alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2017095EN.01001801.xml

| 27.3.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 95/18 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 95/18

---

Action brought on 26 January 2017 — Yotrio Group v EUIPO (Affixing a green ring on a leg)

(Case T-47/17)

(2017/C 095/28)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Yotrio Group Co. Ltd (Linhai City, China) (represented by: L. Ullmann, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Defendant:

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: Other EU trade mark (Affixing a green ring on a leg) — Application for registration No 14 396 568

Trade mark at issue:

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 15 November 2016 in Case R 285/2016-4

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;

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

—

order EUIPO to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law

Pleas in law

| — | Infringement of Article 7(1)(a) of Regulation No 207/2009; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 7(1)(a) of Regulation No 207/2009;

| — | Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009.

---
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.                  

###### Federal Maritime Commission

Notice is hereby given that the following applicants have filed with the Federal Maritime Commission an application for licenses as Non-Vessel Operating Common Carrier and Ocean Freight Forwarder—Ocean Transportation Intermediary pursuant to section 19 of the Shipping Act of 1984 as amended (46 U.S.C. app. 1718 and 46 CFR 515).

Persons knowing of any reason why the following applicants should not receive a license are requested to contact the Office of Transportation Intermediaries, Federal Maritime Commission, Washington, DC 20573.

## Non-Vessel-Operating Common Carrier Ocean Transportation Intermediary Applicants

                    AIF Services, Inc., 8500 NW 30th Terrace, Miami, FL 33122,                     *Officer:*                     Roberto Lores, Jr. President (Qualifying Individual).                

## Ocean Freight Forwarder—Ocean Transportation Intermediary Applicants

                    Agency International Forwarding, Inc., 8500 NW., 30th Terrace, Miami, FL 33122,                     *Officer:*                     Roberto Lores, Jr. President (Qualifying Individual).                

Dated: May 18, 2001.

Bryant L. VanBrakle, Jr.,

 Secretary.

[FR Doc. 01-13061 Filed 5-22-01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6730-01-P
Exhibit 99.1

LETTER OF MICHAEL
JOHNSON & COMPANY, LLP

Securities and Exchange
Commission450 Fifth Street N.W.Washington, D.C. 20549

Ladies and Gentlemen:

We have read Item 4.01 of Form 8-K
dated January 25, 2006 of In Touch Media Group, Inc. and are in agreement with the
statements contained in paragraph (a) therein. We have no basis to agree or disagree with
other statements of the registrant contained therein.

Sincerely,

/s/ Michael Johnson &
Company, LLP

Michael Johnson &
Company, LLPCertified Public AccountantsDenver, ColoradoJanuary 25, 2006

MTC/cam/366085

---
# C_2020137EN.01002501.xml

| 27.4.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 137/25 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.4.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 137/25

---

Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 13 February 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Centrale Raad van Beroep — Netherlands) — H. Solak v Raad van bestuur van het Uitvoeringsinstituut werknemersverzekeringen (Uwv)

(Case C-258/18) (1)

(Request for a preliminary ruling - Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice - EEC-Turkey Association Agreement - Article 59 of the Additional Protocol - Decision No 3/80 - Social security for Turkish migrant workers - Waiver of residence clauses - Article 6 - Supplementary benefits - Suspension - Renunciation of the nationality of the host Member State - Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 - Special non-contributory cash benefits - Residence requirement)

(2020/C 137/33)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Centrale Raad van Beroep

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: H. Solak

Defendant: Raad van bestuur van het Uitvoeringsinstituut werknemersverzekeringen (Uwv)

Operative part of the order

Article 6(1), first paragraph, of Decision No 3/80 of the Association Council of 19 September 1980 on the application of the social security schemes of the Member States of the European Communities to Turkish workers and members of their families, read together with Article 59 of the Additional Protocol, signed on 23 November 1970 at Brussels and concluded, approved and confirmed on behalf of the European Economic Community by Council Regulation (EEC) No 2760/72 of 19 December 1972, must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation pursuant to which the payment of a benefit intended to supplement an invalidity pension in order to ensure a minimum income, granted in accordance with that legislation, is suspended with regard to a Turkish national, duly registered as belonging to the labour force of a Member State who, after renouncing the citizenship of a Member State which he had acquired during his residence in that State, has returned to his country of origin.

---

(1)  OJ C 276, 6.8.2018.

---
# C_2018042EN.01003601.xml

| 5.2.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 42/36 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.2.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 42/36

---

Action brought on 29 November 2017 — TecAlliance v EUIPO — Siemens (TecDocPower)

(Case T-789/17)

(2018/C 042/50)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Parties

Applicant: TecAlliance GmbH (Ismaning, Germany) (represented by: P. Engemann, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Siemens AG (Munich, Germany)

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: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Applicant for the trade mark at issue:

Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘TecDocPower’ — EU trade mark No 13 402 326

Trade mark at issue:

Proceedings before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Proceedings before EUIPO:

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 14 September 2017 in Case R 2433/2016-1

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) and Article 47(2) of Regulation No 207/2009. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) and Article 47(2) of Regulation No 207/2009.

---
Exhibit 10.2


 


Uni-Pixel, Inc.


8708 Technology Forest Pl., Suite 100


The Woodlands, TX 77381


 


,
2010


 


Mr./Mrs.


 


Re:  Stock Option Letter


 


Uni-Pixel, Inc.
is proud to offer you the following stock options as follows from our 2010
Stock Incentive Plan:


 


	
  Stock
  Options

  	
                    incentive
  stock options of Uni-Pixel, Inc. at
  $        per share which shall vest
  25% immediately on
                  ,
  25% on the one year anniversary of the date of grant, 25% on the two year
  anniversary of the date of grant, and 25% on the three year anniversary of
  the date of grant. The term of the Employment Option will be 10 years from
  the date of grant. Upon termination or resignation of your employment, your
  will have          months to exercise
  your vested but unexercised options.

  
	
  Effective
  (“Start”) Date

  	
   

  



 


 


Sincerely,


 


 


	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Reed
  Killion, CEO

  	
   

  



 


Agreed
and accepted as of this        day of
# C_2017330EN.01001601.xml

| 2.10.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 330/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.10.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 330/16

---

Action brought on 4 August 2017 — Álvares de Linera Granda v Commission and SRB

(Case T-498/17)

(2017/C 330/21)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Álvares de Linera Granda (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: E. Pastor Palomar, F. Arroyo Romero and N. Subuh Falero, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendants: Commission and SRB

Defendants:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | Annul Decision SRB/EES/2017/08 of the Single Resolution Board of 7 June 2017 addressed to the Fund for Orderly Bank Restructuring (FROB) approving a restructuring plan in respect of Banco Popular Español; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul Decision SRB/EES/2017/08 of the Single Resolution Board of 7 June 2017 addressed to the Fund for Orderly Bank Restructuring (FROB) approving a restructuring plan in respect of Banco Popular Español;

| — | Annul European Commission Decision 2017/1246 of 7 June 2017 supporting the resolution plan for Banco Popular Español; and |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul European Commission Decision 2017/1246 of 7 June 2017 supporting the resolution plan for Banco Popular Español; and

| — | By virtue of the provision in Article 340 TFEU, declare that the SRB and European Commission are non-contractually liable and order them to make good the harm caused to the applicant. |
| --- | --- |

—

By virtue of the provision in Article 340 TFEU, declare that the SRB and European Commission are non-contractually liable and order them to make good the harm caused to the applicant.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to the arguments raised in Cases T-478/17, Mutualidad de la Abogacía y Hermandad Nacional de Arquitectos Superiores y Químicos v Single Resolution Board; T-481/17, Fundación Tatiana Pérez de Guzmán y Bueno and SFL v Single Resolution Board; T-482/17, Comercial Vascongada Recalde v Commission and Single Resolution Board; T-483/17, García Suárez and Others v Commission and Single Resolution Board; T-484/17, Fidesban and Others v Single Resolution Board and T-497/17, Sáchez del Valle and Calatrava Real State 2015 v Commission and Single Resolution Board.

Mutualidad de la Abogacía y Hermandad Nacional de Arquitectos Superiores y Químicos

Single Resolution Board

Fundación Tatiana Pérez de Guzmán y Bueno and SFL

Single Resolution Board

Comercial Vascongada Recalde

Commission and Single Resolution Board

García Suárez and Others

Commission and Single Resolution Board

Fidesban and Others

Single Resolution Board

Sáchez del Valle and Calatrava Real State 2015

Commission and Single Resolution Board

In particular, the applicant claims that the Commission misused its powers in the present case.

---
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 Annual Report of EnCana
Corporation (the Company) on Form 40-F for the year ended December 31, 2006,
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report),
I, Brian C. Ferguson, Executive Vice-President & 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 to the best of my
knowledge:  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 results of operations of the Company.   By:
  /s/ Brian C. FergusonBrian C. FergusonExecutive Vice-President & Chief Financial
  Officer  February 23, 2007
# U ORIGINAL IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA PR 24-0004

IN RE THEPETITION OF JOHN A. RICHARDS ORDER

JohnA. Richards has petitioned this Court for admission to active status in the State Bar ofMontana after having been on senior status since June 2021. IT IS ORDERED that upon payment of the appropriate fees to the State Bar of Montana, Petitioner shall be admitted to the active practice oflaw in the state ofMontana. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, within six months of the date of this Order, Petitioner shall submit to theBoard ofContinuing Legal Education, P.O. Box 577, Helena, MT 59624, proofofattendance at thirty hours ofapproved Continuing Legal Education to be credited to the time Petitioner was on inactive status. The Clerk is directed to provide copies ofthis Order to Petitioner and to the State Bar ofMontana. DATED this 26th day ofMarch, 2024. For the Court, 03/26/2024

Case Number: PR 24-0004
# C_2018022EN.01004802.xml

| 22.1.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 22/48 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.1.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 22/48

---

Action brought on 3 November 2017 — ViaSat v Commission

(Case T-734/17)

(2018/C 022/64)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: ViaSat, Inc. (Carlsbad, California, United States) (represented by: J. Ruiz Calzado, L. Marco Perpiñà, and S. Semey, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the Commission’s implied negative decision of 24 August 2017, resulting from the failure by the European Commission, under Article 8(3) of Regulation No 1049/2001, to reply within the prescribed time-limit to the applicant’s confirmatory application for access to documents of 10 July 2017 in relation to the access to documents request registered on 2 May 2017 under No 2017/2592, insofar as concerns information produced or exchanged in the context of a call for applications for pan-European systems providing mobile satellite services; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the Commission’s implied negative decision of 24 August 2017, resulting from the failure by the European Commission, under Article 8(3) of Regulation No 1049/2001, to reply within the prescribed time-limit to the applicant’s confirmatory application for access to documents of 10 July 2017 in relation to the access to documents request registered on 2 May 2017 under No 2017/2592, insofar as concerns information produced or exchanged in the context of a call for applications for pan-European systems providing mobile satellite services;

| — | order the Commission to pay the costs, including those of any intervening parties. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission to pay the costs, including those of any intervening parties.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging that the Commission breached its duty to state reasons under Article 296(2) TFEU. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging that the Commission breached its duty to state reasons under Article 296(2) TFEU.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission failed to perform a concrete and individual examination of the requested documents. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission failed to perform a concrete and individual examination of the requested documents.

---
<PAGE>

                                                                   EXHIBIT 10.16

Midas, Inc.

TO:

DATE:    October 21, 2002

SUBJECT: Special Retention Package

This note shall memorialize the details of a Special Retention Package that has
been approved by the Midas Board of Directors. The details are as follows:

You will be eligible to receive all of the following:

     1.   Cash payment of $75,000 on April 1, 2003, if employed by Midas in your
          present or substantially similar position as of that date (subject to
          required tax withholding)

     2.   Cash payment of $75,000 on October 1, 2003, if employed by Midas in
          your present or substantially similar position as of that date
          (subject to required tax withholding)

     3.   One (1) year of severance (base salary) in the event of involuntary
          termination without cause, exclusive of a termination following a
          change-in-control which is defined and covered under a separate
          agreement.

It is my pleasure to present these details to you as an important gesture of the
Board of Directors support and confidence.

/S/                                           /S/
-----------------------------                 ---------------------------
Gary B. Vonk, President / Acting CEO                       ; acknowledge receipt
Via Portal Submission May 30, 2023

 MGEX Submission No. 23-29

Mr. Christopher Kirkpatrick

Secretary of the Commission

Commodity Futures Trading Commission

Three Lafayette Centre

1155 21st Street NW

Washington, DC 20581

RE: Rule Certification Submission Pursuant to Regulation 40.6(a); Amendments 

to MGEX’s Risk Manual Exhibit A

Dear Mr. Kirkpatrick:

Pursuant to Commodity Exchange Act (“CEAct”) Section 5c(c) and Commodity Futures 

Trading Commission (“CFTC”) Regulation 40.6(a), the Minneapolis Grain Exchange, LLC 

(“MGEX” or “Exchange”) hereby submits this self-certification of certain amendments to 

MGEX’s Risk Management Principles Reference Manual (“Risk Manual”) Exhibit A –

Bitnomial Bitcoin Margin Methodology (“Exhibit A”). MGEX has respectfully requested 

confidential treatment for such amendments to the Risk Manual Exhibit A, which are being 

submitted concurrently with this submission. The Exchange intends to implement the 

amendments ten business days following the filing of this submission. 

Overview of Amendments

MGEX has amended its Risk Manual Exhibit A, as shown in the attachment 

accompanying this submission, to make necessary updates and additions pertaining to 

Bitnomial contracts. Specifically, the amendments amend language that previously 

required market participants to post full notional value as margin during the five days prior 

to delivery. 

DCO Core Principles

In connection with updating the Risk Manual Exhibit A, the Exchange has reviewed the 

core principles for derivatives clearing organizations (“DCO Core Principles”) and has 

determined that the amendments comply with the requirements of such principles. During 
MINNEAPOLIS GRAIN EXCHANGE, LLC

400 South 4th Street | 130 Grain Exchange Building | Minneapolis, MN 55415

612-321-7101

mgex.com

the review, MGEX identified the following DCO Core Principle as potentially being 

impacted:

• DCO Core Principle D – Risk Management: CFTC Regulation 39.13 requires 

DCOs to possess certain risk management tools and procedures, including 

establishing margin models. These changes removing language that previously 

required market participants to post full notional value as margin during the five

days prior to delivery serve to update the Exchange’s risk management tools and 

procedures, and as such, the amendments are consistent with the requirements 

of Core Principle D, CFTC Regulations 39.13 and 39.36.

MGEX hereby certifies that the amendments to the Risk Manual Exhibit A comply with 

the CEAct and the CFTC regulations promulgated thereunder. The Exchange is not 

aware of any substantive opposing views expressed regarding the amendments or this 

filing. MGEX further certifies that, concurrent with this filing, a copy of the submission 

was posted on the Exchange website at the following link: 

http://www.mgex.com/regulation.html. If there are any questions regarding this 

submission, please contact me at (612) 321-7176 or jkrause@mgex.com. Thank you for 

your attention to this matter.

Sincerely, 

James D. Krause

Associate Counsel, MGEX Clearing
1177 Avenue of Americas

New York, New York 10036

Effective September 6, 2023

Attn: all TW SEF Participants 

As per TW SEF Rule 1005 (d), Participants may execute a New Swap/Old Terms (offsetting trade) and 

New Swap/Corrected Terms (correction trade) following a Cleared Error Swap (as defined in the TW SEF 

rulebook). Participants must provide post-trade notification to TW SEF within 24 hours after the Cleared 

Error Swap is executed. There is no requirement for Participants to notify TW SEF prior to entering into 

the offsetting and/or correction trades (see CFTC staff letter https://www.cftc.gov/csl/20-

01/download). Participants can notify TW SEF via normal means of communication (chat or email), or 

can utilize the TW error toggle on the ticket (use of this toggle requires authorization from TW SEF). 

If Participants do notify TW SEF prior to execution of the Cleared Error Swap ( see TW SEF Rule 1005 

(d)(i)), they may execute offsetting and/or correction trades as soon as technologically practicable, but 

no later than three days after the Cleared Error Swap is accepted for clearing. 

The most recent version of the TW SEF Rulebook can be found here: https://www.tradeweb.com/ourmarkets/market-regulation/sef/