alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR
. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR
. R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED August 21, 2007 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk 

### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-11097 Conference Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Plaintiff-Appellee
v. BRYAN CHRISTOPHER RECTOR Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 5:06-CR-23-6 Before HIGGINBOTHAM, SMITH, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * The attorney appointed to represent Bryan Christopher Rector has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Rector has not filed a response. Our independent review of the record and counsel’s brief discloses no nonfrivolous issue for appeal. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw isNo. 06-11097

2 GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5 TH C IR
. R. 42.2.
# C_2022002EN.01002801.xml

| 3.1.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 2/28 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.1.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 2/28

---

Judgment of the General Court of 27 October 2021 — Clean Sky 2 Joint Undertaking v Revoind Industriale di Pindaru Gelu

(Case T-318/17) (1)

(Arbitration clause - Grant agreement concluded in the framework of the Seventh Framework Programme for research and technological development including demonstration activities (2007-2013) - Non-performance of the contract - Repayment of the amounts advanced - Default interest - Procedure by default)

(2022/C 2/36)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Clean Sky 2 Joint Undertaking (represented by: B. Mastantuono, acting as Agent, and by M. Velardo, lawyer)

Defendant: Revoind Industriale di Pindaru Gelu Sas (Rome, Italy)

Re:

Action brought under Article 272 TFEU seeking an order for Revoind Industriale di Pindaru Gelu to repay the advanced payment paid under the Grant Agreement for partners No 325940, plus accrued late payment interest.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Orders Revoind Industriale di Pindaru Gelu Sas to pay Clean Sky 2 Joint Undertaking the amount of EUR 359 913,75, together with default interest calculated at 3,5 % per annum from 31 January 2017 and until the date of full payment of the amount due; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Orders Revoind Industriale di Pindaru Gelu Sas to pay Clean Sky 2 Joint Undertaking the amount of EUR 359 913,75, together with default interest calculated at 3,5 % per annum from 31 January 2017 and until the date of full payment of the amount due;

| 2. | Orders Revoind Industriale di Pindaru Gelu to bear the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Revoind Industriale di Pindaru Gelu to bear the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 231, 17.7.2017.

---
Page 1 of 2

Cantor Futures Exchange L.P., 

Amendment to Rule 40.6 Submission re Referring Particpants

Cantor Futures Exchange, L.P. 

Amendment to New Rule Change Submission of October 31, 2014

November 7, 2014

1. The text of the rule changes to the Cantor Futures Exchange, L.P. Rulebook is below. Deletions 

are stricken through. This rule has been approved by Cantor Futures Exchange, L.P. Capitalized terms, 

unless otherwise defined herein shall possess the meaning(s) ascribed in the Cantor Futures Exchange, 

L.P. Rulebook.

2. The proposed effective date is November 17, 2014, which is ten business days after receipt by the 

Commodity Futures Trading Commission (“Commission”) of the submission which this filing amends. 

3. No opposing views were expressed with respect to the proposed rule changes by governing board 

or committee members or market participants.

___________________________________________________________________________________

EXPLANATION OF AMENDMENT TO PROPOSED RULE AND ITS COMPLIANCE 

WITH APPLICABLE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT

On October 31, 2014, Cantor Futures Exchange, L.P. (“CX” or “the Exchange”) submitted 

certain rule amendments to the Commission pursuant to Commission Rule 40.6(a) (17 C.F.R. 

§40.6) in connection with the designation of Referring Participants (hereinafter the “Rule 

Filing”).

On November 6, 2014, the undersigned discussed an amendment to the Rule Filing with 

Commission staff (namely Ms. Lois Gregory of the Commission’s Division of Market 

Oversight) clarifying the intent of the Rule Filing (hereinafter “Amendment”). The Amendment 

deletes the reference to “Referring Participants” in Rule III-3(e)(ii). 

Accordingly, in lieu of Rule III-3 (e) (ii) as previously submitted in the Rule Filing, through this 

Amendment, Rule III-3 (e) (ii) shall read as follows (with the strikethrough delineating deleted 

text of the Rule):

(ii) The Exchange may limit trading in particular Contracts to specific

Participants or third-party Authorized Traders, or Referring Participants

based upon financial, regulatory or other criteria established by the 

Exchange. 

No other change in the Exchange Rulebook or operations is implicated by this Amendment.
Page 2 of 2

Cantor Futures Exchange L.P., 

Amendment to Rule 40.6 Submission re Referring Particpants

CERTIFICATIONS PURSUANT TO SECTION 5c OF THE COMMODITY 

EXCHANGE ACT, 7 U.S.C. §7a-2 AND COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING 

COMMISSION RULE 40.6, 17 C.F.R. §40.6

I hereby certify that the foregoing rule amendments comply with the Commodity Exchange 

Act, 7 U.S.C. §1 et seq. and regulations thereunder.

_______________________

By: Manavinder S. Bains

Title: Counsel and Chief Regulatory Officer

Dated: November 7, 2014

I hereby certify that a copy of this filing was posted on the Cantor Futures Exchange, L.P.

website the day of its submission to the Commission.

________________________

By: Manavinder S. Bains

Title: Counsel and Chief Regulatory Officer

Dated: November 7, 2014
Sean Downey

Clearing Chief Compliance Officer & Head of Policy

CME Clearing

20 S. Wacker Drive Chicago, IL 60606 T 312 930 8167 Sean.Downey@cmegroup.com cmegroup.com

1

January 19, 2023

VIA Electronic Portal

CFTC FOIA Compliance Office

CommodityFuturesTradingCommission

Three Lafayette Centre

1155 21st Street, N.W

Washington, D.C. 20581

Re: FOIAConfidentialTreatment Request – Modifications to CME’s Credit Risk Assessment 

Methodology and Counterparty Exposure Methodology

To Whom it May Concern:

On January 19, 2023, Chicago Mercantile Exchange Inc. (“CME” or “CME Clearing”) submitted

modifications to its Credit Risk Assessment Methodology and Counterparty Exposure Methodology

(collectively, the “Methdologies”) to the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (“CFTC” or

“Commission”) via the CFTC Portal under 40.6(a). The submission consisted of the submission cover 

sheet and letter and the modified Methodologies (the “Confidential Information”).

Pursuant to Sections 8 and 8(a) of the Commodity Exchange Act (“CEA”), as amended, and Commission

Regulation 145.9(d), CME Clearing requests confidential treatment for the Confidential Information on

the grounds that disclosure of its contents would reveal confidential commercial information of the CME

Clearing. Pursuant to Commission Regulation 145.9(d)(5), CME Clearing requests that confidential

treatment be maintained until further notice from CME Clearing. We also request that the Commission

notify the undersigned immediately after receiving any FOIA request or any other court order, subpoena

or summons for same. Finally, we request that we be notified in the event the Commission intends

to disclose the C o n f i d e n t i a l I n f o r m a t i o n to Congress or to any other governmental

agency or unit pursuant to Section 8 of the CEA. CME Clearing does not waive its notification rights

under Section 8(f) of the CEA with respect to any subpoena or summons for the Confidential Information.

If you have any questions, please contact the undersigned at 312-930-8167 or via email at

sean.downey@cmegroup.com.

Sincerely,

/s/Sean Downey

Clearing Chief Compliance Officer & Head of Policy

CME Clearing
##### 



EXHIBIT 12.1
 ARCHSTONE-SMITH TRUST
COMPUTATION OF RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES
 (Dollar amounts in thousands)
 Years Ended December 31,2006(1)
    
    
    2005(1)
    
    
    2004(1)
    
    
    2003(1)
    
    
    2002(1)Earnings from operations
    
    $
    201,008
    
    
    $
    121,609
    
    
    $
    106,111
    
    
    $
    100,658
    
    
    $
    106,188Add:Interest expense
    
    
    245,895
    
    
    
    164,035
    
    
    
    125,108
    
    
    
    107,791
    
    
    
    107,978Earnings as adjusted
    
    $
    446,903
    
    
    $
    285,644
    
    
    $
    231,219
    
    
    $
    208,449
    
    
    $
    214,166Fixed Charges:Interest expense
    
    $
    245,895
    
    
    $
    164,035
    
    
    $
    125,108
    
    
    $
    107,791
    
    
    $
    107,978Capitalized interest
    
    
    51,808
    
    
    
    39,111
    
    
    
    23,572
    
    
    
    26,854
    
    
    
    32,377Total fixed charges
    
    $
    297,703
    
    
    $
    203,146
    
    
    $
    148,680
    
    
    $
    134,645
    
    
    $
    140,355Ratio of earnings to fixed charges
    
    
    1.5
    
    
    
    1.4
    
    
    
    1.6
    
    
    
    1.5
    
    
    
    1.5
 
 (1)
    
    Net earnings from discontinued operations have been reclassified for all periods presented
to conform with the list of communities in discontinued operations as of December 31, 2006.
# C_2019328EN.01007701.xml

| 30.9.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 328/77 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.9.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 328/77

---

Order of the General Court of 3 July 2019 — Red Bull v EUIPO (Representation of a parallelogram composed of two fields in different colours)

(Case T-305/17) (1)

(2019/C 328/86)

Language of the case: English

The President of the Second Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 231, 17.7.2017.

---
300 Vesey Street New York, NY 10282 T 212 299 2200 F 212 301 4645 christopher.bowen@cmegroup.com cmegroup.com

Christopher Bowen 

Managing Director and Chief Regulatory Counsel

Legal Department

August 17, 2022

VIA ELECTRONIC PORTAL

Assistant Secretary of the Commission for

FOI, Privacy and Sunshine Acts Compliance

Commodity Futures Trading Commission

Three Lafayette Centre

1155 21st Street, N.W.

Washington, DC 20581

Re: FOIA Confidential Treatment Request 

To Whom It May Concern:

By electronic portal dated today, August 17, 2022, NEX SEF Limited (“NEX SEF”) submitted a 

supplemental rule certification filing (Submission No. 22-302S) to the Commodity Futures Trading 

Commission (“CFTC” or “Commission”) pursuant to Commission Regulation 40.6 to certify modifications

to NEX SEF’s Fee Schedule for the EBS On-SEF UK/US Crossover Market Maker Program (“Program”).

This supplemental filing includes an Appendix A (Program, blacklined version) and an Appendix B

(Program, clean version).

NEX SEF requests confidential treatment of Appendix A and Appendix B (“Confidential Information”), on

the grounds that Appendix A and Appendix B contain confidential commercial information of the submitter 

(NEX SEF). NEX SEF requests that confidential treatment be maintained for Appendix A and Appendix B

until further notice from NEX SEF. We also request that the Commission notify the undersigned 

immediately after receiving any FOIA request for said Appendix A or Appendix B or any other court order, 

subpoena, or summons for same. Finally, we request that we be notified in the event the Commission 

intends to disclose such Appendix A or Appendix B to Congress or to any other governmental agency or 

unit pursuant to Section 8 of the CEA. NEX SEF does not waive its notification rights under Section 8(f) of 

the CEA with respect to any subpoena or summons for such Appendix A or Appendix B.

Please contact the undersigned at (212) 299-2200 should you have any questions concerning this matter.

Sincerely,

/s/ Christopher Bowen

Managing Director and Chief Regulatory Counsel
To :
Board of Directors

    Infosmart
Group, Inc.

    


    Date : 27
August 2010

    


    RESIGNATION

    


    I hereby
tender my resignation as Director and Chairman of Infosmart Group Inc. with
immediately effect due to my personal reasons.

    


    Yours
faithfully,

    


    
      
        
          
            	
                    /s/
      Chang Chung Yuen

                  	 
      
	
                    Chang
      Chung Yuen
# C_2020378EN.01002601.xml

| 9.11.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 378/26 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.11.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 378/26

---

Judgment of the General Court of 9 September 2020 — Kerkosand v Commission

(Case T-745/17) (1)

(State aid - Aid for an investment project in western Slovakia - Regional investment aid - Rejection of a complaint - Decision not to raise any objections - Conditions for exemption - Article 14 of Regulation (EU) No 651/2014 - Scope of the Commission’s supervisory power - Guidelines on regional State aid for 2014-2020 - Concept of SME - Article 3(2) and (3) of Annex I to Regulation No 651/2014 - Data used for the staff headcount and the financial amounts and reference period - Article 4 of Annex I to Regulation No 651/2014 - Doubts as to the compatibility of the aid with the internal market - Article 4(4) of Regulation (EU) 2015/1589 - Serious difficulties)

(2020/C 378/30)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Kerkosand spol. s r. o. (Šajdíkove Humence, Slovakia) (represented by: A. Rosenfeld and C. Holtmann, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: K. Blanck and A. Bouchagiar, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application pursuant to Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of Commission Decision C(2017) 5050 final of 20 July 2017 concerning investment aid to the Slovak glass sand producer NAJPI a. s. (SA.38121 (2016/FC) — Slovakia) (JO 2017, C 336, p. 1).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls Commission Decision C(2017) 5050 final of 20 July 2017 concerning investment aid to the Slovak glass sand producer NAJPI a. s. (SA.38121 (2016/FC) — Slovakia); |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls Commission Decision C(2017) 5050 final of 20 July 2017 concerning investment aid to the Slovak glass sand producer NAJPI a. s. (SA.38121 (2016/FC) — Slovakia);

| 2. | Orders the European Commission to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the European Commission to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 42, 5.2.2018.

---
**Exhibit 23.3**

 

Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm 

 

The Board of Directors 

Hennessy Advisors,Inc.: 

 

We consent to incorporation of our report dated November 4, 2004,regarding the balance sheet of Hennessy Advisors, Inc. as of September 30, 2004, and the related statements of income, stockholders’ equity, and cash flows for the year then ended, into the annual report of Hennessy Advisors, Inc., beingfiled on Form 10-KSB. 

 

Pisenti &Brinker LLP 

Petaluma, California 

December 5, 2005
# C_2017112EN.01004401.xml

| 10.4.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 112/44 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.4.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 112/44

---

Action brought on 13 February 2017 — ACTC v EUIPO — Taiga (tigha)

(Case T-94/17)

(2017/C 112/61)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: ACTC GmbH (Erkrath, Germany) (represented by: V. Hoene, D. Eickemeier and S. Gantenbrink, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Taiga AB (Varberg, Sweden)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal:

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant for the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Applicant for the trade mark at issue:

Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘tigha’ — Application for registration No 11 459 617

Trade mark at issue:

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Procedure before EUIPO

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 9 December 2016 in Case R 693/2015-4

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;

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

—

order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Plea in law

Plea in law

| — | Infringement of Articles 8(1)(b) and 42(2) of Regulation No 207/2009. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Articles 8(1)(b) and 42(2) of Regulation No 207/2009.

---
Case 1:07-cv-05862-RJH     Document 40      Filed 02/04/2008     Page 1 of 1
## In The Court of Appeals Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo

________________________ No. 07 - 19 - 00097 - CV

________________________ ADRIAN RENE HARPER , APPELLANT

V. KEN FOLEY, RI C VOGELGESANG, GARY D. WINTERS,

AND JON CALDWELL , APPELLEE S On Appeal from the 47 th District Court Potter C ounty, Texas Trial Court No. 106 , 479 -

A ; Honorable Dan L. Schaap , Presiding April 10 , 201 9 

### MEMORANDUM OPINION Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and P IRTLE , JJ. Appellant, Adrian Rene Harper, an inmate proceeding pro se , filed a notice of appeal from the trial court’s order denying a motion for summary judgment. We dismiss the appeal because Harper failed to pay the filing fee or comply with chapter 14 of the Texas Civil P ractice and Remedies Code .2

By letter of March 20, 2019, th is c ourt directed Harper to pay the required filing fee of $205 or, in lieu thereof, t o comply with c hapter 14 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code by fil ing a n affidavit of indigence, an a ffidavit relating to previous filings , and a certified copy of his inmate trust account statement . See T EX . C IV . P RAC . & R EM . C ODE A NN . §§ 14.002(a), 14.004 (West 2017 ). We further advised that if Appellant did not comply by April 1, this appeal was subject to dismissal without further notice. To date, Harper has neither paid the filing fee nor filed the required chapter 14 documents. Unless a party is excused from paying a filing fee, the clerk of this c ou rt is required to collect filing fees set by statute or the Supreme Court when an item is presented for filing. See T EX . R. A PP . P . 5, 12.1(b). An inmate who files an affidavit or unsworn declaration of inability to pay costs in an appeal or original pro ceeding must also comply with chapter 14 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code. See T EX . C IV . P RAC . & R EM . C ODE A NN . § 14.002 (a). An inmate’s failure to comply with chapter 14 is grounds for dismissal of the appeal or original proceeding . See Douglas v. Moffett , 418 S.W.3d 336, 340 (Tex. App. — Houston [14th Dist.] 2013, no pet.). Because Harper has failed to pay the filing fee or comply with chapter 14 wi thin the time provided by this c ourt for compliance, we must dismiss his a ppeal. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. P er Curiam
AEGIS SEF | 2829 Technology Forest Boulevard, Suite 260 | The Woodlands, Texas 77381

September 22, 2022

Submitted via Portal

Mr. 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: AEGIS SEF Liquidity Provider Program

Submission pursuant Section 40.6(a) of the regulations of the U.S. Commodity 

Futures Trading Commission

Dear Sir:

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

“CFTC”, or the “Commission”), AEGIS SEF, LLC (“AEGIS SEF”) hereby notifies the Commission that 

it has created a Liquidity Provider Program (“LPP”) under Section 3.14 of the AEGIS SEF Rulebook.

The LPP shall become effective 10 days after this submission has been filed or immediately upon 

approval by the CFTC, whichever occurs first.

A description of the LPP and a copy of the Liquidity Provider Agreement (Exhibit N-8) are attached 

under separate cover as Exhibit A and B. Exhibits bear the designation “Confidential Treatment 

Requested by AEGIS SEF, LLC.”

This request for confidential treatment is made pursuant to Commission Regulations 40.8, as Exhibits

contain information that would reveal the trade secrets or confidential commercial or financial

information of AEGIS SEF and its affiliates. 

The LPP will not impact AEGIS SEF’s ability to perform trade practice and market surveillance 

obligations under the CEA. The LPP only enables Participants that are Financial Counterparties to 

become users at a discounted rate and does not incentivize trading volume.

AEGIS hereby certifies that: (i) the submitted LPP complies with the Act and the

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

concurrently posted on AEGIS SEF’s website. There were no substantive opposing views to the

amendments to the rule.

Please contact the undersigned at 832-413-5973 or afurman@aegis-hedging.com with any questions 

regarding this matter.

Andrew Furman

Chief Compliance Officer

AEGIS SEF, LLC

2829 Technology Forest Blvd -Suite 260

The Woodlands, TX 77381
AEGIS SEF | 2829 Technology Forest Boulevard, Suite 260 | The Woodlands, Texas 77381

Exhibit A – AEGIS SEF LPP - Description

(attached under separate cover)

Exhibit B – AEGIS SEF Platform – Exhibit N-8 Liquidity Provider Agreement

(attached under separate cover)
SCPW-13-0006212
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI # I

MONTY V. RIDEOUT, Petitioner,

vs. STATE OF HAWAI # I, Respondent.

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING (CAAP-13-0001700; S.P.P. No. 13-1-001K) ORDER DENYING “AMENDMENT TO SUPPLEMENT WRIT OF CERTIORARI; MOTION FOR ASSIGNED COUNSEL” (By : R eck ten wal d, C.J ., Nak ayama, Ac oba , M cKe nna , a nd Pol lac k, JJ. )

Upon review of petitioner Monty V. Rideout’s “Amendment to Supplement Writ of Certiorari; Motion for Assigned Counsel”, which was filed on December 23, 2013, and which we review as a petition for a writ of mandamus, the supporting documents, and the record, it appears that petitioner is not entitled to a writ of mandamus. Petitioner does not have a clear and indisputableright to the appointment of counsel for an appeal in a postconviction proceeding and fails to demonstrate that he is eligible for appointed counsel or that the appeal warrants the Electronically Filed Supreme Court SCPW-13-0006212 08-JAN-2014 01:49 PMdiscretionary appointment of counsel. Petitioner, moreover, has

alternative means to seek release on bail. See Kema v. Gaddis, 91 Hawai # i 200, 204-05, 982 P.2d 334, 338-39 (1999) (a writ of mandamus is an extraordinary remedy that will not issue unless the petitioner demonstrates a clear and indisputable right to relief and a lack of alternative means to redress adequately the alleged wrong or obtain the requested action; where a court has discretion to act, mandamus will not lie to interfere with or control the exercise of that discretion, even when the court has acted erroneously, unless the court has exceeded its jurisdiction, has committed a flagrant and manifest abuse of discretion, or has refused to act on a subject properly before the court under circumstances in which it has a legal duty to act). Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the clerk of the appellate court shall process the petition for a writ of mandamus without payment of the filing fee.

IT IS HEREBY FURTHER ORDERED that the petition for a writ of mandamus is denied.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai # i, January 8, 2014. /s/ Mark E. Recktenwald /s/ Paula A. Nakayama /s/ Simeon R. Acoba, Jr. /s/ Sabrina S. McKenna /s/ Richard W. Pollack

2
Case 1:07-cv-05861-RMB-GWG Document 71 Filed 08/15/2008 Page 1 of 1