alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Eurex Clearing AG
ECAG Rule Certification 035-23
June 6, 2023

1. The text of the proposed amendments to the Price List (“Price List”) of Eurex Clearing AG (“Eurex
Clearing”) is appended as Attachment A. Any additions are underlined and any deletions are struck
through.

2. The date of intended implementation is July 31, 2023.

3. Attached please find a certification that: (1) these amendments comply with the Commodity Exchange
Act (the “Act”), and the Commission’s regulations thereunder; and (2) concurrent with the filing of this

submission, Eurex Clearing is posting a copy of this filing to its website at: https://www.eurex.com/ec-
en/rules-regs/regulations/cftc-dco-filings.

4. Aconcise explanation and analysis of the operation, purpose, and effect of the amended rule appears
below.

5. There were no opposing views expressed regarding these amended rules.

6. Confidential treatment is not requested.

CONCISE EXPLANATION AND ANALYSIS OF THE OPERATION, PURPOSE, AND EFFECT OF
THE PROPOSED RULE AND ITS COMPLIANCE WITH APPLICABLE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT,
INCLUDING CORE PRINCIPLES AND THE COMMISSION’S REGULATIONS THEREUNDER

Eurex Clearing is amending the Price List to reflect the introduction of Eurex Daily Futures on KOSPI 200
Monday Weekly Options on Eurex Deutschland, as outlined in Eurex Clearing Circular 035/23, which is
appended as Attachment A. Eurex Clearing will provide clearing services for this contract. For avoidance
of doubt, Eurex Clearing will clear these contracts outside the scope of its derivatives clearing organization
(“DCO”) license, which applies only to swaps.

Further information regarding the operation, purpose, and effect of the proposed amendments is discussed
in Attachment A.

Eurex Clearing has identified the following DCO Core Principle as potentially being relevant to the above
amendments:

1. DCO Core Principle C (Participant and Product Eligibility): The proposed amendments will
comply with DCO Core Principle C because the amendments list a new contract, which Eurex
Clearing clears outside the scope of its DCO license, and all products cleared by Eurex Clearing
under its DCO license will continue to be subject to appropriate standards in compliance with this
Core Principle.



CERTIFICATIONS PURSUANT TO SECTION Sc 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:

(1) the amendments comply with the Commodity Exchange Act, and the Commission’s
regulations thereunder; and

(2) concurrent with the filing of this submission, Eurex Clearing is posting a copy of this filing
to its website at: https://www.eurex.com/ec-en/rules-regs/regulations/cftc-dco-filings.

/s/ Eric Seinsheimer
By: Eric Seinsheimer
Title: US CCO, Eurex Clearing AG

Dated: June 6, 2023
# C_2019406EN.01002202.xml

| 2.12.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 406/22 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.12.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 406/22

---

Judgment of the General Court of 20 September 2019 — PlasticsEurope v ECHA

(Case T-636/17) (1)

(REACH - Establishment of a list of substances identified with a view to their eventual inclusion in Annex XIV of Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 - Supplement to the entry relating to the substance bisphenol A on that list - Articles 57 and 59 of Regulation No 1907/2006 - Manifest error of assessment - Legal certainty - Legitimate expectations - Proportionality)

(2019/C 406/30)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: PlasticsEurope (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: R. Cana, E. Mullier and F. Mattioli, lawyers)

Defendant: European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) (represented by: M. Heikkilä, W. Broere, C. Buchanan and A. Hautamäki, Agents, and initially by S. Raes, lawyer)

Interveners in support of the defendant: French Republic (represented: initially by D. Colas, E. de Moustier and J. Traband, and subsequently by D. Colas, J. Traband and A. L. Desjonquères, Agents), ClientEarth (London, United Kingdom), (represented by: P. Kirch, lawyer)

Re:

Application pursuant to Article 263 TFEU seeking the annulment of Decision ED/30/2017 by the Executive Director of ECHA of 6 July 2017, by which the existing entry relating to bisphenol A on the list of identified substances with a view to their eventual inclusion in Annex XIV to Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2006 concerning the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH), establishing a European Chemicals Agency, amending Directive 1999/45/EC and repealing Council Regulation (EEC) No 793/93 and Commission Regulation (EC) No 1488/94 as well as Council Directive 76/769/EEC and Commission Directives 91/155/EEC, 93/67/EEC, 93/105/EC and 2000/21/EC (OJ 2006 L 396, p. 1, corrigendum OJ 2007 L 136, p. 3), in accordance with Article 59 of that regulation, was supplemented to the effect that that substance is also identified as a substance with endocrine disrupting properties that may have serious effects on human health which give rise to a level of concern equivalent to that raised by the use of other substances listed in Article 57(a) to (e) of that regulation, within the meaning of Article 57(f) thereof.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders PlasticsEurope to bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) and ClientEarth; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders PlasticsEurope to bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) and ClientEarth;

| 3. | Orders the French Republic to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the French Republic to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 382, 13.11.2017.

---
Order filed March 5, 2020

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________ NO. 14

- 20

- 00082

- CV

____________ JUDA AKUECHIAMA, EBE RE AMAECHI

- AKUECHIAM A, AND/OR ALL OCCUPANTS OF 3929 LA KE STAR DRIVE LEAGUE CITY, TEXAS 77573 , Appellant s
V. U.S. BANK NA, SUCCESSOR TRUSTEE TO BANK OF AMERICA, NA ,

SUCCESSOR IN INTERES T TO LASALLE BANK NA , AS TRUSTEE, ON BEHALF O F THE HOLDERS OF THE WASHINGTON MUTUAL MO RTGAGE PASS

- THROUGH

CERTIFICATES, Appellee

On Appeal from the County Court No. 3 Galveston County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. CV

- 0085868



### O R D E R
The notice of appeal in this case was filed January 28, 2020. To date, the filing fee of $20 5.00 has not been paid. No evidence that appellant s are excused bystatute or the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure f rom paying costs has been filed.
See Tex. R. App. P

. 5

. Therefore, the court issues the following order.
Appellant s are ordered to pay th e filing fee in the amount of $20 5.00 to the

c lerk of this court on or before March 16, 2020. See Tex. R. App. P. 5. If
ap pellant s fail to timely pay the filing fee in accordance with this order, the appeal
will be dismissed.

PER CURIAM

Panel c onsists of Chief Justice Frost and Justices Jewell and Spain

.
**Exhibit 32.2**

 

 

CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO SECTION 1350 OF CHAPTER 63 OF TITLE 18 OF THE UNITED STATESCODE

 

                I, Harvey Beker, certify that (i) theAnnual Report of Global Macro Trust (the “Trust”) on Form 10-K for theperiod ending December 31, 2007 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and (ii) the informationcontained in such Annual Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Trust.

 

 

 
| /s/    | Harvey Beker                       |
|--------|------------------------------------|
|   | Harvey Beker                       |
|   | Co-Chief Executive Officer         |
|   | Millburn Ridgefield Corporation    |
|   | Managing Owner, Global Macro Trust |
|   | March 28, 2008                |

 

 

 

----
[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 100 (Wednesday, May 23, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Page 28532]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-12919]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases; Notice of 
Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following 
meeting.
    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the 
provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 
U.S.C., as amended. The contract proposals and the discussions could 
disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as 
patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals 
associated with the contract proposals, the disclosure of which would 
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Institute of Allergy and Infectious 
Diseases Special Emphasis Panel.
    Date: June 7-8, 2001.
    Time: 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate contract proposals.
    Place: Virginian Suites Conference Center, 1500 Arlington Blvd., 
Arlington, VA 22209.
    Contact Person: Anna Ramsey-Ewing, Ph.D., Scientific Review 
Administrator, Scientific Review Program, Division of Extramural 
Activities, NIAID, NIH, Room 2220, 6700-B Rockledge Drive, MSC 7610, 
Bethesda, MD 20892-7610, 301 496-2550, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#07667536326847696e6f29606871"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="e18093d0d48ea18f8889cf868e97">[email protected]</span></a>.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.855, 
Allergy, Immunology, and Transplantation Research; 93.856, 
Microbiology and Infectious Diseases Research, National Institutes 
of Health, HHS)


    Dated: May 15, 2001.
LaVerne Y. Stringfield,
Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 01-12919 Filed 5-22-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-M


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
### IN THE UNI TED STAT ES COURT OFAPPEALS FOR THE FIF TH CIRCU IT

No. 11-50422 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus ANGELICA MARIA MAURICIO, Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 6:10-CR-268-1

Before REAVLEY, SMITH, and PRADO, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: *

Angelica Mauricio pleaded guilty of possession with intent to distribute at least five kilograms of cocaine and was sentenced to 120 months in prison. She U n i te d S ta te s C o u rt o f A p p ea l s

F i ft h C i rc u i t 

### F I L E D April 2, 201 2 Lyle W . Cayce Clerk

Purs uant to 5 T H C IR

. R. 47.5 , the cour t has d ete rm inedt hat this op inion sho uld not * be publ ish ed and is not pr ece dent excep t unde r the lim ite d cir cum st ance s se t forth in 5 T H C IR

. R. 47.5 .4. Case: 11-50422 Document: 00511808787 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/02/2012No. 11-50422

appeals the denial of her motion to s uppress evidence that she contends was unconstitutionally obtained during a traffic stop. We agree with the government that Mauricio waived he r ri gh t to appeal by entering an unconditional guilty plea. A v o l untary and unconditional guilty plea waives all nonjurisdictional defects in the prior proceedings, including the right to raise any furthe r obj ections based o n a d e ni a l o f a motion to suppress. United States v. Stevens , 487 F.3d 232, 238 (5th Cir. 2007). Although a defendant may plead guilty conditionally and preserve appeal rights, the plea must be in writing, must have the consent of the prosecution and approval of the court, and must explicitly designate the issues being preserved for appeal. F E D
. R. C R I M
. P. 11(a)(2); United States v. Wise , 179 F.3d 184, 186-87 (5th Cir. 1 999). There was no written plea agreement or other evidence in the record that Mauricio expressed an intent to appeal such that any technical noncompliance with Rule 11(a)(2) might be excused. See Stevens , 487 F.3d at 238. Because the record lacks any evidence of a reservation of rights, Mauricio may not appeal the suppression ruling. See Wise , 179 F.3d at 187. The appe a l is entirely without merit, and it is DISMISSED as frivolous. See 5 T H C I R
. R. 42.2.

2 Case: 11-50422 Document: 00511808787 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/02/2012
# C_2018408EN.01003301.xml

| 12.11.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 408/33 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.11.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 408/33

---

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 19 September 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the High Court (Ireland) — Ireland) — Execution of European arrest warrants issued with respect to R O

(Case C-327/18 PPU) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Urgent preliminary ruling procedure - Police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters - European arrest warrant - Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA - Grounds for non-execution - Article 50 TEU - Warrant issued by the judicial authorities of a Member State that has initiated the procedure for withdrawal from the European Union - Uncertainty as to the law applicable to the relationship between that State and the Union following withdrawal))

(2018/C 408/43)

Language of the case: English

Referring court

High Court (Ireland)

Party to the main proceedings

R O

Operative part of the judgment

Article 50 TEU must be interpreted as meaning that mere notification by a Member State of its intention to withdraw from the European Union in accordance with that article does not have the consequence that, in the event that that Member State issues a European arrest warrant with respect to an individual, the executing Member State must refuse to execute that European arrest warrant or postpone its execution pending clarification of the law that will be applicable in the issuing Member State after its withdrawal from the European Union. In the absence of substantial grounds to believe that the person who is the subject of that European arrest warrant is at risk of being deprived of rights recognised by the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and Council Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA of 13 June 2002 on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States, as amended by Council Framework Decision 2009/299/JHA of 26 February 2009, following the withdrawal from the European Union of the issuing Member State, the executing Member State cannot refuse to execute that European arrest warrant while the issuing Member State remains a member of the European Union.

---

(1)  OJ C 349, 16.7.2018.

---
Exhibit 32.1

                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
                       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 Gray Creek Mining Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending January 31, 2008 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Alan J. Cox, Chief 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 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 the Report fairly presents, in all
          material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of
          the Company.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this certification as of the
12th day of March, 2008.


/s/ Alan J. Cox
-----------------------------
Chief Executive Officer
# C_2019164EN.01004401.xml

| 13.5.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 164/44 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.5.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 164/44

---

Judgment of the General Court of 26 March 2019 — Clestra Hauserman v Parliament

(Case T-725/17) (1)

(Public works contracts - Tendering procedure - Works relating to the ‘Removable partitioning - doors’ of the project to extend and modernise the Parliament’s Konrad Adenauer Building in Luxembourg - Rejection of a tenderer’s bid - Award of the contract to another tenderer - Obligation to state reasons - Abnormally low tender - Manifest error of assessment - Non-contractual liability)

(2019/C 164/46)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Clestra Hauserman (Illkirch-Graffenstaden, France) (represented by: J. Gehin, lawyer)

Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: V. Naglič and B. Schäfer, acting as Agents)

Re:

First, claim under Article 263 TFEU for annulment of the Parliament’s decision of 24 August 2017 adopted in the context of tendering procedure INLO-D-UPIL-T-16-AO8 concerning Lot 55, entitled ‘Removable partitioning — doors’, of the project to extend and modernise the Parliament’s Konrad Adenauer Building in Luxembourg, rejecting the applicant’s bid and awarding the contract to another tenderer and, second, claim under Article 268 TFEU for compensation in respect of the loss allegedly suffered by the applicant.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Clestra Hauserman to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Parliament. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Clestra Hauserman to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Parliament.

---

(1)  OJ C 13, 15.1.2018.

---
# C_2019280EN.01001001.xml

| 19.8.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 280/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.8.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 280/10

---

Order of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 11 April 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof — Germany) — Vanessa Gambietz v Erika Ziegler

(Case C-131/18) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Law on undertakings - Combating late payment in commercial transactions - Directive 2011/7/EU - Article 6 - Compensation for recovery costs - Payment of a fixed sum and of reasonable compensation - Deduction of fixed sum from the costs of instructing a lawyer prior to bringing proceedings before a court)

(2019/C 280/12)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Vanessa Gambietz

Defendant: Erika Ziegler

Operative part of the order

Article 6(3) of Directive 2011/7/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 2011 on combating late payment in commercial transactions must be interpreted to mean that the fixed sum of EUR 40, to which the creditor is entitled pursuant to Article 6(1) of that directive, must be deducted from the reasonable compensation provided for in Article 6(3) thereof.

---

(1)  OJ C 142, 23.4.2018.

---
Exhibit
32.1





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 Medical Design Studios, Inc. (the
“Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2009, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Justin
Craig, President (chief executive officer) and Chief Financial Officer of the
Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:





1.
            The
      Report fully complies with 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.





/s/  Justin
  CraigJustin
      CraigPresident
      and Chief Financial OfficerAugust
      14, 2009
Exhibit 10.1





Exhibit 10.1



August 21, 2009




Insurance Services Office, Inc.

545 Washington Boulevard

Jersey City, New Jersey 07310-1686




	 	 	 	 	 
	 

	 	Re:
	 	Bank of America, N.A., et al -to- Insurance Services Office, Inc.:
	 

	 	 	 	Letter Amendment






Ladies and Gentlemen:



Reference is hereby made to that certain Credit Agreement dated as of July 2, 2009, executed
by and among Insurance Services Office, Inc., a Delaware corporation (hereinafter referred to as
the “Borrower”), as borrower, certain lenders made party thereto (hereinafter collectively
referred to as the “Lenders”), and Bank of America, N.A., in its capacity as the
Administrative Agent for the Lenders (hereinafter, in such capacity, referred to as the
“Administrative Agent”) (hereinafter referred to as the “Credit Agreement”).
Defined terms used but not expressly defined herein shall have the same meanings when used herein
as set forth in the Credit Agreement.



In order to correct an errant cross-reference in Section 2.05(b)(iii) of the Credit
Agreement, the Borrower and the Administrative Agent, for itself and on behalf of the Lenders,
hereby covenant and agree that the reference in said Section 2.05(b)(iii) to “Section
7.02” shall be deleted and a new corrected reference to “Section 7.03” shall be
inserted in its place and stead.



Kindly indicate the agreement of the Borrower with the terms and conditions of this letter
amendment by countersigning in the space provided below, and returning a countersigned copy of this
letter amendment to the undersigned.



	 	 	 	 	 
	 	Very truly yours,


BANK OF AMERICA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, in its

capacity as the Administrative Agent for the Lenders

 	 
	 	By:  	/s/
 	 
	 	 	Name:  	 	 
	 	 	Title:  	 	 



	 	 	 	 	 
	ACCEPTED AND AGREED AS OF THE 21ST DAY OF AUGUST, 2009:
	 
	 	 	 	 
	INSURANCE SERVICES OFFICE, INC.	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 
	By:

	 	/s/	 	 
	 

	 	 

Name:
	 	 
	 

	 	Title:
# C_2019004EN.01002701.xml

| 7.1.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 4/27 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.1.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 4/27

---

Judgment of the General Court of 25 October 2018 — Aldo Supermarkets v EUIPO — Aldi Einkauf (ALDI)

(Case T-359/17) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition procedure - Application for EU word mark ALDI - Earlier national figurative mark ALDO - Relative ground for refusal - Conditions governing admissibility of the opposition - Rule 15 of Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 (now Article 2 of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/625) - Conditions governing representation of the earlier mark - Rule 19 of Regulation No 2868/95 (now Article 7 of Delegated Regulation 2018/625) - Lack of proof of genuine use of earlier mark - Article 42 of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 47 of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))

(2019/C 4/37)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Aldo Supermarkets (Varna, Bulgaria) (represented initially by: C. Saettel, and subsequently by: T. Chevrier and M. Thewes, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: G. Sakalaite-Orlovskiene, A. Folliard-Monguiral and D. Walicka, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Aldi Einkauf GmbH & Co. OHG (Essen, Germany) (represented by: N. Lüzenrath, U. Rademacher, N. Bertram and C. Fürsen, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 29 March 2017 (Case R 976/2016-4), concerning opposition proceedings between Aldo Supermarkets and Aldi Einkauf.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Aldo Supermarkets to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Aldo Supermarkets to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 249, 31.7.2017.

---