alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 3.4

[TRANSLATION]







QUEBECOR MEDIA INC.

(the Company)

WRITTEN RESOLUTIONS IN LIEU OF

AN ANNUAL MEETING OF THE SHAREHOLDERS

Dated : May 11, 2010









|2) | ELECTION OF DIRECTORS
|--- | ---------------------

BE IT RESOLVED :



| | a) | THATthe number of directors on the board of directors of the Company be reduced from 10 to 9 directors, five (5) of which to be designated by Quebecor Inc.
and four (4) of which by CDP Capital DAmérique Investissements Inc., the whole in accordance with the Shareholders Agreement;
| | -- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
# C_2019103EN.01003101.xml

| 18.3.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 103/31 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.3.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 103/31

---

Judgment of the General Court of 6 February 2019 — Karp v Parliament

(Case T-580/17) (1)

((Civil service - Members of the contract staff - Classification - Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations - Premature complaint - Failure to follow the pre-litigation procedure - Inadmissibility - Autonomy of remedies - Non-renewal of a contract as a member of the auxiliary contract staff covering maternity leave - Obligation to state reasons - Successive fixed-term contracts - Abuse of rights - Right to be heard - Liability))

(2019/C 103/40)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Kevin Karp (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: N. Lambers and R. Ben Ammar, lawyers)

Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: Í. Ní Riagáin Düro and M. Windisch, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application on the basis of Article 270 TFEU and seeking, first, annulment of the European Parliament’s decision classifying the applicant in function group II, at grade 4, step 1, under the contract as a member of the contract staff signed on 12 May 2016 and which expired on 11 November 2016 and, secondly, compensation in respect of the material and non-material harm which the applicant has allegedly suffered on account of his classification and the non-renewal of his contract.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Mr Kevin Karp to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Mr Kevin Karp to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 412, 4.12.2017.

---
September 30, 2015

**BY ELECTRONIC MAIL (submissions@cftc.gov)**

Ms. Melissa Jurgens, Secretary

Commodity Futures Trading Commission

Three Lafayette Centre

1155 21st Street, N.W.

Washington, D.C.  20581

**Re: Regulation 40.6(a) Rule Certification**

**360 Trading Networks Inc. Rulebook Amendments**

Dear Ms. Jurgens:

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”), 360 Trading Networks Inc. (“360T”) hereby files the attached amendments to its Rulebook.  The Rulebook has been amended in response to Commission staff guidance and comments and questions received from users and potential users of 360T.  The amended Rulebook will become effective on October 15, 2015.

A concise explanation and analysis of the amendments to the Rulebook and their compliance with applicable provisions of the Act, including Core Principles, and the Commission’s Regulations thereunder, is attached hereto as Exhibit A.  A clean copy of the amended Rulebook is attached hereto as Exhibit B, and a copy of the Rulebook marked to show changes against the version submitted to the Commission on August 18, 2015 is attached hereto as Exhibit C. The Rulebook also includes both a market maker User Guide Exhibit D and market taker User Guide Exhibit E.

360T hereby certifies that: (i) the amended Rulebook and accompanying User Guides comply with the Act and the Commission’s regulations thereunder; and (ii) a notice and copy of this submission is being concurrently posted on 360T’s web site.  There were no substantive opposing views to the amendments.

Please contact the undersigned at 44 020 3508 6344 or martin.oakley@360t.com if you have any questions or you would otherwise like to discuss this further.

Sincerely,

/s/ Martin Oakley

Chief Compliance Officer

Attachments

**Exhibit A**

**Summary**: The 360T Rulebook has been amended in response to published Commission staff guidance and comments and questions received from users and potential users of 360T.  A clean copy of the amended Rulebook is attached hereto as Exhibit B; a copy of the Rulebook marked to show changes against the version submitted to the Commission on August 18, 2015 is attached hereto as Exhibit C.

Capitalized terms used but not defined herein have the meanings assigned to them in the Rulebook.

112024053

2

112024053
[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 92 (Friday, May 11, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Page 24118]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-11943]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

[I.D. 050701B]


Permits; Foreign Fishing

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of receipt of foreign fishing application.

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

SUMMARY: NMFS publishes for public review and comment a summary of an 
application submitted by the Government of the Russian Federation 
requesting authorization to conduct fishing operations in the U.S. 
Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) in 2001 under provisions of the Magnuson-
Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act).

ADDRESSES: Comments may be submitted to NMFS, Office of Sustainable 
Fisheries, International Fisheries Division, 1315 East-West Highway, 
Silver Spring, MD 20910, or to any of the following Regional Fishery 
Management Councils:
    Paul J. Howard, Executive Director, New England Fishery Management 
Council, 50 Water Street, Mill 2, Newburyport, MA 01905; Phone (978) 
465-0492; Fax (978) 465-3116;
    Daniel T. Furlong, Executive Director, Mid-Atlantic Fishery 
Management Council, Federal Building, Room 2115, 300 South New Street, 
Dover, DE 19904; Phone (302) 674-2331; Fax (302) 674-4136.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robert A. Dickinson, Office of 
Sustainable Fisheries, (301) 713-2276.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In accordance with a Memorandum of 
Understanding with the Secretary of State, NMFS publishes, for public 
review and comment, summaries of applications received by the Secretary 
of State requesting permits for foreign fishing vessels to fish in the 
U.S. EEZ under provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Act (16 U.S.C. 1801 
et seq.).
    This notice concerns the receipt of an application from the 
Government of the Russian Federation requesting the stern trawler/
processor KAPITAN GORBACHEV be authorized to receive Atlantic herring 
and Atlantic mackerel from U.S. vessels in joint venture operations in 
2001.

    Dated: May 7, 2001.
Bruce C. Morehead,
Acting Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine 
Fisheries Service.
[FR Doc. 01-11943 Filed 5-10-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-S
Exhibit 32

CERTIFICATION 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 Triplecrown Acquisition Corp. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for
the quarterly period ended September 30, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), each of the undersigned, in the capacities and on the dates indicated below, hereby certifies
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 operation of the Company.



|                        |  |  |  |        |  |                                                                                 
|----------------------- |  |  |  | ------ |  | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|Date: November 14, 2008 |  |  |  |        |  | /s/ Jonathan J. Ledecky                                                         
|                        |  |  |  | Name:  |  | Jonathan J. Ledecky                                                             
|                        |  |  |  | Title: |  | President and Secretary (Principal Executive Officer)                           
|                        |  |  | 
|Date: November 14, 2008 |  |  |  |        |  | /s/ Eric J. Watson                                                              
|                        |  |  |  | Name:  |  | Eric J. Watson                                                                  
|                        |  |  |  | Title: |  | Chairman of the Board and Treasurer (Principal
Accounting and Financial Officer)
NEX SEF LIMITED 

London Fruit and Wool Exchange

1 Duval Square

London 

E1 6PW

United Kingdom

December 18, 2019

Via Email

Office of General Counsel

U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission

Three Lafayette Centre

1155 21st Street, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20581

Via email: FOIAsubmissions@cftc.gov

Re: FOIA Confidential Treatment Request

Ladies and Gentlemen:

NEX SEF Limited (“Applicant”) has submitted to the Commodity Futures Trading Commission 

(“Commission”) a rule certification in NEX SEF-2020-R-1 pursuant to CFTC Reg. 40.6 in order 

to issue a Market Regulation Advisory Notice and to amend its Rulebook (“Certification”). 

Attached as Exhibit B is MRAN 2020-01 and attached as Exhibit C is a marked version of 

MRAN 2020-01. Attached as Exhibit D is Chapter 9 of the Rulebook and attached as Exhibit E 

is a marked version of Chapter 9. 

The Applicant hereby requests that MRAN 2020-01 as set forth in Exhibit B and Exhibit C to the 

Certification and that the Rulebook as set forth in Exhibit D and Exhibit E to the Certification

(“Confidential Information”) be treated as confidential in order to prevent disclosure of 

Applicant’s trade secrets and confidential commercial and financial information upon a request 

under the Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”). We request the Confidential Information be 

provided 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 Section 145.9 of the 

Commission’s Regulations: Attention: General Counsel, NEX SEF LIMITED, London Fruit and 

Wool Exchange, 1 Duval Square, London E1 6PW, United Kingdom.

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 NEX SEF

LIMITED” and have identified each portion of the Confidential Information with the following 

identifying numbers and codes, as applicable: NEX SEF-2020-R-1-Exhibit B, NEX SEF-2020-

R-1-Exhibit C, NEX SEF-2020-R-1-Exhibit D and NEX SEF-2020-R-1-Exhibit E. 
2

Please contact the undersigned at (212) 521-4609 with any questions regarding this matter.

Thank you for your attention to this matter.

Sincerely,

Nirup Ramalingam, Chief Operating Officer

NEX SEF LIMITED

London Fruit and Wool Exchange

1 Duval Square

London

E1 6PW

United Kingdom

cc by email: Division of Market Oversight, Commodity Futures 

Trading Commission 

ACTIVE 252180262
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. No. 97-7561 CYRIACUS AKAS, Defendant-Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. J. Frederick Motz, Chief District Judge. (CR-91-305-HAR, CA-97-1979-JFM) Submitted: June 9, 1998 Decided: September 11, 1998 Before MURNAGHAN, ERVIN, and WILKINS, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________________________________________ Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________ COUNSEL Cyriacus Akas, Appellant Pro Se.

_________________________________________________________________ Unpublished opinions are not binding pr ecedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

_________________________________________________________________OPINION PER CURIAM: Cyriacus Akas seeks to appeal the district court's order denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West 1994 & Supp. 1998). Because Akas filed his notice of appeal from this order more thansixty days after the district court entered judgment, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal of that order for lack of jurisdiction. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1). Akas also seeks to appeal the district court's denial of his motion to vacate the dismissal order, properly construed as a motion under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). The district court denied Akas' § 2255 motionas untimely filed, finding that he filed it two months after the oneyear limitations period in § 2255 expired on April 24, 1997. Akas filed his motion to vacate the dismissal order, contending that his § 2255 motion was timely filed b ecause he filed it within one year after the Supreme Court denied his petition for a writ of certiorari.The district court denied Akas' Rule 60(b) motion without explanation. We review the denial of a motion for relief from judgment pursuant to Rule 60(b) for an abuse of discretion. See Heyman v. M.L. Mktg. Co. , 116 F.3d 91, 94 (4th Cir. 1997). Where the motion seeks "reconsideration of legal issues already addressed in an earlier ruling, the motion `is not authorized by Rule 60(b),'" and rejection of the motion is not an abuse of discretion. CNF Constructors, Inc. v. Donohoe Constr. Co. , 57 F.3d 395, 401 & n.2 (4th Cir. 1995) (quoting United States v. Williams , 674 F.2d 310, 313 (4th Cir. 1982)). B ecause Akas' motion sought reconsideration of the district court's previous legal determination as to when Akas' appeal became final, we find that the court did not abuse its discretion in denying relief. We therefore deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss this portion of the appeal.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
2
**Exhibit 13.02**

 

Report ofIndependent Auditors

 

To the Unitholders ofGlobal Macro Trust

 

We have audited theaccompanying statements of financial condition of Global Macro Trust (the “Trust”),as of December 31, 2003 and 2002, including the condensed schedules ofinvestments, and the related statements of operations, changes in trust capitaland financial highlights for the year ended December 31, 2003 and for theperiod from July 1, 2002 (commencement of operations) to December 31, 2002.These financial statements and financial highlights are the responsibility ofthe Managing Owner. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on thesefinancial statements and financial highlights based on our audits.

 

We conducted our auditsin accordance with auditing standards generally accepted in the United States.Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonableassurance about whether the financial statements and financial highlights arefree of material misstatement. An audit includes examining, on a test basis,evidence supporting the amounts and disclosures in the financial statements andfinancial highlights. An audit also includes assessing the accountingprinciples used and significant estimates made by management, as well as evaluatingthe overall financial statement presentation. We believe that our auditsprovide a reasonable basis for our opinion.

 

In our opinion, thefinancial statements and financial highlights referred to above present fairly,in all material respects, the financial position of Global Macro Trust atDecember 31, 2003 and 2002, and the results of its operations, changes in trustcapital and the financial highlights for the year ended December 31, 2003 andfor the period from July 1, 2002 to December 31, 2002, in conformity withaccounting principles generally accepted in the United States.

 

Ernst & Young LLP

New York, New York

February 17, 2004

 

----
TeraExchange, LLC

1971 NJ-34

Wall Township, NJ 07719

January 13, 2022

Via Electronic Portal

Secretary of the Commission

Commodity Futures Trading Commission

Three Lafayette Centre

1155 21st Street, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20581

Re: Application of TeraExchange, LLC for Registration as a Swap Execution Facility

Ladies and Gentlemen:

TeraExchange, LLC (“Tera”) hereby applies for registration as a swap execution facility (“SEF”)

pursuant to Section 5h of the Commodity Exchange Act and Commodity Futures Trading

Commission (“Commission”) Regulation 37.3(b).

Tera hereby further requests that the Commission grant it registration as a SEF pursuant to

Commission Regulation 37.3(b).

As required by Commission Regulations 37.3(b)(1)(i) and 37.3(c)(1)(i), Tera is filing herewith a

complete amended Form SEF that, together with the accompanying revised Exhibits, both marked

to show changes and in clean version, as required by Regulation 37.3 and Form SEF. Tera is

separately filing, pursuant to Commission Regulations 37.3(b)(2) and 145.9, a petition for

confidential treatment of those portions of its application that are not required by Commission

Regulation 40.8(a) to be made publicly available.

Questions regarding this application should be directed to the undersigned at

crossman@teraexchange.com or (908) 273-8200.

Sincerely,

/s/ Christopher Rossman

Christopher Rossman

Chief Operating Officer

Enclosures provided solely via the SEF Portal

cc: Christian D. Martin, Chief Executive Officer
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

AASIR AZZARMI, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

 v. 

HOSANA BARBOSA WURTZ; et al., 

Defendants-Appellees.

No. 20-55590 

D.C. No. 2:20-cv-00607-DMG-JC 

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Central District of California

Dolly M. Gee, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted July 19, 2021**

Before: SCHROEDER, SILVERMAN, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges. 

Aasir Azzarmi appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing 

his action alleging violations of 42 U.S.C. § 1981 and state law claims. We have 

jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal under Federal 

Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) based on claim preclusion. Stewart v. U.S. 

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision 

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

FILED

JUL 28 2021

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 20-55590 

Bancorp, 297 F.3d 953, 956 (9th Cir. 2002). We affirm. 

The district court properly dismissed Azzarmi’s action on the basis of claim 

preclusion because the claims were raised or could have been raised in prior 

actions between the parties or those in privity with them, and the prior actions

resulted in final judgments on the merits. See Owens v. Kaiser Found. Health 

Plan, Inc., 244 F.3d 708, 710, 713-15 (9th Cir. 2001) (setting forth elements of 

claim preclusion under federal law and explaining that an identity of claims exists 

between the first and second adjudications when the suits arise out of the same 

transactional nucleus of facts and that a dismissal with prejudice under Rule 41(b) 

has preclusive effect). 

The district court did not abuse its discretion by declaring Azzarmi a 

vexatious litigant and imposing pre-filing restrictions because the district court 

gave Azzarmi notice and the opportunity to oppose the pre-filing order, created a 

record adequate for review, made substantive findings of frivolousness, and 

tailored the order narrowly to prevent the abusive conduct. See Molski v. 

Evergreen Dynasty Corp., 500 F.3d 1047, 1056-58 (9th Cir. 2007) (setting forth 

standard of review and factors a district court must consider before imposing a prefiling restriction on a vexatious litigant).

The parties’ motions to take judicial notice (Docket Entry Nos. 10, 11, 12, 

13, 14, 21, 43, 44 and 63) are granted.
3 20-55590 

Azzarmi’s motions for sanctions (Docket Entry Nos. 38, 60 and 71), motions 

to amend jurisdictional allegations (Docket Entry Nos. 45 and 48), motion to strike 

(Docket Entry No. 46), and motion to adjudicate (Docket Entry No. 66) are denied.

Azzarmi’s motion to transmit the record (Docket Entry No. 31) is denied as 

unnecessary.

AFFIRMED.