alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
April 19, 2021

***Submitted via CFTC Portal***

Mr. Christopher J. Kirkpatrick Office of the Secretariat

Commodity Futures Trading Commission Three Lafayette Centre

1155 21st Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20581

Re:	iSwap Euro B.V. – Fee Structures and Incentives Amendment

Dear Mr. Kirkpatrick:

Pursuant to Section 5c(c) of the Commodity Exchange Act (the “Act”) and Section 40.6(a) of the regulations of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (the “Commission”), iSwap Euro B.V. (“iSwap”) hereby submits amendments to its Fee Structures and Incentives, which has been amended to reflect updates to certain terms and fees. The amendment will become effective on May 4, 2021, no fewer than ten business days from the date hereof. Pursuant to Commission Regulations 40.8 and 145.9(d), attached as Appendix A are the updates to the Fee Structures and Incentives with the additions and deletions indicated in redline format. In connection with this submission, iSwap hereby notifies the Commission that:

1. Pursuant to CFTC Regulations 40.8 and 145.9, iSwap is seeking to keep certain information confidential because it would otherwise reveal trade secrets or confidential commercial or financial information and has posted a notice of pending certification with the Commission and a redacted copy of this submission on iSwap’s website.

2. iSwap certifies that the Rules comply with the Act and the Commission’s regulations thereunder, including Core Principle 2 (Compliance with rules), as the Fee Schedule is a rule of the SEF; and

3. No substantive opposing views with respect to the Rules were expressed to iSwap by its governing board or committee members, members of iSwap or market participants.

Should you have questions regarding this submission, please contact the undersigned at +44 20 7000 5184 or at kieron.nolan@icap.com.

Very truly yours,

											____________________________

								Kieron Nolan, CEO, iSwap Euro B.V.

309559725.1 

TP ICAP Classification: Public

# 

# 

# APPENDIX A

**Fee Structures and Incentives**

# image1.jpeg

# image2.png
# C_2019044EN.01006101.xml

| 4.2.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 44/61 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.2.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 44/61

---

Order of the General Court of 22 November 2018 — Daico International v EUIPO — American Franchise Marketing (RoB)

(Case T-356/17) (1)

((EU trade mark - Cancellation proceedings - Word mark RoB - Declaration of invalidity - Article 75 of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 94 of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) - Rule 62(3) of Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 (now Article 58(3) of Regulation (EU) 2018/625) - Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law))

(2019/C 44/79)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Daico International BV (Amsterdam, Netherlands) (represented by: M. Kassner, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: A. Söder, acting as Agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: American Franchise Marketing Ltd (London, United Kingdom)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 21 March 2017 (Case R 1407/2016-2), relating to cancellation proceedings between American Franchise Marketing and Daico International.

Operative part of the order

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

1.

The action is dismissed.

| 2. | Daico International BV shall pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Daico International BV shall pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 239, 24.7.2017.

---
FILED IN 12th COURT OF APPEALS TYLER, TEXAS 9/14/2015 2:38:28 PM PAM ESTES Clerk
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 99.1


                             OFFICER'S CERTIFICATE
             -----------------------------------------------------
                  CHASE CREDIT CARD OWNER TRUST SERIES 2001-4
             ------------------------------------------------------



         The undersigned, an Authorized Officer of the Chase Manhattan Bank USA,
National Association, as Administrator pursuant to the Indenture for the Chase
Credit Card Owner Trust Series 2001-4 does hereby certify that:

                  1. The undersigned is an Authorized Officer pursuant to the
                  Indenture to execute and deliver this Certificate to the
                  Indenture Trustee.

                  2. This Certificate is delivered pursuant to Section 3.9 of
                  the Indenture.

                  3. A review of the activities of the Issuer during the period
                  from the closing date until December 31, 2001, and of
                  performance under this Indenture has been made under the
                  supervision of the undersigned.

                  4. To the best of the undersigned knowledge, based on such
                  review, the Issuer has complied with all conditions and
                  covenants in all material respects under this Indenture
                  throughout the period from the closing date until December 31,
                  2001. No default in the compliance of any such condition or
                  covenant has occurred or is continuing except as set forth in
                  paragraph 5 below.

                  5. The following is a description of each default in the
                  performance of the Issuer's obligations under the provisions
                  of the Indenture known to the undersigned to have been made
                  during such period which sets forth in detail (i) the nature
                  of each such default, (ii) the action taken by the Issuer, if
                  any, to remedy each such default and (iii) the current status
                  of each such default: NONE.


                                                  (signatures on following page)

<PAGE>

         IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has duly executed this certificate
this 25th day of March, 2002.

                                        By CHASE MANHATTAN BANK USA, National
                                        Association, as Administrator




                                        By:       /s/ Patricia M. Garvey
                                           -------------------------------------
                                           Name:  Patricia M. Garvey
                                           Title: Vice President
116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 182 

AN ACT 

To extend the authorization for the Cape Cod National 

Seashore Advisory Commission. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 
2 

•HR 182 EH

1 SECTION 1. CAPE COD NATIONAL SEASHORE ADVISORY 

2 COMMISSION. 

3 Effective September 26, 2018, section 8(a) of Public 

4 Law 87–126 (16 U.S.C. 459b–7(a)) is amended in the sec5 ond sentence by striking ‘‘2018’’ and inserting ‘‘2028’’. 

Passed the House of Representatives November 20, 

2019. 

Attest: 

Clerk. 

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 182 

AN ACT 

To extend the authorization for the Cape Cod 

National Seashore Advisory Commission.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-7483

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

FRANCIS DAVID SHERMAN,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western 

District of Virginia, at Abingdon. James P. Jones, District 

Judge. (1:10-cr-00039-JPJ-RSB-1; 1:13-cv-80587-JPJ-RSB)

Submitted: November 19, 2015 Decided: November 24, 2015

Before NIEMEYER, KING, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Francis David Sherman, Appellant Pro Se. Zachary T. Lee, 

Assistant United States Attorney, Abingdon, Virginia, for 

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Francis David Sherman appeals the district court’s order 

denying his motion to reopen the period to note an appeal from 

the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2255 (2012) motion. Sherman’s motion asserted that he did not 

receive a copy of the district court’s order denying his 28 

U.S.C. § 2255 motion. Because Sherman filed his motion to 

reopen the period to note an appeal more than 180 days after the 

district court’s order denying his § 2255 motion, the district 

court lacked authority to reopen the appeal period. See Fed. R. 

Civ. P. 77(d)(2); Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6). 

Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. 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
Case 1:07-cv-05423-AKH Document 5 Filed 10/04/2007 Page 1 of 2
Case 1:07-cv-05423-AKH Document 5 Filed 10/04/2007 Page 2 of 2
# C_2018319EN.01002601.xml

| 10.9.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 319/26 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.9.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 319/26

---

Order of the General Court of 11 July 2018 — The Scotch Whisky Association v EUIPO — José Estévez (JOHN COR)

(Case T-438/17) (1)

(2018/C 319/31)

Language of the case: Spanish

The President of the First Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 309, 18.9.2017.

---
# C_2018427EN.01006201.xml

| 26.11.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 427/62 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.11.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 427/62

---

Judgment of the General Court of 9 October 2018 — De Longhi Benelux v EUIPO (COOKING CHEF GOURMET)

(Case T-697/17) (1)

(EU trade mark - Application for the EU word mark COOKING CHEF GOURMET - Absolute ground for refusal - No distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) and Article 7(2) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(b) and Article 7(2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))

(2018/C 427/81)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: De Longhi Benelux SA (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) (represented by M. Arnott and A. Nicholls, Solicitors, and G. Hollingworth, Barrister)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) (represented by S. Bonne, acting as Agent)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 24 July 2017 (Case R 231/2017-1) concerning the application for registration of the word sign COOKING CHEF GOURMET as an EU trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders De Longhi Benelux to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders De Longhi Benelux to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 5, 8.1.2018.

---
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.                  

###### International Trade Commission

          - [USITC SE-01-018] 

# AGENCY HOLDING THE MEETING:

International Trade Commission. 

# TIME AND DATE:

May 15, 2001 at 11 a.m. 

# PLACE:

Room 101, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436, Telephone: (202) 205-2000. 

# STATUS:

Open to the public. 

## Matters To Be Considered 

1. Agenda for future meeting: none. 

2. Minutes. 

3. Ratification List. 

4. Inv. Nos. 731-TA-875, 879, 880, and 882 (Final) (Certain Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bars from Indonesia, Moldova, Poland, and Ukraine)—briefing and vote. (The Commission is currently scheduled to transmit its determination and Commissioners' opinions to the Secretary of Commerce on May 25, 2001.) 

5. Outstanding action jackets: 

1. Document No. GC-01-042: Regarding Inv. No. 337-TA-429 (Certain Bar Clamps, Bar Clamp Pads, and Related Packaging, Display, and Other Materials). 

In accordance with Commission policy, subject matter listed above, not disposed of at the scheduled meeting, may be carried over to the agenda of the following meeting. 

By order of the Commission.

Issued: May 4, 2001.

Donna R. Koehnke, 

Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 01-11826 Filed 5-7-01; 2:16 pm] 

BILLING CODE 7020-02-P
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 01-7970

PAMELA J. ANDERSON,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

PATRICIA HUFFMAN, Warden, Fluvanna

Correctional Center for Women,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western

District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Samuel G. Wilson, Chief District

Judge. (CA-01-732-7)

Submitted: April 24, 2002 Decided: May 15, 2002

Before WILKINS, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Pamela J. Anderson, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Pamela J. Anderson, a Virginia inmate, appeals the district

court’s order denying relief on her 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp.

2001) complaint under 28 U.S.C.A. § 1915A (West Supp. 2001). We

have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find

that this appeal is frivolous. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal

on the reasoning of the district court. See Anderson v. Huffman,

No. CA-01-732-7 (W.D. Va. Nov. 8, 2001). We dispense with oral

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately

presented in the materials before the court and argument would not

aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
Electronically Filed Intermediate Court of Appeals CAAP-12-0000139 30-JAN-2015 02:08 PM
#### BROOKS v. UNITED STATES.

(Circuit Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

May 21, 1923.)

No. 3522.

In Error to the District Court of the United States for the District of Arizona. Criminal prosecution by the United States against James. D. Brooks. Judgment of conviction, and defendant brings error.

Reversed.

PER CURIAM.

Upon the answer of the Supreme Court (43 Sup. Ct. 197, 67 L. Ed. —) to the questions certified to it by this court in the above-entitled cause, it is ordered that the judgment of the court below be and is hereby reversed, and the cause remanded, with instructions to discharge the plaintiff in error.
Case 1:07-cv-05798-CM-HBP     Document 50      Filed 07/08/2008     Page 1 of 1
Case 1:07-cv-04465-AKH Document 20 Filed 10/15/2007 Page 1 of 7Case 1:07-cv-04465-AKH Document 20 Filed 10/15/2007 Page 2 of 7Case 1:07-cv-04465-AKH Document 20 Filed 10/15/2007 Page 3 of 7Case 1:07-cv-04465-AKH Document 20 Filed 10/15/2007 Page 4 of 7Case 1:07-cv-04465-AKH Document 20 Filed 10/15/2007 Page 5 of 7Case 1:07-cv-04465-AKH Document 20 Filed 10/15/2007 Page 6 of 7Case 1:07-cv-04465-AKH Document 20 Filed 10/15/2007 Page 7 of 7
Case 1:07-cv-05847-DAB Document 25 Filed 08/29/2007 Page 1 of 1
**Exhibit
      32.2**





**Certification
      of Principal 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 Quarterly Report of SRKP 15, Inc. (the "Company") on Form
      10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2008 as filed with the Securities and
      Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Anthony C.
      Pintsopoulos, 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.





/s/
                Anthony C. PintsopoulosAnthony
                C. PintsopoulosPrincipal
                Financial OfficerAugust
                1, 2008
### IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT KNOXVILLE Assigned on

Briefs N ovember 16 , 2001 MARTIN WALKER

v. STATE OF TEN NESSEE Appeal fr

om the Te nnessee C laims Com mission No. 20001703 Michael S. Lacy, Commissioner

FILED JANUARY 17, 2002 No. E2001-00629-COA-R3-CV

Martin Walker, an inmate i n the Penal System of this State, filed two separate claims against the Statein the amount of $30, 000 and $1 ,000,000, alleging his constitutional rights of equal protection and due process were violated. The State’s re sponse contends that the claims he makes are not authorized

against th

e State by T.C.A. 9- 8-307(a

), and al so that both claims are barred by the oneyear Sta tute of Li mitations. The ClaimsCommissione r dismisse d his claim s and we a ffirm. Tenn.R.App. P. 3 Appeal as of Right ; Judgment

of the Cla

ims Comm

issioner A ffirme d; Cause Remanded H OUSTON M. G ODDARD , P.J., delivered the opinion of the court, in which H ERSCHEL P. F RANKS and C HARLE S D. S USANO , J R ., JJ., joined. Martin Walker, Mountain City, Tennessee, Appellant, Pro Se Paul G. Summers, Attorney General and Reporter, Michae l E. Moore, Solicitor General, and Stephanie R. Reevers, Associate Deputy Attorney Genera l, Nashville, Tennessee, for the Appellee, State of Tennessee

OPINION Martin Walker appeals dismissal of two separate claims, the first in the amount of $30,000 and the second $1,000,000, against the State of T ennessee, wherein he alleges his constitutional rights of equal protection and due process were violated. The principal thrust of h is argument was that the public defender repre senting him was incompetent, resulting in his conviction and incarceration. The record discloses that Mr. Walker has filed six post-conviction petitions p

ursuant t o Title 40, Chapter 30, all of which have been denied, the last one by or der filed December 18, 19 9 7, in Davidson County. As t

o his last po st-convi ction app eal, which was found adversely to him by the-2-

Courtof Criminal Appeals, the Supreme Court, on June 8, 1 998, denied his application for permissio n to appea

l. The State defends his claims upon two grounds. First, because the action he alleges is not one authorized against the State by T.C.A. 9-8-307(a) and tha t his cause of

action is barred by the one-yea r Statute o f Limitatio ns. Although th

e Claims Commissioner did not specify the grounds relied upon in dismissing Mr. Walk er’s cla ims, we co nclude hi s dismissal was appr opriate on both gro

unds. We find the Claims Commissioner acted properly in denying his cla ims and af

firm his decision. The cause is remanded for collection of c osts below. Costs of appeal are

adjudged against Mr. Walker.

_________________________________________ HOUSTON M. GODDARD, PRESIDING JUDGE
DOCSNY-266440v01 

Robert J. Higgins, Esq. (RH-6477) 

Judith R. Cohen, Esq. (JC-8614) 

Kenneth H. Frenchman, Esq. (KF-3635) 

DICKSTEIN SHAPIRO LLP 

1177 Avenue of the Americas 

New York, NY 10036-2714 

(212) 277-6500 

Attorneys for Defendant Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc. 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK 

----------------------------------------------------------------X 

IN RE WORLD TRADE CENTER LOWER 

MANHATTAN DISASTER SITE LITIGATION 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

21 MC 102 (AKH) 

 : 

----------------------------------------------------------------X 

LUIS F. MESA (AND WIFE, MARIA MESA), 

 Plaintiffs, 

 - against - 

100 CHURCH L.L.C., et al., 

 Defendants. 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

07-CV-05303-AKH 

NOTICE OF ADOPTION 

OF ANSWER 

TO MASTER COMPLAINT 

BY MERRILL LYNCH 

ELECTRONICALLY FILED

----------------------------------------------------------------X 

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE THAT Defendant Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc. (“Merrill 

Lynch”), as and for its responses to the allegations set forth in the Complaint by Adoption 

(Check-Off Complaint) Related to the Master Complaint filed in the above-referenced action, 

hereby adopts Merrill Lynch’s Answer to Master Complaint, dated August 3, 2007, which was 

filed in the matter of In re World Trade Center Lower Manhattan Disaster Site Litigation, 21 

MC 102 (AKH). To the extent that the Check-Off Complaint in this action alleges a relationship 

between 100 Church Street and Merrill Lynch, Merrill Lynch avers that it never reoccupied the 

Case 1:07-cv-05303-AKH Document 13 Filed 09/17/2007 Page 1 of 2
2 

DOCSNY-266440v01 

building at this location after September 11, 2001 and that it terminated all lease arrangements 

covering this location effective May 8, 2003. 

WHEREFORE, Merrill Lynch demands judgment dismissing the above-captioned 

action as against it, together with its costs and disbursements and for such other and further relief 

as this Court deems just and proper. 

Dated: New York, New York 

 September 14, 2007 

 By:

DICKSTEIN SHAPIRO LLP 

/s/ Judith R. Cohen________________________ 

Robert J. Higgins (RH-6477) 

Judith R. Cohen (JC-8614) 

Kenneth H. Frenchman (KF-3635) 

1177 Avenue of the Americas 

New York, New York 10036 

Phone: (212) 277-6500 

Fax: (212) 277-6501 

Attorneys for Defendant 

MERRILL LYNCH & CO., INC. 

Case 1:07-cv-05303-AKH Document 13 Filed 09/17/2007 Page 2 of 2
Commodity Futures Trading Commission August 29, 2017

SR-NFX-2016-25

Page 3

Exhibit A to SR-NFX-2017-25

New language is underlined; deleted language is stricken.

NASDAQ Futures Rules

Chapter IV Trading System

*****

Section 4 Acceptable Orders

*****

A Trading at Settlement or "TAS" Order. There are two types of TAS Order, a TAS Single Order and a TAS Combo Order (collectively "TAS Orders"). The Exchange will designate the Contracts in which TAS Orders are permitted in accordance with this Rule in the Contract Specifications. TAS Orders are not permitted on the Last Trading Day in any Contract

Expiry, during any trading session that is of a shorter duration than a standard trading session as defined by the Exchange pursuant to Chapter IV, Section 2, or for any trade date which is a U.S. federal holiday even if the Exchange is open for trading. TAS Orders are not permitted in any Options or EFRP transactions. Contracts eligible for TAS Orders are permitted in any minimum quantity or as Block Trades pursuant to the requirements of Chapter IV, Section 11.

*****