alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
55 East 52nd Street

New York, NY 10055

BY ELECTRONIC TRANSMISSION

Submission No. 23-51

April 20, 2023

Mr. Christopher J. Kirkpatrick

Secretary of the Commission

Office of the Secretariat

Commodity Futures Trading Commission

Three Lafayette Centre

1155 21st Street, NW

Washington, DC 20581

Re: Delisting of Certain Physical Environmental Futures and Option on Futures - Submission 

Pursuant to Section 5c(c)(1) of the Act and Regulation 40.6(a) 

Dear Mr. Kirkpatrick:

Pursuant to Section 5c(c)1 of the Commodity Exchange Act, as amended (the “Act”) and 

Commodity Futures Trading Commission (“Commission”) Regulation 40.6(a), ICE Futures U.S., Inc. 

(“Exchange”) submits notice to the Commission that, effective as of the close of business today, April 20, 

2023, the Exchange will delist all contract months of the following futures and option on futures: 

• California Carbon Allowance Specific Vintage 2019 Future (“CA9”)

• California Carbon Allowance Vintage 2016 Future (“CAO”)

• Maryland Solar Renewable Energy Credit Prior Year Future (“MSP”)

• New Jersey Compliance Renewable Energy Certificate Class I Prior Year Future (“NJP”)

• Two Year Mid-Curve Option on PJM Tri Qualified Renewable Energy Certificates Class 

1 Future (“PPT”)

• Pennsylvania Solar Alternative Energy Credit Prior Year Future (“PSP”)

• Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative Vintage 2016 Future (“RGO”)

• Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative Vintage 2017 Future (“RGP”)

• Option on Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative Future Vintage 2019 (“RGR”)

• California Carbon Allowance Vintage 2019 Future (“CAX”)

The products above currently have no open interest.

The Exchange certifies that, concurrent with this filing, a copy of this submission was posted on 

the Exchange’s website and may be accessed at (https://www.theice.com/futures-us/regulation). 

If you have any questions or need further information, please contact me at 312-836-6745 or at 

patrick.swartzer@theice.com.
Sincerely,

Patrick Swartzer

Director

Market Regulation

Enc.

cc: Division of Market Oversight

New York Regional Office
EXHIBIT 32.1
 
 CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER
 PURSUANT TO 18U.S.C. SECTION 1350
 
 In connection with the Quarterly Report of Quantum Materials Corp., (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ending December 31, 2012 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Stephen Squires, Principal Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.1350, as adopted pursuant to ss.906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, 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/ STEPHEN SQUIRESStephen SquiresPrincipal Executive OfficerFebruary 28, 2013
Case 1:07-cv-05353-AKH Document 39-2 Filed 11/26/2007 Page 1 of 3
Case 1:07-cv-05353-AKH Document 39-2 Filed 11/26/2007 Page 2 of 3
Case 1:07-cv-05353-AKH Document 39-2 Filed 11/26/2007 Page 3 of 3
# C_2019112EN.01000601.xml

| 25.3.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 112/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.3.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 112/6

---

Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 31 January 2019 — Hellenic Republic v European Commission

(Case C-6/18 P) (1)

((Appeal - European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) - European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) - Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005 - Financing of the common agricultural policy - Excluded expenditure - Expenditure incurred by the Hellenic Republic))

(2019/C 112/07)

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Appellant: Hellenic Republic (represented by: G. Kanellopoulos, I. Pachi and A. Vasilopoulou, Agents)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: D. Triantafyllou and A. Sauka, Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the appeal; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the appeal;

| 2. | Orders the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 63, 19.2.2018.

---
| 1.   | The      Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of      the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended;  and |
|----------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| 2.   | The      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material      respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the      Company. |
|----------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Dated: April 17,      2009    | /s/      Lequn Lee Huang                                                                                |        |
|----------------------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
|                                         | Lequn Lee      Huang, President, CEO,CFO,      Treasurer and Director(Principal Financial      Officer) |   |

----
# C_2017144EN.01005901.xml

| 8.5.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 144/59 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.5.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 144/59

---

Action brought on 17 March 2017 — Laboratoire Nuxe v EUIPO — Camille and Tariot (NYOUX)

(Case T-179/17)

(2017/C 144/80)

Language in which the application was lodged: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Laboratoire Nuxe (Paris, France) (represented by: P. Wilhelm and J. Roux, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Defendant:

Other parties to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Elisabeth Camille (Alicante, Spain), Jean Yves Tariot (Alicante, Spain)

Other parties 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: European Union figurative mark containing the word element ‘NYOUX’ — Application for registration No 12 931 739

Trade mark at issue:

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Procedure before EUIPO

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 16 January 2017 in Case R 718/2016-5

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 Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009.

---
# C_2017112EN.01004601.xml

| 10.4.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 112/46 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.4.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 112/46

---

Action brought on 16 February 2017 — Franmax v EUIPO — R. Seelig & Hille (her- bea)

(Case T-97/17)

(2017/C 112/64)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Franmax UAB (Vilnius, Lithuania) (represented by: E. Saukalas, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: R. Seelig & Hille OHG (Düsseldorf, Germany)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal:

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant: Applicant

Applicant:

Trade mark at issue: EU figurative mark containing the word elements ‘her- bea’– Application for registration No 12 689 964

Trade mark at issue:

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Procedure before EUIPO

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 1 December 2016 in Case R 371/2016-2

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 Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009.

---
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. 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 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

August 17, 2005

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 04-40533

Conference Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

CRISTOBAL RAFAEL-QUERIAPA,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 7:03-CR-856-1 

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

Before BENAVIDES, CLEMENT, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Cristobal Rafael-Queriapa appeals his conviction and

sentence for illegal reentry of an alien after having been

deported. He argues that the provisions of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)

are unconstitutional in light of Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S.

466 (2000) and that his indictment should have reflected a prior

conviction. He also argues that his sentence is unconstitutional

under United States v. Booker, 125 S. Ct. 738 (2005), because it

was imposed pursuant to a mandatory guidelines scheme. 
No. 04-40533

-2-

Rafael’s arguments that the provisions of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)

are unconstitutional and that the prior conviction should have

been charged in his indictment are foreclosed by AlmendarezTorres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 247 (1998). 

Rafael challenges the Booker error as structural in nature

and argues that prejudice should be presumed. This court

rejected that argument in United States v. Martinez-Lugo, 411

F.3d 597, 601 (5th Cir. 2005). Our review is for plain error. 

United States v. Mares, 402 F.3d 511, 520 (5th Cir. 2005),

petition for cert. filed (Mar. 31, 2005) (No. 04-9517); United

States v. Valenzuela-Quevedo, 407 F.3d 728, 732 (5th Cir. 2005),

petition for cert. filed (July 25, 2005) (No. 05-5556). 

The district court committed error that is plain by

sentencing Rafael under a mandatory sentencing guidelines scheme. 

Valenzuela-Quevedo, 407 F.3d at 733. However, Rafael fails to

carry his burden of showing that this error affected his

substantial rights. Id. at 733-34. The district court made no

comments indicating that it would have imposed a lesser sentence

in the absence of mandatory guidelines. Accordingly, the

judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-7388

ROBERT CARSWELL, Petitioner - Appellant,

v. TERRY O’BRIEN, Warden, USP Lee, Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. James C. Turk, Senior District Judge. (7:09-cv-00191-jct-mfu)

Submitted: November 17, 2009 Decided: November 24, 2009

Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Robert Carswell, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Robert Carswell seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2006) petition for a writ of habeas corpus without prejudice for failure to comply with the filing fee order. On appeal, we confine our review to issues raised in the Appellant’s brief. See 4th Cir. Rule 34(b). Carswell’s brief fails to challenge the district court’s dispositive conclusion that he failed to pay the filing fee for his § 2241 petition. Accordingly, we affirm the order of the district court. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid in the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
Exhibit
99.2
 CERTIFICATE
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 (the “Report”) on the Form 10-Q of Laural
Resources, Inc. (the “Company”) for the three and nine months ended February 28,
2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof,
I, Mandi Luis, Chief Executive Officer, President and Director, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge and
belief:
 
 1. The
Quarterly Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13 (a) or 15
(d) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and
 
 2. The
information contained in this Quarterly Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operation of the
Company.
 
 Date:
April 9, 2010
 
 MANDI
LUIS
 Mandi
Luis
 Chief
Executive Officer,
 President
and Director
   -1-
##### 



EXHIBIT 23.1

(Dixon Hughes Logo)

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

The Board of Directors
Gateway Financial Holdings, Inc. and Subsidiaries
Elizabeth City, North Carolina

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statements
(Nos. 333-98021, 333-98025, 333-98027) on Form S-8 of Gateway Financial
Holdings, Inc. and Subsidiaries of our report dated March 9, 2004 with respect
to the consolidated balance sheets of Gateway Financial Holdings, Inc. and
Subsidiaries as of December 31, 2003 and 2002, and the related consolidated
statements of operations, comprehensive income, changes in stockholders
equity, and cash flows for each of the years in the three year period ended
December 31, 2003, which report appears in the December 31, 2003, annual report
on Form 10-KSB of Gateway Financial Holdings, Inc.

-s- Dixon Hughes PLLC

Sanford, North Carolina
March 25, 2004
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA DA 20

- 0391

_________________ TRACY FORTNER AND MARCY FORTNER ,

Petit io ner s and Appellant s ,
v. BROADWATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT ,

Respondent and Appellee. O R D E R

_________________ Appellant s have filed a m otion for an e xtension of t ime within which to file their reply brief. Good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that motion is GRANTED. Appellant s ’ reply brief shall be filed on or before June 3 , 202 1

. No further extensions will be granted.

Electronically signed by: Mike McGrath Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

April 26 2021

04/26/2021

Case Number: DA 20-0391
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Alexander MATTHEWS, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 13-6759.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Sept. 30, 2013.

Decided: Oct. 8, 2013.

Alexander Matthews, Appellant Pro Se. Ryan Scott Faulconer, Office of the United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.

Before NIEMEYER and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Alexander Matthews seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp.2013) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2006). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. *Slack v. McDaniel,*529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); *see Miller-El v. Cockrell,*537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. *Slack,*529 U.S. at 484-85, 120 S.Ct. 1595.

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Matthews has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We deny Matthews’ motions for bail, to certify a question to state court, to introduce district court plain error, to correct a clerical error, and all other outstanding motions. We deny Matthews authorization to proceed in forma pauperis. 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.

*DISMISSED.*
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Energy

###### Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

          - [Docket No. ER01-1468-002]

Take notice that on May 3, 2001, Great Bay Power corporation tendered for filing an amendment to its April 17, 2001 filing with revised service agreements for Chicopee Municipal Light Plant (Chicopee) and South Hadley Electric Light Department (South Hadley) under Great Bay's revised Market-Based Rate Power Sales Tariff (FERC Electric Tariff No. 2, Second Revised Volume No. 2). The revised service agreements are in conformity with Order No. 614, FERC Stats. & Regs. 31,096 (2000).

Any person desiring to be heard or to protest such filing should file a motion to intervene or protest with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). All such motions and protests should be filed on or before May 24, 2001. Protests will be considered by the Commission to determine the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceedings. Any person wishing to become a party must file a motion to intervene. Copies of this filing are on file with the Commission and are available for public inspection. This filing may also be viewed on the Internet at http://www.ferc.fed.us/​online/​rims.htm (call 202-208-2222 for assistance). Comments, protests and interventions may be filed electronically via the internet in lieu of paper. See, 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions of the Commission's web site at http://wwww.ferc.fed.us/​efi/​doorbell.htm.

Linwood A. Watson, Jr.,

Acting Secretary.

[FR Doc. 01-12642 Filed 5-18-01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
Exhibit 31.1
 CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER PURSUANT TO
SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT RULES 13a-14(a) AND 15d-14(a), AS ADOPTED PURSUANT
TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
      (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 this 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 registrants internal control over financial
reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter (the registrants
fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is
reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants internal control over financial
reporting; and
  (a)
    
    All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of
internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect
the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and(b)
    
    Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have
a significant role in the registrants internal control over financial reporting.
 Date: November 7, 2008
    
    /s/ Gail F. Goodman

Gail F. GoodmanPresident and Chief Executive Officer