alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
November 2, 2022

VIA CFTC PORTAL 

Commodity Futures Trading Commission

Attention: Chris Kirkpatrick, Secretary

Three Lafayette Centre

1155 21st Street, NW

Washington, DC 20581

Re: CFTC Regulation 40.6(a) Certification: Amendments to the Exchange and Clearing

Transaction Fee Schedule for Nodal Exchange

Dear Mr. Kirkpatrick:

Pursuant to Commodity Futures Trading Commission (“Commission” or “CFTC”) Regulation 40.6(a), Nodal Clear, LLC 

(“Nodal Clear”) hereby notifies the Commission that it plans to amend its Exchange and Clearing Transaction Fee

Schedule (“Fee Schedule”) for certain Nodal Exchange environmental contracts. The Fee Schedule shall become 

effective on November 21, 2022. Attached hereto is the Fee Schedule that will be applicable for Nodal Exchange 

futures and options cleared at Nodal Clear.

1

The Fee Schedule is being revised to provide the fees for new environmental contracts to be launched by Nodal 

Exchange.

Nodal Clear management has assessed the Fee Schedule and its compliance with applicable provisions of the 

Commodity Exchange Act (“CEA”), including the Commission’s Regulations and DCO Core Principles. Nodal Clear 

has identified that the Fee Schedule may have some bearing on the following Core Principles:

Core Principle B - Financial Resources: The Fee Schedule will not impact Nodal Clear’s ability to discharge its financial, 

operational, or managerial responsibilities as a DCO.

Core Principle L - Public Information: As required by Core Principle L, Nodal Clear is publicly posting this selfcertification letter on its website to ensure that market participants receive advance notice of the Fee Schedule. On 

the effective date of the Fee Schedule, the Fee Schedule will be posted on the Nodal Clear website. 

Pursuant to Section 5c(c)(1) of the CEA and the Commission’s Regulation 40.6(a), Nodal Clear certifies that the Fee 

Schedule set forth in the attachment complies with the CEA and the Commission’s Regulations thereunder. Nodal 

Clear is not aware of any opposing views expressed regarding the Fee Schedule. Nodal Clear certifies that this 

submission has been concurrently posted on the Nodal Clear website at www.nodalclear.com.

If you have any questions or need additional information regarding this submission, please contact me at 703-962-9864 

or alvarez@nodalexchange.com. 

Sincerely,

/s/Cody Alvarez

Cody Alvarez

Chief Compliance Officer

Corporate Counsel

Attachments:

Exchange and Clearing Transaction Fee Schedule (Redline)

1 Nodal Exchange, LLC is submitting a separate filing for exchange fees. Such fees are also reflected in the attachment.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Bridget M. McCormack, Chief Justice

David F. Viviano,

Chief Justice Pro Tem

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Richard H. Bernstein

Elizabeth T. Clement

Megan K. Cavanagh,

Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

 October 30, 2019

t1023

Order 

Clerk

October 30, 2019

158658

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 158658

COA: 343964

Oakland CC: 2006-210240-FC

JERRON JASON DAVIS, Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/

By order of May 29, 2019, the prosecuting attorney was directed to answer the 

application for leave to appeal the September 19, 2018 order of the Court of Appeals. On 

order of the Court, the answer having been received, the application for leave to appeal is 

again considered, and it is DENIED, because the defendant has failed to meet the burden 

of establishing entitlement to relief under MCR 6.508(D).
#### ALPINE PCS, INC., Appellant v. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION, Appellee.

No. 10-1020.

United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit.

Dec. 21, 2010.

Frederick M. Joyce, Christine McLaughlin, Esquire, Venable LLP, Washington, DC, for Appellant.

Stewart Allen Block, Bankruptcy Counsel, Laurence Nicholas Bourne, Maureen Katherine Flood, Counsel, Jacob M. Lewis, Associate General Counsel, Austin C. Schlick, General Counsel, Richard Kiser Welch, Deputy Associate General Counsel, Federal Communications Commission, Office of General Counsel, Washington, DC, for Appellee.

Before: GINSBURG and KAVANAUGH, Circuit Judges, and RANDOLPH, Senior Circuit Judge.

*JUDGMENT*

This appeal was considered on the record from the Commission and on the briefs and the oral arguments of the parties. Although the issues presented occasion no need for a published opinion, they have been accorded full consideration by the Court. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 36; D.C.Cir. Rule 36(d). For the reasons stated below, it is

ORDERED and ADJUDGED that the Order of the Commission denying the appellant’s Petition for Reconsideration be affirmed for the reasons stated therein.

Insofar as the appellant argues the Order violated § 362 of the Bankruptcy Code, that argument is not properly before this court because it was “not put before the Commission,” *U.S. Airwaves, Inc. v. FCC,*232 F.3d 227, 236 (D.C.Cir.2000). In any event, the argument fails because the licenses had been cancelled in 2002, well before the bankruptcy filing in 2008. Therefore, the licenses were not part of the bankruptcy estate.

The Clerk is directed to withhold issuance of the mandate herein until seven days after resolution of any timely petition for rehearing or petition for rehearing en banc. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 41(b); D.C.Cir. Rule 41.
Exhibit
31.2




CERTIFICATION
OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER


PURSUANT
TO RULES 13A-14 AND 15D-14


OF THE
SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934




I,
Humberto Garcia Borbon, Chief Financial Officer of Sitesearch Corporation.,
certify that:




(1)           I
have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended
January 31, 2010 (the “Report”);




(2)           Based
on my knowledge, the Report does not contain any untrue statement of a material
fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in
light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading
with respect to the period covered by this Report; and




(3)           Based
on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information
included in the Report, fairly present in all material respects the financial
condition and results of operations of the small business issuer as of, and for,
the periods represented in this Report.




(4)           The
small business issuer’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the small business issuer and
have:




(a)           designed
such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and
procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material
information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries,
is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the
period in which the Report is being prepared;




(b)           evaluated
the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and
presented in this Report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the
disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this
Report based on such evaluation; and




(c)           disclosed
in this Report any change in the small business issuer’s internal control over
financial reporting that occurred during the small business issuer’s most recent
fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to
materially affect, the small business issuer’s internal control over financial
reporting; and




(5)           The
small business issuer’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on
our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the
small business issuer’s auditors and to the audit committee of the board of
directors (or persons fulfilling the equivalent function):




(i)           all
significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal control over
financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the small
business issuer’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial
information; and




(ii)          any
fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who
have a significant role in the small business issuer’s internal control over
financial reporting.




Date: March
9, 2010




/s/Humberto Garcia
Borbon


Humberto
Garcia Borbon


Chief
Financial Officer
EXHIBIT 32


BWI HOLDINGS, INC.


CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO


18 U.S.C. Section 1350,


S ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002




In connection with the Quarterly Report of BWI Holdings, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Jim Can, as Principal Executive Officer of the Company, hereby 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 this Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.




Date: December 27, 2010
By:
/s/ Jim CanName:
Jim CanTitle:
Principal Executive Officer




A signed original of this written statement required by Section 1350 of Title 18 of the United States Code has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.




The foregoing certification is being furnished as an exhibit to the Report pursuant to Item 601(b)(32) of Regulation S-K and Section 1350 of Title 18 of the United States Code and, accordingly, is not being filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission as part of the Report and is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company under the Securities Act of 1933 or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (whether made before or after the date of the Report, irrespective of any general incorporation language contained in such filing.)
Case 1:07-cv-04463-AKH Document 26 Filed 10/15/2007 Page 1 of 7Case 1:07-cv-04463-AKH Document 26 Filed 10/15/2007 Page 2 of 7Case 1:07-cv-04463-AKH Document 26 Filed 10/15/2007 Page 3 of 7Case 1:07-cv-04463-AKH Document 26 Filed 10/15/2007 Page 4 of 7Case 1:07-cv-04463-AKH Document 26 Filed 10/15/2007 Page 5 of 7Case 1:07-cv-04463-AKH Document 26 Filed 10/15/2007 Page 6 of 7Case 1:07-cv-04463-AKH Document 26 Filed 10/15/2007 Page 7 of 7
# C_2017129EN.01003001.xml

| 24.4.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 129/30 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.4.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 129/30

---

Action brought on 6 March 2017 — Kibelisa v Council

(Case T-139/17)

(2017/C 129/45)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Roger Kibelisa (Kinshasa, Democratic Republic of Congo) (represented by: O. Okito, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul Regulation (EU) 2016/2230 implementing Council Decision (CFSP) 2016/2231 of 12 December 2016 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against persons acting in violation of the arms embargo with regard to the Democratic Republic of the Congo, and amending Decision 2010/788/CFSP, in so far as it concerns Roger Kibelisa; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul Regulation (EU) 2016/2230 implementing Council Decision (CFSP) 2016/2231 of 12 December 2016 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against persons acting in violation of the arms embargo with regard to the Democratic Republic of the Congo, and amending Decision 2010/788/CFSP, in so far as it concerns Roger Kibelisa;

| — | order the Council to bear its own costs, and to pay those of the applicant and of all the interveners. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Council to bear its own costs, and to pay those of the applicant and of all the interveners.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on two pleas in law.

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging infringement of essential procedural requirements committed by the Council, in particular infringement of the applicant’s rights of defence, infringement of the Council's obligation to state reasons and infringement of the applicant’s right to an effective remedy. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging infringement of essential procedural requirements committed by the Council, in particular infringement of the applicant’s rights of defence, infringement of the Council's obligation to state reasons and infringement of the applicant’s right to an effective remedy.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging infringement of general principles of EU law, in that the Council infringed the applicant’s right to property. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging infringement of general principles of EU law, in that the Council infringed the applicant’s right to property.

---
Case 1:07-cv-05807-TPG Document 9-17 Filed 01/30/2008 Page 1 of 20
Case 1:07-cv-05807-TPG Document 9-17 Filed 01/30/2008 Page 2 of 20
Case 1:07-cv-05807-TPG Document 9-17 Filed 01/30/2008 Page 3 of 20
Case 1:07-cv-05807-TPG Document 9-17 Filed 01/30/2008 Page 4 of 20
Case 1:07-cv-05807-TPG Document 9-17 Filed 01/30/2008 Page 5 of 20
Case 1:07-cv-05807-TPG Document 9-17 Filed 01/30/2008 Page 6 of 20
Case 1:07-cv-05807-TPG Document 9-17 Filed 01/30/2008 Page 7 of 20
Case 1:07-cv-05807-TPG Document 9-17 Filed 01/30/2008 Page 8 of 20
Case 1:07-cv-05807-TPG Document 9-17 Filed 01/30/2008 Page 9 of 20
Case 1:07-cv-05807-TPG Document 9-17 Filed 01/30/2008 Page 10 of 20
Case 1:07-cv-05807-TPG Document 9-17 Filed 01/30/2008 Page 11 of 20
Case 1:07-cv-05807-TPG Document 9-17 Filed 01/30/2008 Page 12 of 20
Case 1:07-cv-05807-TPG Document 9-17 Filed 01/30/2008 Page 13 of 20
Case 1:07-cv-05807-TPG Document 9-17 Filed 01/30/2008 Page 14 of 20
Case 1:07-cv-05807-TPG Document 9-17 Filed 01/30/2008 Page 15 of 20
Case 1:07-cv-05807-TPG Document 9-17 Filed 01/30/2008 Page 16 of 20
Case 1:07-cv-05807-TPG Document 9-17 Filed 01/30/2008 Page 17 of 20
Case 1:07-cv-05807-TPG Document 9-17 Filed 01/30/2008 Page 18 of 20
Case 1:07-cv-05807-TPG Document 9-17 Filed 01/30/2008 Page 19 of 20
Case 1:07-cv-05807-TPG Document 9-17 Filed 01/30/2008 Page 20 of 20
Case 1:07-cv-05834-PKC Document 18 Filed 04/04/2008 Page 1 of 3Case 1:07-cv-05834-PKC Document 18 Filed 04/04/2008 Page 2 of 3Case 1:07-cv-05834-PKC Document 18 Filed 04/04/2008 Page 3 of 3
# C_2019187EN.01006701.xml

| 3.6.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 187/67 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.6.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 187/67

---

Judgment of the General Court of 11 April 2019 — Adapta Color v EUIPO — Coatings Foreign IP (ADAPTA POWDER COATINGS)

(Case T-223/17) (1)

(EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - European Union figurative mark ADAPTA POWDER COATINGS - Declaration of invalidity by the Board of Appeal - Absolute grounds for refusal - Descriptive character - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2007/1001) - No distinctive character acquired by use - Article 7(3) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 7(3) of Regulation 2017/1001) - Infringement of the right to be heard - Obligation to state reasons - Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 94 of Regulation 2017/1001) - Evidence submitted for the first time before the Court)

(2019/C 187/71)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Adapta Color, SL (Peñiscola, Spain) (represented by: G. Macías Bonilla, G. Marín Raigal and E. Armero Lavie, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: E. Markakis, A. Söder and D. Walicka, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Coatings Foreign IP Co. LLC (Wilmington, Delaware, United States) (represented by: A. Rajendra, Solicitor, and by S. Malynicz QC)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 6 February 2017 (Case R 2522/2015-5), relating to invalidity proceedings between Coatings Foreign IP and Adapta Color.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Adapta Color, SL to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Adapta Color, SL to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 202, 26.6.2017.

---
Case 1:07-cr-00566-GBD     Document 25      Filed 02/01/2008     Page 1 of 21

Case 1:07-cr-00566-GBD     Document 25      Filed 02/01/2008     Page 2 of 21

Case 1:07-cr-00566-GBD     Document 25      Filed 02/01/2008     Page 3 of 21

Case 1:07-cr-00566-GBD     Document 25      Filed 02/01/2008     Page 4 of 21

Case 1:07-cr-00566-GBD     Document 25      Filed 02/01/2008     Page 5 of 21

Case 1:07-cr-00566-GBD     Document 25      Filed 02/01/2008     Page 6 of 21

Case 1:07-cr-00566-GBD     Document 25      Filed 02/01/2008     Page 7 of 21

Case 1:07-cr-00566-GBD     Document 25      Filed 02/01/2008     Page 8 of 21

Case 1:07-cr-00566-GBD     Document 25      Filed 02/01/2008     Page 9 of 21

Case 1:07-cr-00566-GBD     Document 25      Filed 02/01/2008     Page 10 of 21

Case 1:07-cr-00566-GBD     Document 25      Filed 02/01/2008     Page 11 of 21

Case 1:07-cr-00566-GBD     Document 25      Filed 02/01/2008     Page 12 of 21

Case 1:07-cr-00566-GBD     Document 25      Filed 02/01/2008     Page 13 of 21

Case 1:07-cr-00566-GBD     Document 25      Filed 02/01/2008     Page 14 of 21

Case 1:07-cr-00566-GBD     Document 25      Filed 02/01/2008     Page 15 of 21

Case 1:07-cr-00566-GBD     Document 25      Filed 02/01/2008     Page 16 of 21

Case 1:07-cr-00566-GBD     Document 25      Filed 02/01/2008     Page 17 of 21

Case 1:07-cr-00566-GBD     Document 25      Filed 02/01/2008     Page 18 of 21

Case 1:07-cr-00566-GBD     Document 25      Filed 02/01/2008     Page 19 of 21

Case 1:07-cr-00566-GBD     Document 25      Filed 02/01/2008     Page 20 of 21

Case 1:07-cr-00566-GBD     Document 25      Filed 02/01/2008     Page 21 of 21
exv10w10



 






EXHIBIT 10.10




GRUBB & ELLIS REALTY ADVISORS, INC.



______________,
2006



Grubb & Ellis Company

2215 Sanders Road, Suite 400

Northbrook, Illinois 60062




Ladies and Gentlemen:



     This letter will confirm our agreement that, commencing on the effective date (“Effective
Date”) of the Registration Statement, No. 333-129190, originally filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on October 21, 2005 (the “Registration Statement”) for the initial public
offering (“IPO”) of the securities of Grubb & Ellis Realty Advisors, Inc. (“GERA”) and continuing
until the earlier of (i) the consummation by GERA of a “business combination”, or (ii) GERA’s
liquidation (each of (i) and (ii), are more fully described in the Registration Statement (such
earlier date, the “Termination Date”), Grubb & Ellis Company shall make available to GERA certain
general and administrative services including office space, utilities and secretarial support as
may be required by GERA from time to time, situated at 2215 Sanders Road, Suite 400, Northbrook,
Illinois 60062. In exchange therefor, GERA shall pay Grubb & Ellis Company the sum of $7,500 per
month on the Effective Date and continuing monthly thereafter until the Termination Date.



	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	Very truly yours,
	 
	 	 	 	 
	 	 	GRUBB & ELLIS REALTY ADVISORS, INC.
	 
	 	 	 	 
	 

	 	By:	 	 
	 

	 	 	 	 
	 

	 	 	 	Name: Mark E. Rose
	 

	 	 	 	Title: Chief Executive Officer






	 	 	 	 	 
	AGREED TO AND ACCEPTED BY:	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 
	GRUBB & ELLIS COMPANY	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 
	By:
	 	 	 	 
	 

	 	 	 	 
	Name:	 	 
	Title:
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 this Quarterly Report of Steele Recording Corporation (the
“Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2009, as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I,
Mack Steele, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Accounting Officer of the
Company, certifies to the best of his knowledge, 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 result of operations of the
      Company.





By:   /s/ Mack
Steele


Mack
Steele


Chief
Executive Officer


Chief
Accounting Officer





Dated:  December
23, 2009
Case 7:07-cv-05815-KMK-MDF Document 5 Filed 06/25/2007 Page 1 of 5
Case 7:07-cv-05815-KMK-MDF Document 5 Filed 06/25/2007 Page 2 of 5
Case 7:07-cv-05815-KMK-MDF Document 5 Filed 06/25/2007 Page 3 of 5
Case 7:07-cv-05815-KMK-MDF Document 5 Filed 06/25/2007 Page 4 of 5
Case 7:07-cv-05815-KMK-MDF Document 5 Filed 06/25/2007 Page 5 of 5
154 So. 916

#### AMERICAN AGRICULTURAL CHEMICAL CO. v. Anna KARRH, Ex’x, et al.

6 Div. 552.

Supreme Court of Alabama.

April 12, 1934.

Ball *&*Ball, of Montgomery, and Arthur Fite, of Jasper, for appellant.

W. W. Bankhead and Chas. R. Wiggins, both of Jasper, for appellees.

PER CURIAM.

Appeal dismissed by appellant.