alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
1

EXHIBIT 1

Hard Red Spring Wheat Futures Incentive Program

Program Purpose

The purpose of the Hard Red Spring Wheat Futures Incentive Program (the “Program”) is to incentivize 

participants to support the continued development of the product listed below. The continued liquidity in the

contract benefits all participants in the market.

Product Scope

Hard Red Spring Wheat futures contract (“Product”).

Eligible Participants

Proprietary Trading Groups, which means an organization whose owners, employees, and/or contractors 

trade in the name of accounts owned by the group and exclusively use the funds of the group for all of their 

trading, and individuals trading their personal account are eligible to participate in the Program. There is no 

limit to the number of participants in the Program. There is no member requirement for participants.

Prospective participants must have an account with an MGEX Clearing Member (omnibus accounts are not 

eligible). Prospective participants must complete a Program application with MGEX, LLC (“MGEX” or “the 

Exchange”), which is used to determine eligibility. A link to the application can be found on the MGEX 

website, or can be obtained by contacting MGEX at mgex@mgex.com. In determining whether or not a 

prospective participant is selected to participate in the Program, the Exchange may take into account a 

variety of factors, including whether the Exchange believes that the prospective participant can maintain 

Program obligations based on the application, the prospective participant’s ability to meet trade volume 

thresholds in the Product, and the prospective participant’s historical trading volume of related products.

The Exchange may, from time to time, add or subtract from the aforementioned requirements as it deems 

necessary.

Program Term

Start date is January 1, 2023. End date is June 30December 31, 2023.

Hours

RTH and ETH.

Obligations

In order to be eligible to receive the incentives, participants must meet certain volume thresholds.

Incentives

Upon meeting all obligations, as determined by the Exchange, participants will be eligible to receive 

predetermined incentives.

Monitoring and Termination of Status

The Exchange will monitor trading activity and participants’ performance and retain the right to revoke 

participant status if it concludes from review that a participant no longer meets the eligibility requirements, 

fails to meet the obligations of the Program, or participant fails to comply with Exchange rules (including, 

but not limited to, rules relating to market manipulation, wash trades, etc.) or any applicable law.
Exhibit 32.2



Certificate pursuant to 18 U.S. C. Section 1350 as adopted pursuant to

Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002



In accordance with the requirements of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned, to the best of my knowledge, hereby certifies that the report of
Newnan Coweta Bancshares, Inc., filed on Form 10-KSB for the period ended December 31, 2004: (1) fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and (2) fairly represents, in all material respects, the
financial conditions and results of operations of Newnan Coweta Bancshares, Inc.



Date: March 24, 2005



/s/ Ann B. BledsoeAnn B. Bledsoe,Chief Financial Officer
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2119 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2119

   To amend the Energy Policy Act of 2005 to reauthorize grants for 
  improving the energy efficiency of public buildings, and for other 
                               purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 8, 2019

Ms. Kelly of Illinois introduced the following bill; which was referred 
                to the Committee on Energy and Commerce

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To amend the Energy Policy Act of 2005 to reauthorize grants for 
  improving the energy efficiency of public buildings, and for other 
                               purposes.

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

SECTION 1. ENERGY EFFICIENT PUBLIC BUILDINGS.

    Section 125(c) of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (42 U.S.C. 
15822(c)) is amended by striking ``$30,000,000 for each of fiscal years 
2006 through 2010'' and inserting ``$100,000,000 for each of fiscal 
years 2021 through 2025''.
                                 <all>
```
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.                  

###### Federal Communications Commission

          - 47 CFR Part 73 
          - [MM Docket No. 91-137, RM-7494, FCC 00-409] 

# AGENCY:

Federal Communications Commission. 

# ACTION:

Final rule. 

# SUMMARY:

In MM Docket No. 91-137, the Commission denied an application for review filed by Smith Communications, licensee of Station WZJS(FM), Channel 264A, Banner Elk, North Carolina, of the Memorandum Opinion and Order, 61 FR 20,490, published May 7, 1996. The Commission denied review because it found no reason to depart from staff's reasoning set forth in the Memorandum Opinion and Order. It found that the staff had fully considered and rejected each of Smith's contentions that irregular terrain would prevent full signal coverage by the proposed upgraded Jefferson, North Carolina station. Additionally, since the release of the Memorandum Opinion and Order, a construction permit had been granted for an actual transmitter site at a location different from the theoretical one used previously. The Commission reexamined the expanded coverage area from that site and found the coverage to be adequate and of similar size to that predicted using the theoretical site. With this action, the proceeding is terminated. 

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

J. Bertron Withers, Jr., Mass Media Bureau, (202) 418-2180. 

# SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION:

This is a summary of the Memorandum Opinion and Order, MM Docket 91-137, adopted November 17, 2000, and released November 28, 2000. The full text of this Commission decision is available for inspection and copying during normal business hours in the Commission's Reference Information Center (room CY-A257), 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554. The complete text of this decision may be also purchased from the Commission's copy contractor, International Transcription Service, 1231 20th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20036, (202) 857-3800. 

Federal Communications Commission. 

 William F. Caton, 

Deputy Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 01-127 Filed 1-3-01; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6717-01-U
#### Anthony JOHNSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. L. GONZALEZ; A. Murrieta, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 12-15136.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted May 14, 2013.*

Filed May 23, 2013.

Anthony Johnson, Corcoran, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

Matthew Ross Wilson, Esquire, Williams & Associates, Sacramento, CA, for Defendants-Appellees.

Before: LEAVY, THOMAS, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

California state prisoner Anthony Johnson appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that defendants used excessive force against him. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo summary judgment, *Conlon v. United States,*474 F.3d 616, 621 (9th Cir.2007), and for an abuse of discretion a *574district court’s decision not to consider arguments and evidence raised for the first time as an objection to the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations, *Akhtar v. Mesa,*698 F.3d 1202, 1208 (9th Cir.2012). We reverse and remand.

The district court declined to consider Johnson’s request under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 36(b) to amend or withdraw his admissions, which were the basis for granting defendants’ motion for summary judgment, because Johnson raised this issue for the first time in his objections to the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations. However, the district court’s failure to consider this request was an abuse of discretion because Johnson is pro se and his Rule 36(b) request, if granted, would have defeated summary judgment. *See id.*at 1208-09 (district court abused its discretion by not considering an opposition to a motion to dismiss presented by a pro se prisoner for the first time in his objections to the magistrate judge’s recommendation, even though the prisoner did not explain why he failed to file a timely opposition); *see also Jones v. Blanas,*393 F.3d 918, 935 (9th Cir.2004) (concluding that it would have been an abuse of discretion for the district court not to consider arguments raised for the first time in the objections to the magistrate’s findings “given the circumstances under which this evidence was offered — a pro se plaintiff, ignorant of the law, offering crucial facts as soon as he understood what was necessary to prevent summary judgment against him”). Accordingly, we reverse and remand for further proceedings consistent with our disposition.

Johnson’s opposed motion to request supplementary briefing, filed on August 13, 2012, is denied.

REVERSED and REMANDED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
17 April 2023

Via E-mail

Assistant Secretary of the Commission for FOI, Privacy and Sunshine Acts Compliance

Commodity Futures Trading Commission

Three Lafayette Centre

1155 21st Street, NW

Washington, DC 20581

201-418-5000

FOIAsubmissions@cftc.gov

Re: FOIA Confidential Treatment Request 

Dear Sir or Madam:

ICE Clear Europe Limited (“Submitter”) hereby respectfully requests that the Commodity Futures Trading 

Commission (the “CFTC”) accord confidential treatment under 17 C.F.R. §145.9 in relation to the ‘FO Default 

Management Policy’ document submitted today which bear the bates number 17.04.2023-000001-CFTC and 

17.04.2023-000010-CFTC and all information derived therefrom (collectively, the “Confidential Information”).

This request for confidential treatment is made pursuant to 17 C.F.R. §145.9(d) (1) because Submitter believes 

that the Confidential Information is covered by one or more exemptions in the Freedom of Information Act (the 

“FOIA”) (5 U.S.C. §552(b)) and is therefore exempt from the CFTC’s public disclosure requirements pursuant 

to 17 C.F.R. §145.5. In particular, 5 U.S.C. §552(b) (4) and 17 C.F.R. §145.9(d) (1) (ii) exempts disclosure that 

would reveal the Submitter’s trade secrets or confidential commercial or financial information. Submitter 

believes that the Confidential Information contains confidential commercial and financial information as well as 

proprietary information regarding business procedures and systems that should be protected from public 

disclosure pursuant to this exemption. Confidential treatment is requested for a period of five years. 

This request is not to be construed as a waiver of any other protection from disclosure or confidential treatment 

accorded by law, and Submitter will rely on and invoke any such confidentiality protection. Submitter requests 

that the CFTC advise the undersigned, pursuant to 17 C.F.R. §145.9(e) (1), in advance of any disclosure of the 

Confidential Information pursuant to the FOIA, so that this request for confidential treatment may be 

substantiated.

If you should have any questions or comments or require further information, please do not hesitate to contact the 

undersigned at giulia.honorati@ice.com or +44 (0)20 7429 7127.

Very truly yours,

Giulia Honorati

Compliance & Regulatory Senior Manager
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 18-7366

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

LIONEL LAMONT COX,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at 

Raleigh. Louise W. Flanagan, District Judge. (5:12-cr-00288-FL-1; 5:15-cv-00571-FL)

Submitted: March 29, 2019 Decided: April 10, 2019

Before WILKINSON and KEENAN, Circuit Judges, and DUNCAN, Senior Circuit 

Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Lionel Lamont Cox, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Lionel Lamont Cox seeks to appeal the district court’s order granting the 

Government’s motion to dismiss and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) 

motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of 

appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012). 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) (2012). 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 (2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (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. 

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Cox has not made 

the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny Cox’s 

motion to appoint counsel and expedite decision, 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
Case 1:07-cv-01528-AKH Document 49 Filed 01/10/2008 Page 1 of 2
Case 1:07-cv-01528-AKH Document 49 Filed 01/10/2008 Page 2 of 2
600335672 

Bloomberg SEF LLC 

731 Lexington Avenue 

New York, NY 10022 

March 15, 2021 

FOIA CONFIDENTIAL TREATMENT REQUEST 

Submitted via the Portal and via email 

CFTC FOIA Compliance Office 

Three Lafayette Centre 

1155 21st Street, N.W. 

Washington, D.C. 20581 

via email: FOIAsubmissions@cftc.gov 

Re: Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”) Confidential Treatment Request for 

Information Submitted to the Commodity Futures Trading Commission 

(“Commission”) by Bloomberg SEF LLC, as operator of a swap execution facility 

Ladies and Gentlemen: 

Pursuant to Section 5c(c) of the Commodity Exchange Act (the “Act”) and Section 

40.6(a) of the regulations of the U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission (the 

“CFTC”, or the “Commission”), Bloomberg SEF LLC (“BSEF”) as the operator of a 

swap execution facility, submitted to the Commission a rule amendment (the 

“Amendment”). 

Bloomberg SEF hereby requests that the Confidential Information (as defined below) be 

accorded confidential treatment on the grounds that it would reveal Bloomberg SEF’s 

trade secrets and confidential commercial or financial information. We request this 

confidential treatment for an indefinite period. 

Please promptly inform the following of any request for the Confidential Information or 

its contents made pursuant to FOIA or the Commission’s rules so that we may 

substantiate the foregoing request for confidential treatment in accordance with Part 

145.9 of the Commission’s regulations. 

David Levine 

General Counsel 

Bloomberg L.P. 

731 Lexington Avenue 

New York, NY 10022 

The certification described above and attached as Annex A hereto is referred to herein as 

the “Confidential Information.” 
600365906 

U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission 

Page 2

Pursuant to Part 145.9(d)(4) of the Commission’s regulations, we have marked each page 

of the Confidential Information with the words “Confidential Treatment Requested by

Bloomberg SEF LLC” and have numbered each page of the Confidential Information 

with an identifying number and code, beginning with “BSEF-0321-0735” and ending 

with “BSEF-0321-0744.” 

[signature page follows] 
U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission 

Page 3 

600365906 

Please contact the undersigned at (212) 617-3918 with any questions regarding this matter. 

Thank you for your attention to this matter. 

Very truly yours, 

Devu Shanmugham 

Chief Compliance Officer 

Bloomberg SEF LLC 

731 Lexington Avenue 

New York, NY 10022 

cc: Jonathan Lave, Division of Market Oversight, U.S. Commodity Futures Trading 

Commission (Email: JLave@cftc.gov) 
U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission 

Page 4 

600365906 

Annex A 

Confidential Information 

Name of Confidential Information Identifying Number and Code 

Rule Amendment Self-Certification BSEF-0321-0735–

BSEF-0321-0744
Case 1:07-cv-05357-AKH Document 14 Filed 10/15/2007 Page 1 of 7Case 1:07-cv-05357-AKH Document 14 Filed 10/15/2007 Page 2 of 7Case 1:07-cv-05357-AKH Document 14 Filed 10/15/2007 Page 3 of 7Case 1:07-cv-05357-AKH Document 14 Filed 10/15/2007 Page 4 of 7Case 1:07-cv-05357-AKH Document 14 Filed 10/15/2007 Page 5 of 7Case 1:07-cv-05357-AKH Document 14 Filed 10/15/2007 Page 6 of 7Case 1:07-cv-05357-AKH Document 14 Filed 10/15/2007 Page 7 of 7
#### Cayuga Indian Nation of New York, Respondent, v David S. Gould, as Cayuga County Sheriff, et al., Appellants, et al., Defendants.

Submitted February 16, 2010;

decided February 18, 2010

Motion by District Attorneys Association of the State of New York for leave to appear amicus curiae on the appeal herein granted only to the extent that the proposed brief is accepted as filed. Two copies of the brief must be served and 24 copies filed within seven days.
Exhibit 13.1

Certification of the Principal Executive Officer of

Quebecor Media Inc.

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 Annual Report of Quebecor Media Inc. (the Company) on Form 20-F for the year ending December 31, 2016, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Pierre Karl Péladeau, President and Chief Executive
Officer of the Company, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge:



| | (1) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and
| | --- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | (2) | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: March 23, 2017



/s/ Pierre Karl PéladeauName: Pierre Karl Péladeau Title: President and Chief Executive Officer


The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code) and is not being filed as part of the Report or as a separate disclosure document.
[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 98 (Monday, May 21, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Page 27950]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-12647]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER01-1418-000]


Effingham County Power, LLC; Notice of Issuance of Order

May 15, 2001.
    Effingham County Power, LLC (Effingham) submitted for filing a rate 
schedule under which Effingham will engage in wholesale electric power 
and energy transactions at market-based rates. Effingham also requested 
waiver of various Commission regulations. In particular, Effingham 
requested that the Commission grant blanket approval under 18 CFR Part 
34 of all future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability 
by Effingham.
    On May 4, 2001, pursuant to delegated authority, the Director, 
Division of Corporate Applications, Office of Markets, Tariffs and 
Rates, granted requests for blanket approval under Part 34, subject to 
the following:
    Within thirty days of the date of the order, any person desiring to 
be heard or to protest the blanket approval of issuances of securities 
or assumptions of liability by Effingham should file a motion to 
intervene or protest with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 
First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 
and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 
385.211 and 385.214).
    Absent a request to be heard in opposition within this period, 
Effingham is authorized to issue securities and assume obligations or 
liabilities as a guarantor, indorser, surety, or otherwise in respect 
of any security of another person; provided that such issuance or 
assumption is for some lawful object within the corporate purposes of 
the applicant, and compatible with the public interest, and is 
reasonably necessary or appropriate for such purposes.
    The Commission reserves the right to require a further showing that 
neither public nor private interests will be adversely affected by 
continued approval of Effingham's issuances of securities or 
assumptions of liability.
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing motions to 
intervene or protests, as set forth above, is June 4, 2001.
    Copies of the full text of the Order are available from the 
Commission's Public Reference Branch, 888 First Street, NE., 
Washington, DC 20426. The Order may also be viewed on the Internet at 
http://www.ferc.fed.us/online/rims.htm (call 202-208-2222 for 
assistance). Comments, protests, and interventions may be filed 
electronically via the internet in lieu of paper. See, 18 CFR 
385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's web site 
at 
http://www.ferc.fed.us/efi/doorbell.htm.

David P. Boergers,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 01-12647 Filed 5-18-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M