alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
William J. Smith (WJS-9137) 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK 

IN RE: WORLD TRADE CENTER LOWER 

MANHATTAN DISASTER SITE LITIGATION 21 MC 102 (AKH) 

THOMAS LEONARD (AND WIFE, LAURIE 

LEONARD) 

NOTICE OF THE 

BROOKFIELD 

V. PARTIES' ADOPTION 

OF AMENDED ANSWER 

TO MASTER 

COMPLAINT 

BATTERY PARK CITY AUTHORITY, ET. AL., 

CASE NUMBER: (AKH) 

07 CV 5559 

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE THAT Defendants Brookfield Financial Properties, 

Inc., Brookfield Financial Properties, L.P., Brookfield Properties One WFC Co. LLC 

f/k/a WFP Tower A Co. L.P. and Brookfield Properties One WFC G.P. Corp. f/k/a WFP 

Tower A Co. GP Corp. (collectively the "Brookfield Parties"), as and for their 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 adopt the Brookfield 

Parties' Amended Answer to Master Complaint, dated October 16, 2007, which was filed 

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

MC 102 (AKH). 

WHEREFORE, the Brookfield Parties demand judgment dismissing the above 

captioned action as against each of them, together with their cost and disbursements. 

Case 1:07-cv-05559-AKH Document 10 Filed 10/22/2007 Page 1 of 2
Dated: New York, New York 

October )S 2007 

Faust, Goetz, Schenker & Blee, LLP 

By: ji~illia)pl J. ~Pm~i (79~'dS-~2 

A rneys r the Brookfield Parties 

T Street,20thFloor i.. 

New pra~K. NY 10006 

(21~)363-6900 

Case 1:07-cv-05559-AKH Document 10 Filed 10/22/2007 Page 2 of 2
****

June 30, 2021

**BY ELECTRONIC SUBMISSION**

Christopher J. Kirkpatrick

Office of the Secretariat

U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission

Three Lafayette Centre

1155 21st Street, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20581

**Re: SwapEx CFTC Submission 03-21: Notification Pursuant to Commission Rule 40.6(d) – Weekly Notification of Rule Amendments**

Dear Mr. Kirkpatrick:

Pursuant to Section 40.6(d) of the regulations of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (the “CFTC” or “Commission”), SwapEx, LLC (“SwapEx”, or the “Company”) hereby notifies the Commission that it has amended its Rulebook effective during the week of June 28, 2021.

Effective Wednesday June 30, 2021, SwapEx made a non-substantive clarification change to Rule 513(c) of its Rulebook.   The marketplace was alerted of the change via SwapEx Advisory Notice 01-2021, which is attached hereto as Exhibit A.

If you have questions, please contact the undersigned at (212) 259-3126 or KAAluise@statestreet.com.

Sincerely,

Karen A Aluise

Karen A. Aluise

Chief Compliance Officer

Attachment: Exhibit A – SwapEx Advisory Notice 01-21

EXHIBIT A

June 28, 2021

To:	SwapEx Participants 

From:	SwapEx, LLC

Re: Advisory Notice 01-2021 – Amendment to Rule 513(c) relating to Post-Trade Anonymity

Effective Wednesday June 30, 2021, SwapEx, LLC will adopt a change to its Rulebook to clarify the scope of Rule 513(c) relating to post-trade anonymity as indicated below:

***Rule 513. Disclosing Orders and Requests for Quotes Prohibited; Post-Trade Anonymity***

*...*

*(c) No Person ~~subject to the Company’s jurisdiction~~ shall disclose, directly or indirectly, including through a third-party service provider, the identity of a counterparty for Swaps that are intended to be cleared and are**executed, pre-arranged or pre-negotiated anonymously on or pursuant Rules.*

This update will more closely align with the requirements of Commodity Futures Trading Regulation 37.9(f) by clarifying that Rule 513(c) applies (i) to the SwapEx SEF as well as person’s subject to its jurisdiction and (2) applies only with respect to swaps that are intended to be cleared.    

2

Information Classification: General

# image1.png
Case 1:07-cv-05508-KMW Document 6 Filed 10/15/2007 Page 1 of 1
xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?


C\_2005174EN.01001301.xml


| | | | |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 14.7.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 174/13 |

---

Information communicated by Member States regarding State aid granted under Commission Regulation (EC) No 2204/2002 of 12 December 2002 on the application of Articles 87 and 88 of the EC Treaty to State aid for employment

(2005/C 174/04)

(Text with EEA relevance)

| | | | | |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Aid Number | XE 18/04 | | | |
| Member State | United Kingdom | | | |
| Region | Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly Objective 1 Area | | | |
| Title of aid scheme | Objective 1 Programme for Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly 2000-2006 | | | |
| Legal basis | | | | | --- | --- | | — | Learning and Skills Act 2000 | | | | | --- | --- | | — | Employment Act 1973, Section 2(1) and 2(2) substantiated by Section 25 of the Employment and Training Act 1998 | | | | | --- | --- | | — | Section 5 & 6, Regional Development Agencies Act 1998 | | | | | --- | --- | | — | Section 2 of the Employment and Training Act 1993 | | | | | --- | --- | | — | Further and Higher Education Act 1992 | | | | |
| Annual expenditure planned under the scheme | Annual overall amount | GBP 5,09 million | | |
| Loans guaranteed | | | |
| Maximum aid intensity | In conformity with Article 4(2)-(5), Article 5 and 6 of the Regulation | | Yes | |
| Date of implementation | From 1.10.2004 | | | |
| Duration of scheme | Until 30.6.2007 | | | |
| Objective of aid | Article 4 Creation of employment | | Yes | |
| Article 5 Recruitment of disadvantaged and disabled workers | | Yes | |
| Article 6 Employment of disabled workers | | Yes | |
| Economic sectors concerned | | | | | --- | --- | | — | All Community sectors[(1)](#ntr1-C_2005174EN.01001301-E0001) eligible for employment aid | | | Yes | |
| | | | | --- | --- | | — | All manufacturing[(1)](#ntr1-C_2005174EN.01001301-E0001) | | | | |
| | | | | --- | --- | | — | All services[(1)](#ntr1-C_2005174EN.01001301-E0001) | | | | |
| | | | | --- | --- | | — | Other | | | | |
| Name and address of the granting authority | Name: Department for Work and Pensions | | | |
| Address: | | | --- | | ESF Division | | Moorfoot | | Sheffield | | S1 4PQ | | 0114 267 7306 | | | | |
| Other information | If the scheme is co-financed by Community funds, please add the following sentence: The aid scheme is co-financed under (reference) Not applicable | | | |
| Aid subject to prior notification to the Commission | The measure excludes awards of aid or requires prior notification to the Commission of awards of aid in conformity with Article 9 of the Regulation. | | Yes | |

---

[(1)](#ntc1-C_2005174EN.01001301-E0001)  With the exception of the shipbuilding sector, and other sectors which are the subjects of special rules in regulations and directives governing all State aid within the sector.

---
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-02-00533-CR

NO. 03-02-00534-CR

Kendrick Cordell Jones, Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF BELL COUNTY, 27TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT

NOS. 51,572 & 52,970, HONORABLE MARTHA J. TRUDO, JUDGE PRESIDING

Kendrick Cordell Jones seeks to appeal from judgments of conviction for aggravated 

assault and burglary of a habitation. Sentence was imposed in both cases on June 14, 2002. There was no 

motion for new trial. The deadline for perfecting appeal was therefore July 15, 2002. Tex. R. App. P. 

26.2(a)(1). Notices of appeal were filed on August 26, 2002. Under the circumstances, we lack 

jurisdiction to dispose of the purported appeals in any manner other than by dismissing for want of 

jurisdiction. See Slaton v. State, 981 S.W.2d 208 (Tex. Crim. App.1998); Olivo v. State, 918 S.W.2d 

519, 522-23 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996).
2

The appeals are dismissed.

__________________________________________

Marilyn Aboussie, Chief Justice

Before Chief Justice Aboussie, Justices Patterson and Puryear

Dismissed for Want of Jurisdiction

Filed: September 19, 2002

Do Not Publish
# C_2005206EN.01000201.xml

| 23.8.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 206/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.8.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 206/2

---

Communication from the Commission on the competent administrative authorities and/or guarantee institutions regarding Directive 2002/74/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council

(2005/C 206/02)

The Commission draws the attention of the interested parties to the list of competent administrative authorities and/or guarantee institutions regarding Directive 2002/74/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 September 2002 amending Council Directive 80/987/EEC on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the protection of employees in the event of the insolvency of their employer (1), which is available on the Commission's website:

1

http://europa.eu.int/comm/employment_social/labour_law/documentation_en.htm.

---

(1)  OJ L 270, 8.10.2002, p. 10.

1

---
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-7066

JAMES HAIRSTON,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

GERALD MCPEAK, Superintendent; HAROLD W. CLARKE, Director; 

MARTY STALLARD, Director of Security,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western 

District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Elizabeth Kay Dillon, 

District Judge. (7:15-cv-00274-EKD-RSB)

Submitted: November 17, 2015 Decided: November 20, 2015

Amended: November 20, 2015

Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

James Hairston, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

James Hairston appeals the district court’s orders denying

class certification, separating a jointly filed civil action 

into separate civil actions under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012), and 

dismissing Hairston’s complaint without prejudice for failure to 

comply with the court’s prior order to file an affidavit of his 

intent to proceed and other documents. We have reviewed the 

record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for 

the reasons stated by the district court. Hairston v. McPeak, 

No. 7:15-cv-00274-EKD-RSB (W.D. Va. June 3, 2015; June 4, 2015; 

June 5, 2015; June 26, 2015). 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
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

BASELINE ENERGY SERVICES, L.P.,

 Appellant, 

v.

CHARLES CONDIT,

 Appellee.

§

 

§

 

§

 

§

 

§

 

 §

No. 08-20-00120-CV

Appeal from the

358th District Court

of Ector County, Texas

(TC# D-19-09-1254-CV)

O R D E R

The Court GRANTS the Appellant’s third motion for extension of time within which to 

file the brief until September 18, 2020. NO FURTHER MOTIONS FOR EXTENSION OF TIME 

TO FILE THE APPELLANT’S BRIEF WILL BE CONSIDERED BY THIS COURT.

It is further ordered that the Hon. Jody S. Sanders, the Appellant’s attorney, prepare the 

Appellant’s Brief and forward the same to this Court on or before September 18, 2020.

IT IS SO ORDERED this 14th day of August, 2020.

PER CURIAM

Before Alley, C.J., Rodriguez and Palafox, JJ.
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 rev iew 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 APPEALS2 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

action s between the parties or those in privity with them, and the prior action s resulted in final judgment s 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 nuc leus of facts and that a dismissal with prejudice under Rule 41(b) has preclusive effect ).

T he district court did not abuse its discretion by declaring Azzarmi a vexatious litigant and imposing pre

- filing restrictions because the district court

gave Azza rmi 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.3 d 1047, 1056

- 58 (9th Cir. 2007) (setting forth standard of review and factors a district court must consider before imposing a pre

filing 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), motion s 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.
October 31, 2006

Ms. Eileen A. Donovan

Acting Secretary

Commodity Futures Trading Commission
Three Lafayette Center

1155 21" Street, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20581

Reference File # 2735.01
Rule Certification
Dear Ms. Donovan:

Pursuant to Commission Regulation 40.6(a), the Chicago Board of Trade (CBOT®) hereby
submits the following:

- Early listing of July 2009 Soybean and mini-sized Soybean futures,
These futures contracts ordinarily would be authorized for trading as of November 15, 2006.
Due to customer demand, the Exchange intends to list these contracts earlier than usual (i.e., as
of November 1, 2006).
This is a one-time change, rather than a permanent revision, in the Exchange’s listing cycle.

There were no opposing views with respect to this action.

The CBOT certifies that this action complies with the Commodity Exchange Act and the rules
thereunder.

Sincerely,

Paul J. Draths
Vice President and Secretary
The City of San Antonio, Acting by and through its Agent City Public Service s 

# Fourth Court of Appeals San Antonio, Texas February 5, 2014
No. 04 -13 -00142- CV
Joe A. ZUNIGA, Appellant

v. THE CITY OF SAN ANTONIO, Acting by and through its Agent City Public Service Board d/b/a CPS Energy, Appellee From the 131st Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Tr ial Court No. 2011- CI -14216 Honorable Cathleen M. Stryker, Judge Presiding



### O R D E R Sitting: Sandee Bryan Marion, Justice

Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice Lu z Elena D. Chapa, Justice Appellant ' s second unopposed request for extension of time for filing motion for rehearing and motion for rehearing en banc is hereby GRANTED.

_________________________________ Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said court on this 5th day of February, 2014

.

___________________________________ Keith E. Hottle Clerk of Court
C O U R T O F A P P E A LS EI GHTH D I STRI CT OF TEXAS ELPASO, TEXAS TERESA TI

NAJER O, Ap pe lla nt,
v. J . J ESUS TI

NAJER O, Appellee
. § § § § § § No . 0 8- 08 -0 01 47 -C V

Appea l from the 254th J udicial District Court of Da lla s Co unty , T e xas (TC# DF -06-18437- R)

M EM OR

AN DU M OP IN ION Pe nd ingbe fo re the Court is A pp e lla nt’ s mo tio n to dis mis s th is a pp e a l pu rs ua nt t o T EX .R.A PP .P. 42.1(a)( 1). Appe llant repre sents that the par ties rea ched a

n agree ment to settle and compromise their diff

ere nces a nd reque sts that this Court dismi ss the appea l. Appellee ha s not objected to the motion, and ther e is no indication that dismissal would prevent Appe llee fr om seekingthe re lief to which he would otherwise be entitled. See T EX .R.A PP . P. 4 2
. 1 ( a ) ( 1 )
. We there fore g rant Appe llant’s motion, and dismi ss the appea l pursuant to the par ties settlement agree ment. As the motion does not indicate the pa rties have agree d otherwise, c osts will be taxed ag ainst Appellant. SeeT EX .R.A PP .P. 42.1(d). J anuar y 22, 2009 DAVID WEL L I NGTONCHEW, C hief Just ice B e f o r e C h e w , C
. J. , M c C l ur e , a n d R i v e r a , JJ.
# C_2017129EN.01002301.xml

| 24.4.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 129/23 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.4.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 129/23

---

Action brought on 15 February 2017 — Apple v EUIPO — Apo International (apo)

(Case T-104/17)

(2017/C 129/36)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Apple Inc. (Cupertino, California, United States) (represented by: J. Olsen and P. Andreottola, Solicitors, and G. Tritton, Barrister)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Apo International Co. Ltd (Taipei City, Taiwan)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal:

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Applicant of the trade mark at issue:

Trade mark at issue: EU figurative mark containing the word element ‘apo’ — Application for registration No 11 293 628

Trade mark at issue:

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Procedure before EUIPO

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 1 December 2016 in Case R 698/2016-4

Contested decision

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | uphold the Applicant’s appeal against the contested decision in its entirety; |
| --- | --- |

—

uphold the Applicant’s appeal against the contested decision in its entirety;

| — | order EUIPO to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

Pleas in law

| — | Infringement of Articles 8(1)(b) and (5) of Regulation No 207/2009; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Articles 8(1)(b) and (5) of Regulation No 207/2009;

| — | The contested decision offends against the principle of reformatio in peius; |
| --- | --- |

—

The contested decision offends against the principle of reformatio in peius;

reformatio in peius

| — | The Board of Appeal erred in finding that the passing off claim under Article 8(4) was not substantiated. |
| --- | --- |

—

The Board of Appeal erred in finding that the passing off claim under Article 8(4) was not substantiated.

---
Case 1:07-cr-00481-PAC Document 24 Filed 02/21/2008 Page 1 of 1
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION BY CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

Pursuant
To 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, As Adopted Pursuant

To Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act Of 2002

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, the undersigned officer of Intelsat S.A. (the Company) hereby certifies
that to such officers knowledge, the Companys Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2009 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



|                    |  |  |  |                        
|------------------- |  |  |  | -----------------------
|Date: March 9, 2010 |  |  |  | /s/ DAVID MCGLADE      
|                    |  |  |  | David McGlade          
|                    |  |  |  | Chief Executive Officer

The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350 and is not being filed as part of the Report or as a separate disclosure document.
Scot J. Halvorsen

 Tradition SEF, Inc. Senior Regulatory Counsel and Secretary

 Legal Department

Tradition SEF, Inc. 255 Greenwich Street, 4th floor, New York, NY 10007 F 212 791 4500 www.traditionsef.com

June 18, 2018

VIA ELECTRONIC PORTAL

Mr. Christopher Kirkpatrick

Office of the Secretariat 

Commodity Futures Trading Commission

Three Lafayette Centre

1155 21st Street, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20581

Re: CFTC Regulation 40.6(a) Rule Certification. 

Amendments to Tradition SEF, Inc.’s Trad-X Interest Rate Swap (IRS) Platform

Supplement. 

Tradition SEF Submission No. 2018-04 (CONFIDENTIAL TREATMENT 

REQUESTED). 

Dear Mr. Kirkpatrick:

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

Commodity Futures Trading Commission (“CFTC” or the “Commission”) Regulation 40.6(a), 

Tradition SEF, Inc. (“Tradition SEF”) hereby notifies the Commission that it is amending its 

Trad-X Interest Rate Swap (IRS) trading platform supplement (the “Platform Supplement”), 

effective as of July 2, 2018. Tradition SEF has simultaneously submitted a request for 

confidential treatment for the amendments and certain other provisions of the Platform 

Supplement that are highlighted in yellow on the redline version of the Platform Supplement 

filed with the Commission.

Tradition SEF has amended Appendix 3 (USD Interest Rate Products Minimum Order Size) of 

the Platform Supplement to revise the minimum order size applied to USD Spread Over Orders

placed on the Trad-X Platform. 

Pursuant to Commission Regulation 40.8, Tradition SEF hereby makes a redacted version of the 

Platform Supplement attached hereto as Exhibit A publicly available. Tradition SEF has 

simultaneously submitted a request for confidential treatment to the Commission for the 

amendments to Appendix 3 of the Platform Supplement and certain provisions of the Platform 

Supplement that are identified on Exhibit A highlighted in yellow. A copy of the request for 

confidential treatment is included with this submission.

A notice detailing these minimum order size changes has been sent to Trad-X participants.
Tradition SEF continues to be in compliance with applicable provisions of the Act, including the 

Core Principles. Tradition SEF hereby certifies that the rule amendments comply with the 

Commodity Exchange Act and the Commission’s regulations thereunder. No substantive 

opposing views were expressed that were not incorporated into the rule amendments. Tradition 

SEF hereby certifies that it has posted a notice of pending certification with the Commission and 

a copy of the submission on its website (see http://www.traditionsef.com/regulatory/), 

concurrent with the filing of this submission with the Commission. 

Should you require additional information related to this submission, please contact the 

undersigned at (212) 337-2337 or scot.halvorsen@tradition.com. Please reference Tradition SEF 

Submission No. 2018-04 in any related correspondence.

Sincerely,

/s/ Scot J. Halvorsen

Senior Regulatory Counsel and Secretary
Exhibit A

Tradition SEF Trad-X Interest Rate Swap (IRS) Trading Platform Supplement
Case 1:07-cv-05304-AKH Document 23 Filed 01/09/2008 Page 1 of 4
Case 1:07-cv-05304-AKH Document 23 Filed 01/09/2008 Page 2 of 4
Case 1:07-cv-05304-AKH Document 23 Filed 01/09/2008 Page 3 of 4
Case 1:07-cv-05304-AKH Document 23 Filed 01/09/2008 Page 4 of 4