contracts 

10. Exhibit O – Compliance manual(s) (trade practice, market, and financial surveillance) 

11. Exhibit P – Disciplinary procedures/enforcement 

12. Exhibit Q – Trading system and matching algorithms 

13. Exhibit S – Maintenance of trade data 

14. Exhibit T – Clearinghouse 

15. Exhibit V –Technology questionnaire 

The label “CONFIDENTIAL TREATMENT REQUESTED BY ELECTRON EXCHANGE DCM, LLC” appears on each page of the 

Confidential Materials.
# C_2005191EN.01000901.xml

| 5.8.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 191/9 |
| -------- | -- | -------------------------------------- | ------- |

---

Notice inviting applications for authorisation to prospect for hydrocarbons in the ‘Utrecht’ area

(2005/C 191/08)

The Minister for Economic Affairs of the Kingdom of the Netherlands hereby gives notice that an application has been received for authorisation to prospect for hydrocarbons in the ‘Utrecht’ area. The area is delimited by the following points, having as their coordinates:

| A.
x = 120 466,60 | A. | x = 120 466,60 | y = 467 660,50 |
| ------------------ | -------------- | -------------- | -------------- |
| A. | x = 120 466,60 | | |
| B.
x = 142 442,42 | B. | x = 142 442,42 | y = 449 063,01 |
| B. | x = 142 442,42 | | |
| C.
x = 161 000,00 | C. | x = 161 000,00 | y = 425 200,00 |
| C. | x = 161 000,00 | | |
| D.
x = 142 550,00 | D. | x = 142 550,00 | y = 417 035,00 |
| D. | x = 142 550,00 | | |
| E.
x = 113 051,40 | E. | x = 113 051,40 | y = 439 000,00 |
| E. | x = 113 051,40 | | |
| F.
x = 112 887,50 | F. | x = 112 887,50 | y = 446 010,40 |
| F. | x = 112 887,50 | | |
| G.
x = 114 271,70 | G. | x = 114 271,70 | y = 459 485,90 |
| G. | x = 114 271,70 | | |
| H.
x = 119 460,00 | H. | x = 119 460,00 | y = 465 000,00 |
| H. | x = 119 460,00 | | |

and the straight lines between points A-B, B-C, D-E, E-F, F-G and A-H, the provincial boundary between North Brabant and Gelderland between points C and D, and the boundary of the ‘Rijswijk’ extraction authorisation (Government Gazette 1955, No 21) between points G and H.

The coordinates correspond to the system used by the Rijks Driehoeksmeting, as specified in Article 1.2.2(1)(a) of the Mining Regulation (Government Gazette 2002, No 245).

With reference to Article 3(2) of Directive 94/22/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 1994 on the conditions for granting and using authorisations for the prospection, exploration and production of hydrocarbons and the publication required by Article 15 of the Mining Act (Bulletin of Acts and Decrees 2002, No 542), the Minister for Economic Affairs hereby invites interested parties to submit an application for authorisation to prospect for hydrocarbons in the ‘Utrecht’ area.

Applications may be submitted during the 13 weeks following the publication of this notice in the Official Journal of the European Union and should be sent to the Minister for Economic Affairs, for the attention of the Director of Energy Production, Prinses Beatrixlaan 5, The Hague, Netherlands, and marked ‘personal’. Applications submitted after the expiry of this period will not be considered.

A decision on the applications will be taken not later than twelve months after the period has expired.

Further information can be obtained from the following telephone number: (31-70) 379 66 94).

---
# Fourth Court of Appeals San Antonio, Texas October 5, 2015
N o. 04

- 15

- 00548

- CV Rufina Reyes YANEZ , Appellant

v. AMERICAN GENERAL LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY , Appellee From the 341st Judicial District Court, Webb County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2014CVF000504

- D3 Honorable Rebecca Ramirez Palomo, Judge Presiding



### O R D E R
On September 16, 2015, a ppellee filed a motion to dismiss arguing appellant’s notice of appeal was filed impermissibly late pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 26(a)(1), and appellant failed to file a timely motion for extension of time. Appellant failed to file a reply to appellee’s motion to dismiss, but did file a motion to abate the appeal. This Court may not abate an appeal if the notice of appeal was filed late

. Further, appellant has failed to pay the filing fee. Appellant filed a notice of appeal on September 3, 2015 and a motion for extension of time on the same date

. The trial court’s judgment was signed on July 20, 2015. It thus appears that neither do cument was filed within the time allowed for filing a motion for extension of time to file the notice of appeal.A motion for extension of time is necessarily implied when an appellant, acting in good

faith, files a notice of appeal beyond the time allowe d by Rule 26.1 but within the fifteen

- day grace period provided by Rule 26.3 for filing a motion for extension of time. See Verburgt v.
Dorner , 959 S.W.2d 615, 617 (Tex.1997) (construing the predecessor to Rule 26). However, once the period for granting a motion for extension of time has passed, a party can no longer invoke the appellate court ’ s jurisdiction. Id. It is therefore ORDERED that appellant show cause in writing within fifteen days from the date of this order why this appeal should not be d ismissed for lack of jurisdiction. It is further ORDERED that appellant to show cause in writing within fifteen days from the date of this
order that either: (1) the filing fee has been paid; or (2) appellant is entitled to appeal without paying the filin g fee. If appellant fails to respond within the time provided, the appeal will be dismissed for want of prosecution or for failure to pay the filing fee. See T EX . R. A PP . P. 5, 42.3(c). The briefing schedule is suspended pending determination whether thi s Court holds jurisdiction over this appeal.

_________________________________ Jason Pulliam, Justice

IN WIT NESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said court on this 5th day of October, 201 5

.

___________________________________ Keith E. Hottle Clerk of Court
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

_________________________________________X

WILHELMSEN PREMIER MARINE FUELS AS 07 Civ. 5798 (CM)

Plaintiff,

against

UBS PROVEDORES PTY LTD. AND

RAECORP INTERNATIONAL PTY LTD.,

Defendants

_________________________________________X

DEFENDANTS’ NOTICE OF MOTION TO AMEND THE 

JUDGMENT PURSUANT TO FED. R. CIV. P. 52 (b)

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that, upon the Attorney Certification of Jeanne-Marie Van

Hemmen, dated October 8, 2007, and the exhibits annexed thereto, the accompanying Memorandum

of Law and all the pleadings and prior proceedings had herein, the Defendants UBS Provedores Pty.

Ltd. (“UBS”)and Raecorp International Pty. Ltd. (“Raecorp”), shall move this Court, pursuant to

Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 52(b) to amend the Court’s September 28, 2007 Decision and Order, before the

Honorable Colleen McMahon, United States District Court Judge, in the United States District Court

for the Southern District of New York, located at 500 Pearl Street, New York, New York 10007.

Dated: New York, New York

 October 8, 2007

 BETANCOURT, VAN HEMMEN, GRECO & KENYON

Attorneys for Petitioner

_________/s/_____________________

By: Jeanne-Marie Van Hemmen (JV-6414)

 46 Trinity Place

Case 1:07-cv-05798-CM-HBP Document 26 Filed 10/08/2007 Page 1 of 2
 New York, NY 10006

 (212) 297-0050

Case 1:07-cv-05798-CM-HBP Document 26 Filed 10/08/2007 Page 2 of 2
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### National Science Foundation

In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, as amended), the National Science Foundation announces the following meeting:

*Name:*                         Special Emphasis Panel in Integrative Activities (1373).                    

*Date/Time:*                         June 5-7, 2001—8:30 am—5:30 pm.                    

*Place:*                         National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson Blvd., Arlington, VA.                    

*Type of Meeting:*                         Closed.                    

*Contact Person:*                         Dr. Nathaniel G. Pitts, Director, Office of Integrative Activities, Room 1270, 4201 Wilson Blvd, Arlington, Virginia 22230; Telephone: (703) 292-8040.                    

*Purpose of Meeting:*                         To provide advice and recommendations concerning proposals submitted to NSF for financial support.                    

*Agenda:*                         To review and evaluate full proposals submitted to the Science and Technology Centers: Integrative Partnerships Program.                    

*Reason for Closing:*                         The proposals being reviewed include information of a proprietary or confidential nature, including technical information, financial data, such as salaries, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the proposals. These matters are exempt under U.S.C. 552B(c)(4) and (6) of the Government Sunshine Act.                    

Dated: May 15, 2001.

Susanne Bolton,

Committee Management Officer.

[FR Doc. 01-12588 Filed 5-17-01; 8:45am]

BILLING CODE 7555-01-M
27012 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 94 / Tuesday, May 15, 2001 / Rules and Regulations

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

GENERAL SERVICES

ADMINISTRATION

NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND

SPACE ADMINISTRATION

48 CFR Parts 2 and 37

[FAC 97—22 Correction]

Federal Acquisition Regulation;

Correction to FAR Case 1999—403,

Definitions

AGENCIES: Department of Defense (DOD),

General Services Administration (GSA),

and National Aeronautics and Space

Administration (NASA).

ACTION: Corrections.

SUMMARY: The Civilian Agency

Acquisition Council and the Defense

Acquisition Regulations Council are

issuing corrections to the definition of

‘‘Performance—based contracting.’’

EFFECTIVE DATE: May 15, 2001.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms.

Laurie Duarte at (202) 501–4755,

General Services Administration, FAR

Secretariat, Washington, DC 20405.

Corrections

In the document appearing in the

Federal Register at 66 FR 2116, January

10, 2001:

1. On page 2124, in the bottom of the

third column, revise the definition

‘‘Performance—based contracting’’ to

read as follows:

2.101 [Corrected]

* * * * *

Performance-based contracting means

structuring all aspects of an acquisition

around the purpose of the work to be

performed with the contract

requirements set forth, in clear, specific,

and objective terms with measurable

outcomes as opposed to either the

manner by which the work is to be

performed or broad and imprecise

statements of work.

* * * * *

37.101 [Corrected]

2. On page 2133, in instruction

number 93., remove the words

‘‘ ‘Performance-based contracting’ and’’.

Dated: May 10, 2001.

Al Matera,

Director, Acquisition Policy Division.

[FR Doc. 01–12214 Filed 5–14–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6820–EP–P
# C_2018381EN.01002501.xml

| 22.10.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 381/25 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.10.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 381/25

---

Order of the General Court of 27 July 2018 — Apple Distribution International v Commission

(Case T-101/17) (1)

((Action for annulment - State aid - Aid planned by Germany to fund film production and distribution - Decision declaring the aid compatible with the internal market - No individual concern - Inadmissibility))

(2018/C 381/29)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Apple Distribution International (Cork, Ireland) (represented by: S. Schwiddessen, H. Lutz, N. Niejahr and A. Patsa, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: J. Samnadda, G. Braun and B. Stromsky, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of Commission Decision (EU) 2016/2042 of 1 September 2016 on the aid scheme SA.38418 — 2014/C (ex 2014/N) which Germany is planning to implement for the funding of film production and distribution (OJ 2016 L 314, p. 63).

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The action is dismissed as inadmissible. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

| 2. | There is no need to rule on the applications to intervene lodged by the Federal Republic of Germany, the French Republic and the Filmförderungsanstalt. |
| --- | --- |

2.

There is no need to rule on the applications to intervene lodged by the Federal Republic of Germany, the French Republic and the Filmförderungsanstalt.

| 3. | Apple Distribution International shall bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the European Commission, with the exception of the costs relating to the applications to intervene. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Apple Distribution International shall bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the European Commission, with the exception of the costs relating to the applications to intervene.

| 4. | Apple Distribution International, the Commission, the Federal Republic of Germany, the French Republic and the Filmförderungsanstalt shall each bear their own costs relating to the applications to intervene. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Apple Distribution International, the Commission, the Federal Republic of Germany, the French Republic and the Filmförderungsanstalt shall each bear their own costs relating to the applications to intervene.

---

(1)  OJ C 121, 18.4.2017.

---
# C_2005175EN.01000801.xml

| 15.7.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 175/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.7.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 175/8

---

STATE AID

STATE AID

(Articles 87 to 89 of the Treaty establishing the European Community)

Communication from the Commission, pursuant to Article 88(2) of the EC Treaty, to the other Member States and other interested parties

State aid C 31/2002 (ex N 149/2000) — Transitional arrangements for the electricity market — Belgium

(2005/C 175/06)

(Text with EEA relevance)

By the following letter, dated 27 April 2005, the Commission informed Belgium of its decision to terminate the procedure provided for in Article 88(2) of the EC Treaty.

‘The Belgian authorities notified the Transitional arrangements for the electricity market to the Commission under Article 88(3) of the EC Treaty by letter dated 3 March 2000, registered in the Commission on 15 March 2000.

The Commission asked the Belgian authorities for further information about the measure on several occasions. The Belgian authorities replied to these questions, the last time by letter dated 26 February 2002, registered in the Commission on 28 February 2002.

By letter sent to the Belgian authorities on 24 April 2002 the Commission initiated the procedure laid down in Article 88(2) of the EC Treaty in order to examine in more detail the part of the Transitional arrangements for the electricity market dealing with the pensions of electricity industry workers. The Commission approved the two other parts of the arrangements in the same decision. The decision was published in the Official Journal of the European Union on 18 September 2002 (1).

By letter dated 18 February 2005, registered in the Commission on 23 February 2005, the Belgian authorities withdrew their notification of the part of the Transitional arrangements for the electricity market dealing with the pensions of electricity industry workers. They stated that the undertakings would continue to be responsible for funding these workers' pensions.

The Commission would point out that, under Article 8 of Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 of 22 March 1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 93 of the EC Treaty (2), the Member State concerned may withdraw its notification in due time before the Commission has taken a decision about the aid. In cases where it has already initiated the formal investigation procedure, the Commission closes that procedure.

Consequently, the Commission has decided to close the formal investigation procedure provided for in Article 88(2) of the EC Treaty in respect of the aid in question, having noted that Belgium has withdrawn the notification.’

---

(1)  OJ C 222, 18.9.2002, p. 2.

1

(2)  OJ L 83, 27.3.1999, p. 1.

2

---
# C_2004268EN.01000501.xml

| 4.11.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 268/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.11.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 268/5

---

OPERATION OF SCHEDULED AIR SERVICES

OPERATION OF SCHEDULED AIR SERVICES

Lifting by France of public service obligations imposed on scheduled air services within France

(2004/C 268/05)

France has decided to lift the public service obligations imposed on scheduled air services between:

| 1. | Paris (Orly) and Rochefort, published in the
  Official Journal of the European Communities C 87 of 18 March 1997, |
| --- | --- |

1.

Paris (Orly) and Rochefort, published in the
  Official Journal of the European Communities C 87 of 18 March 1997,

Official Journal of the European Communities

| 2. | Montluçon and Paris (Orly), published in the
  Official Journal of the European Communities C 358 of 15 December 2001, |
| --- | --- |

2.

Montluçon and Paris (Orly), published in the
  Official Journal of the European Communities C 358 of 15 December 2001,

Official Journal of the European Communities

| 3. | La Rochelle and Poitiers, published in the
  Official Journal of the European Communities C 227 of 1 September 1995, |
| --- | --- |

3.

La Rochelle and Poitiers, published in the
  Official Journal of the European Communities C 227 of 1 September 1995,

Official Journal of the European Communities

| 4. | Reims and Bordeaux, published in the
  Official Journal of the European Communities C 390 of 23 December 1997, |
| --- | --- |

4.

Reims and Bordeaux, published in the
  Official Journal of the European Communities C 390 of 23 December 1997,

Official Journal of the European Communities

| 5. | Roanne and Paris (Orly), published in the
  Official Journal of the European Communities C 166 of 12 July 2002, |
| --- | --- |

5.

Roanne and Paris (Orly), published in the
  Official Journal of the European Communities C 166 of 12 July 2002,

Official Journal of the European Communities

| 6. | Pau and Clermont-Ferrand, published in the
  Official Journal of the European Communities C 240 of 15 September 1995, |
| --- | --- |

6.

Pau and Clermont-Ferrand, published in the
  Official Journal of the European Communities C 240 of 15 September 1995,

Official Journal of the European Communities

| 7. | Reims and Lyon (Saint-Exupéry), published in the
  Official Journal of the European Communities C 76 of 27 March 2002, and |
| --- | --- |

7.

Reims and Lyon (Saint-Exupéry), published in the
  Official Journal of the European Communities C 76 of 27 March 2002, and

Official Journal of the European Communities

| 8. | Paris (Orly) and Albi, published in the
  Official Journal of the European Communities C 284 of 28 October 1995. |
| --- | --- |

8.

Paris (Orly) and Albi, published in the
  Official Journal of the European Communities C 284 of 28 October 1995.

Official Journal of the European Communities

---
Case 1:07-cv-05032-AKH Document 4 Filed 09/05/2008 Page 1 of 2
Case 1:07-cv-05032-AKH Document 4 Filed 09/05/2008 Page 2 of 2
Case 1:07-cv-05862-RJH Document 22 Filed 08/13/2007 Page 1 of 2Case 1:07-cv-05862-RJH Document 22 Filed 08/13/2007 Page 2 of 2