alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2017151EN.01003602.xml

| 15.5.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 151/36 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.5.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 151/36

---

Action brought on 23 February 2017 — Proximus v Council

(Case T-117/17)

(2017/C 151/47)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Proximus SA/NV (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: B. Schutyser, 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 the decision of the Council notified to the applicant on 23 December 2016, to award the contract to another tenderer and not to the applicant; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of the Council notified to the applicant on 23 December 2016, to award the contract to another tenderer and not to the applicant;

| — | order the Council to pay the costs of the proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Council to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on one plea in law, alleging that the methodology applied to evaluate the price of the offers does not allow to choose the most economically advantageous offer, which is required by European Union law.

---
1177 Avenue of Americas

New York, New York 10036

November 9, 2020

Submitted via CFTC Portal

Mr. Christopher J. Kirkpatrick

Office of the Secretariat

Commodity Futures Trading Commission

Three Lafayette Centre

1155 21st Street, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20581

Re: TW SEF LLC – Adoption of Rule 419 (Post-Trade Name Give-Ups)

Dear Mr. Kirkpatrick:

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”), TW SEF LLC 

(“TW SEF”) hereby submits amendments to its Rulebook related to the above-captioned Rules. 

The Rulebook has been amended to reflect newly adopted Rule 419 in order to implement certain 

requirements prohibiting post-trade name give-up for swaps executed, pre-arranged, or prenegotiated anonymously on or pursuant to the rules of a swap execution facility (SEF) and 

intended to be cleared respect to Post-Trade Name Give-Up on Swap Execution Facilities (17 

CFR Part 37 (July 24, 2020) (“Post Name Give-Up Rule”). In accordance with the Post Name 

Give-Up Rule, the amendment only pertains to swaps with a November 1, 2020 compliance date 

and TW SEF will file a subsequent rule amendment with respect to swaps subject to the July 5, 

2021 compliance date. The amendment will become effective on November 23, 2020, no fewer 

than ten business days from the date hereof. In connection with this submission, TW SEF hereby 

notifies the Commission that:

1. TW SEF certifies that it has posted a notice of this pending certification with the 

Commission and a copy of this submission on TW SEF’s website, including a redline 

of the updates to the Rulebook, which is attached here to as Attachment A, and a copy 

of Rule 419, which is attached here to as Attachment B;

2. TW SEF certifies that the Rules comply with the Act and the Commission’s regulations 

thereunder; and

3. No substantive opposing views with respect to the Rules were expressed to TW SEF 

by its governing board or committee members, members of TW SEF or market 

participants.
2

Should you have questions regarding this submission, please contact the undersigned at (646) 

560-7223 or at Gregory.compa@tradeweb.com.

Very truly yours,

Gregory Compa

Chief Compliance Officer

cc: Dorothy D. DeWitt, Division of Market Oversight
3

ATTACHMENT A

Redline Version of Rule 419
4

ATTACHMENT B

Newly Adopted Rule 419
# C_2018399EN.01003302.xml

| 5.11.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 399/33 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.11.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 399/33

---

Judgment of the General Court of 19 September 2018 — Chambre de commerce et d’industrie métropolitaine Bretagne-Ouest (port de Brest) v Commission

(Case T-39/17) (1)

((Access to documents - Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 - Documents relating to preliminary investigations concerning schemes for State aid in the ports sector of all the Member States - Refusal to grant access - Exception relating to the protection of privacy and the integrity of the individual - Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 - Concept of privacy - Exception concerning the protection of the purpose of inspections, investigations and audits - Application of a general presumption - Overriding public interest))

(2018/C 399/45)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Chambre de commerce et d’industrie métropolitaine Bretagne-Ouest (port de Brest) (Brest, France) (represented by: J. Vanden Eynde and E. Wauters, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: A. Buchet, B. Stromsky and C. Georgieva- Kecsmar, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application based on Article 263 TFEU, seeking annulment of Commission Decision C(2016) 7755 final of 23 November 2016 refusing to grant the applicant, first, full access to the questionnaire sent to all the Member States, secondly, access to the Member States’ replies to that questionnaire, referred to in a letter sent on 8 July 2016 to the French Republic in the context of State aid procedure SA.38398 (2016/C) (ex 2015/E) –Tax treatment of ports in France.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders the Chambre de commerce et d’industrie métropolitaine Bretagne-Ouest (port de Brest) to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the Chambre de commerce et d’industrie métropolitaine Bretagne-Ouest (port de Brest) to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 104, 3.4.2017.

---
# C_2022002EN.01002701.xml

| 3.1.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 2/27 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.1.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 2/27

---

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

(Case T-270/17) (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 2/34)

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 620108, 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 625 793,42, together with default interest calculated at 3,5 % per annum from 7 February 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 625 793,42, together with default interest calculated at 3,5 % per annum from 7 February 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

---
#### Jennifer LACOGNATA, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Joseph Lacognata, her husband, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. HOSPIRA, INC., Defendant-Appellee.

No. 12-14078.

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.

June 7, 2013.

Kendall A. Almerico, Almerico & Mooney, Tampa, FL, C. Allen Black, Jr., The Law Office of C. Allen Black, Jr., Allison Park, PA, for Plaintiffs-Appellants.

Landis V. Curry, III, Brett J. Preston, Hill Ward & Henderson, PA, Tampa, FL, James C. Fraser, Paul F. Strain, Venable, LLP, Baltimore, MD, for Defendant>-Ap-pellee.

Before CARNES and WILSON, Circuit Judges, and HUCK,* District Judge.

*

 Honorable Paul C. Huck, United States District Judge for the Southern District of Florida, sitting by designation.

PER CURIAM:

Jennifer Lacognata appeals the district court’s dismissal with prejudice of her complaint. She contends that the district court erred when it concluded that she failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Having carefully considered the record and the parties’ briefs and having heard oral argument, we AFFIRM based on the reasons stated in the district court’s order, *Lacognata v. Hospira, Inc., 2012*WL 6962884 (M.D.Fla. July 2, 2012).
(105 So. 714)

#### Ex parte CORNELIUS LUMBER CO.

(4 Div. 242.)

(Supreme Court of Alabama.

Oct. 15, 1925.)

Certiorari to Court of Appeals.

E. C. Boswell, of Geneva, for petitioner.

H. G. Tiller, of Geneva, opposed.

BOULDIN, J.

Petition of the Cornelius Lumber Company for certiorari to the Court of Appeals to review and revise the judgment and *554decision of that court in the case of Cornelius Lumber Co. v. Lawhorn-Smith & Co., 105 So. 713.

Petition dismissed under Supreme Court rple 44, Code 1923, vol. 4, p. 894.

ANDERSON, C. J., and SOMERVILLE and THOMAS, J.J., concur.
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

July 29, 2008 

135745(35) 

LAWRENCE EUGENE DELL, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

v 

ST. CLAIR CIRCUIT COURT,

Defendant-Appellee. 

_________________________________________/ 

 SC: 135745 

 COA: 281475 

Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman,

 Justices 

On order of the Court, the motion for reconsideration of this Court’s May 27, 2008 

order is considered, and it is DENIED, because it does not appear that the order was 

entered erroneously. 

d0721 

I, Corbin R. Davis, 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. 

July 29, 2008 

 Clerk
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. George Hoey MORRIS, a.k.a. Johnny Ray Fortune, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 12-11165

Non-Argument Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.

June 11, 2013.

Sandra J. Stewart, George L. Beck, Jr., U.S. Attorney, Susan R. Redmond, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Montgomery, AL, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

George Hoey Morris, Tucson, AZ, pro se.

Before WILSON, PRYOR and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

George Hoey Morris appeals *pro se*the denial of his motions for a new trial as untimely. Morris sought a new trial based on newly-discovered evidence. Fed. R.Crim.P. 33(b)(1). We affirm.

The government argues that we should dismiss Morris’s appeal because his written notice was untimely, but we disagree. Under the mailbox rule, a notice of appeal filed *pro se*is treated as filed on the date the inmate delivers his notice to the prison authorities. *Houston v. Lack,*487 U.S. 266, 270, 108 S.Ct. 2379, 2382, 101 L.Ed.2d 245 (1988). The district court entered its order denying Morris’s post-trial motions on January 5, 2012, and Morris submitted to prison officials a notice of intent to appeal on January 17, 2012. Because Morris’s notice states that he intends to appeal the denial of his post-trial motions, the notice satisfies the requirements for a written notice of appeal, under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 3(c). *See United States v. Ward,*696 F.2d 1315, 1318 & n. 2 (11th Cir.1983). Morris’s notice of appeal was timely.

The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Morris’s motions for a new trial as untimely. Morris acknowledges that he filed his motions more than three years after his convictions, *see*Fed. R.Crim.P. 33(b)(1), and his arguments for equitable tolling or excusable neglect fail. Morris argues that his incarceration in various jails and his involuntary commitment in a mental institution for ten months after his conviction constituted a “legal disability” that tolled the period to move for a new trial, but Morris admitted in an affidavit that he filed complaints against *918both his counsel and the prosecutor during this period. Morris also argues that his appellate counsel “ignored” his allegedly newly-discovered evidence and refused to file a timely post-trial motion, but “[c]oun-sel’s misunderstanding of the law cannot constitute excusable neglect” to extend a deadline under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 45(b)(1)(B). *United States v. Snipes,*611 F.3d 855, 865 (11th Cir.2010) (internal citation and quotation marks omitted). And Morris argues that the prosecutor interfered with his ability to file a timely motion for a new trial by causing trial counsel to withdraw from the case, but the district court appointed new counsel the same day that it granted trial counsel’s motion to withdraw.

We AFFIRM the denial of Morris’s motion for a new trial as untimely.
116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2142 

AN ACT 

To amend the Small Business Act to require the Small 

Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman to create a centralized website for compliance 

guides, and for other purposes. 

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

•HR 2142 EH

1 SECTION 1. CENTRALIZED WEBSITE FOR COMPLIANCE 

2 GUIDES. 

3 Section 30 of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 657) 

4 is amended by adding at the end the following new sub5 sections: 

6 ‘‘(e) CENTRALIZED WEBSITE.—Not later than 6 

7 months after the date of the enactment of this subsection, 

8 the Ombudsman shall maintain a publicly available 

9 website that includes— 

10 ‘‘(1) hyperlinks to small entity compliance 

11 guides described under section 212(a)(1) of the 

12 Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness 

13 Act of 1996; and 

14 ‘‘(2) with respect to each such small entity com15 pliance guide, the contact information for an indi16 vidual who can offer assistance to small entities with 

17 respect to the rules that are the subject of such 

18 guide. 

19 ‘‘(f) REPORT ON AGENCY COMPLIANCE.—The Om20 budsman shall include in the annual report required under 

21 subsection (b)(2)(C) an assessment of agency compliance 

22 with the requirements of section 212 of the Small Busi-
3 

•HR 2142 EH

1 ness Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 for the 

2 year covered by such annual report.’’. 

Passed the House of Representatives July 15, 2019. 

Attest: 

Clerk. 
116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2142 

AN ACT 

To amend the Small Business Act to require the 

poses. website for compliance guides, and for other purforcement Ombudsman to create a centralized Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory En-
EXHIBIT 32





BWI HOLDINGS, INC.





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 BWI Holdings, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ending December 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Bruce Milroy, as Principal Financial 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 21, 2010
By:
/s/ Bruce MilroyName:
Bruce MilroyTitle:
Principal Financial 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.)
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 
U.S.C. Section 1350, 
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Anvil Forest Products Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended December 31, 2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date here of (the "report"), I, Walter Brenner, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, 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.
| |    

Dated this 13thday of February, 2008.

WALTER BRENNERWalter Brenner, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial 
Officer

















---
05 22 JANUARY MAY 2018

REVISED 2018 TRADING AND HOLIDAY SCHEDULE

The trading and holiday schedule for 2018 is being revised to include the November 12, 2018 Veterans 

Day holiday for Credit Contractsclarify the reserved maintenance window in Commodity Contracts.

TRADING HOURS FOR CREDIT CONTRACTS

The trading hours for all Credit Contracts traded on ICE Swap Trade will be Monday through Friday 

7:00 AM GMT (London time) to 5:30 PM ET (New York time).

Trading hours on the last trading day of any Credit Contract (i.e. the day prior to a Credit Contract roll) 

will be 4:30 PM GMT (London time) with respect to iTraxx Credit Contracts and 4:30 PM ET (New York 

time) with respect to CDX Credit Contracts.

Both the U.K. and U.S. markets will be closed on the following holidays:

Holiday Date

Good Friday March 30, 2018

Memorial Day

U.K. Spring Bank Holiday May 28, 2018

Christmas Day December 25, 2018

New Year’s Day January 1, 2019

With respect to the following holidays, the trading hours will be 7:00 AM GMT (London time) to 2:00 PM 

ET (New York time):

Early Close/Holiday Date

U.S. Early Close March 29, 2018

U.S. Early Close May 25, 2018

U.S. Early Close July 3, 2018

U.S. Early Close November 23, 2018

U.S. Early Close December 24, 2018

U.S. Early Close December 31, 2018

The market will be closed in the U.S. and will be open in the U.K. from 7:00 AM GMT (London time) to 

6:00 PM GMT (London time) on the following holidays:
© 2017 Intercontinental Exchange, Inc. The following are trademarks of Intercontinental Exchange, Inc. and/or its affiliated companies: Intercontinental 

Exchange, ICE, New York Stock Exchange and NYSE. For more information regarding trademarks owned by Intercontinental Exchange, Inc. and/or its 

affiliated companies see: intercontinentalexchange.com/terms-of-use

Holiday Date

Martin Luther King Day January 15, 2018

Presidents Day February 19, 2018

Independence Day July 4, 2018

Labor Day September 3, 2018

Columbus Day October 8, 2018

Veterans Day November 12, 2018

Thanksgiving Day November 22, 2018

The market will be closed in the U.K. and will be open in the U.S. from 7:00 AM ET (New York time) to 

5:30 PM ET (New York time) on the following holidays:

Holiday Date

Easter Monday April 2, 2018

U.K. May Day May 7, 2018

U.K. Summer Bank

Holiday August 27, 2018

U.K. Boxing Day December 26, 2018

TRADING HOURS FOR COMMODITY CONTRACTS

Trading in Commodity Contracts will be available at all times (including holidays) except during system 

maintenance. Maintenance windows are reserved each weekday from 6:05 PM ET through 7:006:55

PM ET and Friday 6:05 PM ET through Sunday 5:00 PM ET.

FOR MORE INFORMATION: 

ICE Swap Trade Compliance

ICESwapCompliance@theice.com.

View All Notices / Contact Us / Media Inquiries
# C_2017129EN.01003301.xml

| 24.4.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 129/33 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.4.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 129/33

---

Action brought on 6 March 2017 — Numbi v Council

(Case T-144/17)

(2017/C 129/50)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: John Numbi (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 Council 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 Mr John Numbi; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul Council 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 Mr John Numbi;

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

—

order the Council to bear, in addition to its own costs, those of the applicant and 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 which are essentially identical or similar to those relied on in Case T-139/17, Kibelisa v Council.

Kibelisa

Council

---