alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2019044EN.01004501.xml

| 4.2.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 44/45 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.2.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 44/45

---

Judgment of the General Court of 22 November 2018 — TeamBank v EUIPO — Fio Systems (FYYO)

(Case T-826/17) (1)

((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU word mark FYYO - Earlier EU word mark FIO - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Similarity of the signs - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)))

(2019/C 44/56)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: TeamBank AG Nürnberg (Nuremberg, Germany) (represented by: D. Terheggen and H. Lindner, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: M. Fischer and D. Walicka, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Fio Systems AG (Leipzig, Germany) (represented by: S. Hänsel, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 6 November 2017 (Case R 2337/2016-4), relating to opposition proceedings between Fio Systems and TeamBank Nürnberg.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1) | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1)

Dismisses the action;

| 2) | Orders TeamBank AG Nürnberg to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2)

Orders TeamBank AG Nürnberg to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 52, 12.2.2018.

---
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

Before the 

COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION 

___________________________________ 

In the Matter of the Application 

of LMX Labs, LLC for 

Designation as a Contract Market 

___________________________________ 

ORDER OF DESIGNATION 

 LMX Labs, LLC (“LMX”) has submitted to the Commodity Futures Trading 

Commission (“Commission”), pursuant to Section 5(a) of the Commodity Exchange Act (“Act”), 

7 U.S.C. § 7(a), and Commission Regulation 38.3(a), 17 C.F.R. § 38.3(a), an application for 

designation as a contract market, which includes submissions dated February 28, 2020 through 

October 2, 2020. Having reviewed LMX’s application, the Commission makes the following 

findings and rulings: 

 WHEREAS Commission staff reviewed LMX’s application for designation as a contract 

market, including LMX’s rules, and conducted a technical evaluation of LMX’s operational 

capabilities to evaluate whether LMX was in compliance with the core principles and 

corresponding regulations in accordance with Section 5(d)(1) of the Act, 7 U.S.C. § 7(d)(1). 

 WHEREAS based on its review, staff concludes LMX’s application, including all 

amendments thereto and representations made by LMX, demonstrates compliance with the
#### In re LG DISPLAY CO., LTD.

No. 2013-1055.

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

July 22, 2013.

Robert S. Rigg, Vedder Price P.C., of Chicago, IL, argued for appellant. With him on the brief were Timothy Nitsch; and Rebecca G. Rudich, of Washington, DC.

Michael S. Forman, Associate Solicitor, United States Patent and Trademark Office, of Alexandria, Virginia, argued for appellee. With him on the brief were Nathan K. Kelley, Deputy Solicitor, and William Lamarca, Associate Solicitor.

NEWMAN, BRYSON, and PROST, Circuit Judges.

JUDGMENT

PER CURIAM.

This Cause having been heard and considered, it is ORDERED and Adjudged:

AFFIRMED. *See*Fed. Cir. R. 36.
Refinitiv US SEF LLC

28 Liberty Street – 58th Floor

New York, NY 10005 

www.refinitiv.com

1 

May 2, 2022 

SUBMITTED VIA PORTAL

Commodity Futures Trading Commission 

Three Lafayette Centre 

1155 21st Street, NW 

Washington, DC 20581 

Re: Submission 22-02: Refinitiv US SEF LLC – Fee Schedule 

Ladies and Gentlemen:

Pursuant to Commodity Futures Trading Commission (the “Commission”) Regulation 40.6(a), 

Refinitiv US SEF LLC (“RSEF”) hereby self-certifies the amendments to its fee schedule

described in Exhibit A. The fee schedule has been amended to reflect certain changes to its terms 

and fees. The amended fee schedule will become effective on May 16, 2022. 

A concise explanation and analysis of the amendments to the fee schedule and their compliance 

with applicable provisions of the Commodity Exchange Act (the “CEA”) is attached hereto as 

Exhibit A, and the amended fee schedule is attached hereto as Exhibit B. 

RSEF hereby certifies that: (i) the amended fee schedule complies with the CEA and the 

Commission’s regulations thereunder, and (ii) a notice and copy of this submission is being 

concurrently posted on RSEF’s website. No substantive opposing views were expressed with 

respect to the amendments to the fee schedule. 

Please contact me using the information below if you have any questions regarding the amended 

fee schedule. 

Michael W. Rooney

28 Liberty Street – 58th Floor 

New York, NY 10005 

Phone: (646) 223-7397 

Email: Michael.w.rooney@lseg.com
2

Sincerely, 

Michael W. Rooney

Chief Compliance Officer

cc: Nancy Markowitz, Deputy Director, Division of Market Oversight, Market Review 

Branch

Marilee Dahlman, Special Counsel, Division of Market Oversight

(Commodity Futures Trading Commission)
3 

EXHIBIT A

Explanation and Analysis of Material Amendments

Summary: The fee schedule has been amended to remove references to the 2014 NDF Order 

Book Market Maker Incentive and the Tier 2 SEF Member 2014 incentive (and their 

respective defined terms), and to add a new 2022 Request for Stream Incentive. 

Capitalized terms used but not otherwise defined herein have the meanings assigned to them 

in the Fee Schedule. 

Amendment and Explanation Relevant Law, Regulation or

Guidance

Remove references to the 2014 NDF Order Book Market 

Maker Incentive and the Tier 2 SEF Member 2014 incentive, 

which ended December 31, 2014 

Core Principle 2

Add reference to 2022 Request for Stream Incentive, which will 

be effective through December 31, 2022 

Core Principle 2
EXHIBIT B

Amended Fee Schedule
Exhibit 32.1

Hennessy Advisors, Inc.

Written Statement of the Chief Executive Officer

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350

Solely for the purposes of complying with 18 U.S.C.
§1350, I, the undersigned Chief Executive Officer of Hennessy Advisors, Inc. (the Company), hereby certify, based on my knowledge, that the Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the year ended September 30, 2008 (the
Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
operations of the Company.



|                                                       
|-------------------------------------------------------
|/s/    Neil J. Hennessy                                
|Neil J. Hennessy, Chief Executive Officer and President
|Hennessy Advisors Inc.                                 
|                                                       
|Date: December 5, 2008
GENE ORK.

World Financial Center
One North End Avenue
New York, New York 10282

BY ELECTRONIC TRANSMISSION
06-29
November 9, 2006
Ms. Eileen A. Donovan
Acting Secretary of the Commission
Office of the Secretariat
Commodity Futures Trading Commission
Three Lafayette Centre
1155 21" Street, NW
Washington, DC 20581

Re: Amendments to Rule 20.02 — Arbitration Jurisdiction
Submission Pursuant to Section 5c(c)(1) of the Act and Regulations 40.6

Dear Ms. Donovan:

Pursuant to Section 5c(c)(1) of the Commodity Exchange Act, as amended, and
Commission Regulation 40.6, the Board of Trade of the City of New York, Inc. (“Exchange”)
submits, by written certification, amendments to Rule 20.02, attached as Exhibit A.

Currently, Arbitration Rule 20.02 provides that the Exchange will have jurisdiction over
the following controversies:

(1) Any claim made by a customer against a member;
(2) Any Allowable Claim made by a member against another member; and

(3) All other disputes, regardless of their nature, between or among members as long as
both parties agree.

Paragraph (d) of Rule 20.02 further provides that any arbitration panel or, in the absence of a
panel, the Arbitration Committee may decline to take jurisdiction of any claim except for ones
made by a customer against a member. The amendments authorize the Chairman of the
Arbitration Committee to appoint a panel comprised of no less than three (3) members of the
Arbitration Committee to determine issues of jurisdiction rather than requiring the entire
Committee as is currently provided for by the Rule.

The Exchange certifies that the amendments comply with the requirements of the
Commodity Exchange Act and the rules and regulations promulgated thereunder.


-2-

The amendments were adopted by the Exchange’s Board of Governors on November 8,
2006. No substantive opposing views were expressed by members or others with respect to the
amendments. The amendments will become effective on November 13, 2006.

If you have any questions or need further information, please contact me at 212-748-

4021.
Sincerely,
Jason V. Fusco
Compliance Counsel
ce: Riva Adriance

CFTC, Division of Market Oversight
Allen Cooper
CFTC, New York Regional Office


(In the text of the amendments below, additions are underlined.)

Rule 20.02. Jurisdiction
* * *

(d) Notwithstanding the foregoing, any Panel or, in the absence of a Panel, any (3) members of the
Arbitration Committee appointed by the Chairman of the Arbitration Committee, in its sole and absolute
discretion, may decline to take jurisdiction of, or, having taken jurisdiction may at any time decline to
proceed further with, any Claim or grievance or any other dispute, controversy or counterclaim, other than
such as may be asserted under paragraph (a) of this Rule.

EXHIBIT A
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 9
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                           4,668
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                               0
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                     0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                     43,199
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                           1,276
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                             1,296
<LOANS>                                        128,064
<ALLOWANCE>                                        879
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 191,611
<DEPOSITS>                                     156,419
<SHORT-TERM>                                    10,200
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                              2,217
<LONG-TERM>                                        388
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           288
<OTHER-SE>                                      22,100
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                 191,611
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                  8,152
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                2,445
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                     0
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                10,597
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                               4,647
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               5,312
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                            5,285
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                      251
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                 259
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                  4,609
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  1,366
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       976
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .35
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .34
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    7.92
<LOANS-NON>                                      1,505
<LOANS-PAST>                                         0
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                   828
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                      210
<RECOVERIES>                                        11
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                  879
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                                 0
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                            879
        

</TABLE>
Exhibit 32.2
 Certification of Chief Financial Officer of Approach Resources Inc.
(Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002)
  (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.
 APPROACH RESOURCES INC.Date: November 3, 2010
    /s/ Steven P. SmartSteven P. SmartExecutive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer

(Principal Financial Officer)
Case 1:07-cv-05847-DAB Document 14 Filed 08/06/2007 Page 1 of 1
116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1988 

AN ACT 

To clarify seasoning requirements for certain refinanced 

mortgage loans, and for other purposes. 

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

•HR 1988 EH

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Protecting Affordable 

3 Mortgages for Veterans Act of 2019’’. 

4 SEC. 2. SEASONING REQUIREMENTS FOR CERTAIN REFI5 NANCED MORTGAGE LOANS. 

6 (a) GINNIE MAE.—Paragraph (1) of section 306(g) 

7 of the National Housing Act (12 U.S.C. 1721(g)(1)) is 

8 amended by striking the second sentence (as added by sec9 tion 309(b) of Public Law 115–174). 

10 (b) VETERANS LOANS.—Section 3709 of title 38, 

11 United States Code, is amended by striking subsection (c) 

12 and inserting the following: 

13 ‘‘(c) LOAN SEASONING.—Except as provided in sub14 section (d) and notwithstanding section 3703 of this title 

15 or any other provision of law, a loan to a veteran for a 

16 purpose specified in section 3710 of this title that is a 

17 refinance may not be guaranteed or insured under this 

18 chapter until the date that is the later of— 

19 ‘‘(1) the date on which the borrower has made 

20 at least six consecutive monthly payments on the 

21 loan being refinanced; and 

22 ‘‘(2) the date that is 210 days after the first 

23 payment due date of the loan being refinanced.’’. 

24 (c) RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.—Nothing in this Act 

25 may be construed to restrict or otherwise modify the au-
3 

•HR 1988 EH

1 thorities of the Government National Mortgage Associa2 tion. 

Passed the House of Representatives July 9, 2019. 

Attest: 

Clerk. 
116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1988 

AN ACT 

To clarify seasoning requirements for certain 

refinanced mortgage loans, and for other purposes.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Paul W. Talmon, Appellant.

Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: On this appeal from a judgment convicting him of felony murder, robbery in the first degree and manslaughter in the second degree, defendant contends that his confession was obtained in violation of his right to counsel. It is undisputed that prior to interviewing defendant, the police were aware that he was represented by counsel on a pending unrelated criminal charge. The police, however, complied with the advice of an Assistant District Attorney that any interview of defendant should be conducted in a "noncustodial atmosphere” and that defendant should not be taken into custody. It is well settled that eliciting inculpatory statements from a suspect under noncustodial circumstances involves no violation of the right to counsel where, as here, the police are aware that the suspect has counsel on a prior unrelated charge *(People v Bertolo,*65 NY2d 111, 116; *People v Hauswirth,*89 AD2d 357, *affd*60 NY2d 904). Defendant was questioned in a friend’s apartment, advised of his *Miranda*rights, informed that he was not under arrest and could leave if he so desired, and there is no indication of any threats, force or restraint. Thus, the record supports the suppression court’s determination that defendant’s admissions were elicited in a noncustodial atmosphere and were admissible at trial.

We have reviewed the remaining claims of error raised in both appellate counsel’s brief as well as those in defendant’s *pro se*brief and find them to be without merit. (Appeal from judgment of Erie County Court, La Mendola, J. — murder, second degree, and other charges.) Present — Callahan, J. P., Denman, Green, Pine and Lawton, JJ.
First Amendment to Amended and Restated Note in the amount of $14,000,000


 EXHIBIT 10.6 
  
 FIRST AMENDMENT TO 
 AMENDED AND RESTATED PROMISSORY NOTE 
  
 This
First Amendment to Amended and Restated Promissory Note is entered into effective as of December 29, 2005. 
  
 WHEREAS, that certain Amended and Restated Promissory Note (the “Note”) dated as of July 7, 2005, in the stated principal amount of
$14,000,000 was entered into by TIETEK LLC, a Delaware limited liability company (“Maker”) and OPUS 5949 LLC, a Texas Limited liability company (“Payee”); and 
  
 WHEREAS, Maker and Payee now desire to amend the Note to modify certain definitions contained therein. 
  
 NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of ten dollars and other good and valuable
consideration receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, the parties hereto hereby agree as follows: 
  
 The definition of “Debenture Termination Date” is hereby amended and restated in its entirety to read as follows: 
  
 “Debenture Termination Date.” The earliest of
(i) such time as the Debentures have been paid in full, (ii) the occurrence of a Default or Event of Default, and (iii) December 31, 2006. 
  

Except as amended hereby, the Note remains the same in all respects and remains in full force and effect. 
  
 EXECUTED as of December 29, 2005. 
  

			
	 MAKER:
  

TIETEK LLC, a Delaware limited liability company

		
	By:	 	/s/    HENRY W. SULLIVAN        
	 	 	Henry W. Sullivan
	 Its:
	 	Manager

  

			
	 PAYEE:
  

OPUS 5949 LLC, a Texas limited liability company
 By: Sammons VPC, Inc., Manager

		
	By:	 	/s/    HEATHER KREAGER        
	 	 	Heather Kreager
	 Its:
	 	Vice President
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Phillip Anthony ISLES, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 13-6090.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: April 25, 2013.

Decided: April 30, 2013.

Phillip Anthony Isles, Appellant Pro Se. Joe Exum, Jr., Jennifer P. May-Parker, Assistant United States Attorneys, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

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

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Phillip Anthony Isles seeks to appeal the district court’s orders denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp.2012) motion. The orders are not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2006). A certificate of ap-pealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006). *191When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. *Slack v. McDaniel,*529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); *see Miller-El v. Cockrell,*537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. *Slack,*529 U.S. at 484-85, 120 S.Ct. 1595.

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Isles has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*DISMISSED.*
# C_2022207EN.01002701.xml

| 23.5.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 207/27 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.5.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 207/27

---

Judgment of the General Court of 30 March 2022 — Air France-KLM v Commission

(Case T-337/17) (1)

(Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Market for airfreight - Decision finding an infringement of Article 101 TFEU, Article 53 of the EEA Agreement and Article 8 of the Agreement between the European Community and the Swiss Confederation on Air Transport - Coordination of elements of the price of airfreight services (fuel surcharge, security surcharge, payment of commission on surcharges) - Exchange of information - Territorial jurisdiction of the Commission - Single and continuous infringement - Attributability of unlawful conduct - Conditions for granting immunity - Equal treatment - Obligation to state reasons - Amount of the fine - Value of sales - Gravity of the infringement - Duration of participation in the infringement - Mitigating circumstances - Encouragement of the anticompetitive conduct by public authorities - Proportionality - Unlimited jurisdiction)

(2022/C 207/35)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Air France-KLM (Paris, France) (represented by: A. Wachsmann, A. de La Cotardière and A.-E. Herrada, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: A. Dawes and C. Giolito, acting as Agents, and by N. Coutrelis, lawyer)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU for annulment of Commission Decision C(2017) 1742 final of 17 March 2017 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 TFEU, Article 53 of the EEA Agreement and Article 8 of the Agreement between the European Community and the Swiss Confederation on Air Transport (Case AT.39258 — Airfreight) in so far as it relates to the applicant and, in the alternative, for partial annulment of that decision and a reduction in the amount of the fines imposed on the applicant.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders the European Commission to bear one third of its own costs; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the European Commission to bear one third of its own costs;

| 3. | Orders Air France-KLM to bear its own costs and to pay two thirds of the costs incurred by the Commission. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders Air France-KLM to bear its own costs and to pay two thirds of the costs incurred by the Commission.

---

(1)  OJ C 256, 7.8.2017.

---
Case 1:07-cv-05731-JGK-RLE Document 18 Filed 11/15/2007 Page 1 of 1
(83 South. 927)

#### Ex parte McCAIG.

(8 Div. 144.)

(Supreme Court of Alabama.

Nov. 14, 1918.)

Certiorari to Court of Appeals, Petition by Jack McCaig for certiorari to' review judgment of Court of Appeals (16 Ala. App. 581, 89 South. 155), affirming judgment of conviction in prosecution of petitioner by the State.

Writ denied.

Melvin Hutson and Wert & Lynne, all of Decatur, for appellant.

F. Loyd Tate, Atty. Gen., for appellee.

McCLELLAN, J.

Petition of Jack McCaig for certiorari to the Court of Appeals to review and revise the judgment of said court, rendered in case of McCaig v. State, 16 Ala. App. 581, 80 South. 155. Writ denied.