alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Eurex Clearing AG 

ECAG Rule Certification 030-23 

May 22, 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 June 26, 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/ecen/rules-regs/regulations/cftc-dco-filings. 

4. A concise 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 decision of the Management Board of Eurex 

Deutschland to cancel the admission to trading for Futures on iSTOXX® Europe Factor Indices with effect 

from June 26, 2023. For avoidance of doubt, Eurex Clearing has cleared these contracts outside the scope 

of its DCO license, which applies only to swaps. 

Further information regarding the operation, purpose, and effect of the proposed amendments is discussed 

in Eurex Clearing Circular 030-23, which is appended as Attachment A. 

Eurex Clearing has identified the following derivatives clearing organization (“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 delist contracts listed on Eurex 

Deutschland, 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. 
2 

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: 

(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 thisfiling 

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: May 22, 2023
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Antoine M. MERCADEL, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 09-30280.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted April 5, 2010.*

Filed April 21, 2010.

Timothy John Ohms, Assistant U.S. Attorney, USSP-Office of the U.S. Attorney, Spokane, WA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Antoine M. Mercadel, Lompoc, CA, pro se.

Before: RYMER, MCKEOWN, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Antoine M. Mercadel appeals pro se from the district court’s order denying his motion for a reduced sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291.

Mercadel contends that the district court erred by denying his motion in light of Amendment 706 of the United States Sentencing Guidelines. This contention fails because Mercadel was sentenced pursuant to the statutory mandatory minimum. *See United States v. Paulk,*569 F.3d 1094, 1095-96 (9th Cir.2009) (per cu-riam) (“Paulk is not entitled to a reduction because his sentence was not based on a sentencing range that has subsequently been lowered by the Sentencing Commission, 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2), but rather was based on the statutory mandatory minimum under 21 U.S.C. § 841.”) (internal quotation marks omitted).

Mercadel’s motion to stay proceedings is denied.

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.
Exhibit 12.1



PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Richard G. Whatley, certify that:

1.I have reviewed this annual report on Form 20-F/A1 of Alpha Gold Corporation;

2.Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

3.Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4.The registrant's other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rule 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for the registrant and have:

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.Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such internal control over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles;

c. 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

d. Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the period covered by the annual report that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant's internal control over financial reporting; and

5.The registrant's other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant's auditors and the Audit Committee of the registrant's Board of Directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

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

i



---

b.

Date: May 28, 2009

By:





ii
# C_2022198EN.01000201.xml

| 16.5.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 198/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.5.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 198/2

---

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 24 March 2022 — PJ v European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO), Erdmann & Rossi GmbH (C-529/18 P), PC v PJ, European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO), Erdmann & Rossi GmbH (C-531/18 P)

(Joined Cases C-529/18 P and C-531/18 P) (1)

(Appeal - Principles of EU law - Article 19 of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union - Representation of parties in direct actions before the Courts of the European Union - Lawyer representing the applicant as a third party - Requirement of independence - Lawyer working as an associate in a law firm - Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union)

(2022/C 198/02)

Language of the case: German

Parties

(Case C-529/18 P)

Appellant: PJ (represented by: J. Lipinsky and C. von Donat, Rechtsanwälte)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) (represented by: D. Botis and A. Söder, agents), Erdmann & Rossi GmbH (represented by: H. Kunz-Hallstein and R. Kunz-Hallstein, Rechtsanwälte)

(Case C-531/18 P)

Appellant: PC (represented by: J. Lipinsky and C. von Donat, Rechtsanwälte)

Other parties to the proceedings: PJ (represented by: J. Lipinsky and C. von Donat, Rechtsanwälte), European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) (represented by: D. Botis and A. Söder, agents), Erdmann & Rossi GmbH (represented by: H. Kunz-Hallstein and R. Kunz-Hallstein, Rechtsanwälte)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the appeals; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the appeals;

| 2. | Orders PJ to pay the costs incurred in Case C-529/18 P in both the present appeal and the proceedings before the General Court; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders PJ to pay the costs incurred in Case C-529/18 P in both the present appeal and the proceedings before the General Court;

| 3. | Orders PC is to pay the costs incurred in Case C-531/18 P in both the present appeal and the proceedings before the General Court. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders PC is to pay the costs incurred in Case C-531/18 P in both the present appeal and the proceedings before the General Court.

---

(1)  OJ C 103, 30.3.2020.

---
# C_2018042EN.01004401.xml

| 5.2.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 42/44 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.2.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 42/44

---

Action brought on 11 December 2017 — Stada Arzneimittel v EUIPO (Representation of two facing arches)

(Case T-804/17)

(2018/C 042/61)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Stada Arzneimittel AG (Bad Vilbel, Germany) (represented by: J.-C. Plate and R. Kaase)

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: European Union figurative mark — Application for registration No 15 625 437

Trade mark at issue:

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 20 September 2017 in Case R 1887/2016-1

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

—

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

---
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

The undersigned hereby certifies that, to the best of his knowledge, the Form 10-Q Quarterly Report of NGA HoldCo, LLC (the
Company) for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2009 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



|                        |  |     |  |                                                               
|----------------------- |  | --- |  | --------------------------------------------------------------
|Date: November 16, 2009 |  | By: |  | /S/ THOMAS R. REEG                                            
|                        |  |     |  | Thomas R. Reeg Operating Manager (Principal Executive Officer)
## IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TEXAS
NO. WR - 93,182 - 01
EX PARTE TYRONE DARNELL PRICE , App licant
ON APPLICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS CAUSE NO. C - 371 - W012016 - 1598910 - A IN THE 371 ST DISTRICT COURT FROM TARRANT COUNTY Y EARY , J., filed a dissenting opinio n in which K ELLER , P.J. joined . DISSENTING OPI NION Applicant’s attorney allowed him to plead guilty to two indictments on the same day for the offense of assault on a family member

— allegedly committed in the same way , on the same date , against the same victim

. Today the Court grants him relief on the only ground alleged in his post

- conviction application for writ of habeas corpus: a violation of his constitutional protection against being twice convicted of the same offense embodied in the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment. But the Court should not grant Applicant summary relief on this basis, for the reasons I have expressed in Ex parte Estrada , 487 S.W.3d 210, 212

– 15 (Tex. Crim. App. 2016) (Yeary, J., dissenting), and,PRICE

— 2 more recently, in Ex parte Timmons , 630 S.W.3d 98, 98

- 99 (Tex. Crim. App. 2021) (Yeary, J., dissenting). Applicant should have sought relief

— if he is entitled to any

— in the guis e of a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel , or even perhaps in the guise of a claim of prosecutorial misconduct

. If he had brough t either of those claims, the Court would then have inquired whether there might have been some understandable excuse fo r what otherwise appears to be a plain violation of the double jeopardy bar. But he has not brought either of those claims , even as an alternative claim, and so we have no basis to grant relief on for either of those reasons

. T he Court should file and set this writ application to finally articulate whether a double jeopardy claim made under circumstances such as those presented by th ese case s is even cognizable in post

- conviction habeas corpus proceeding, and if so, why

. Id

. At the very minimum, the Court should not grant relief on this bare double jeopardy claim without at least establishing a requirement, for this and similar cases, that a defendant pursuing such a claim should have to show that an apparent double jeopardy claim (such as this one in this case) was not just a part of some hard

- to
- understand (without more information) but nevertheless permissible plan or strategy. Because the Court instead grants summary relief, I respectfully dissent.

FILED : December 8, 2021 PUBLISH
UNITED STATES

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Washington, D.C. 20549



---

FORM 8-K

---



CURRENT REPORT



Pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934



Date of Report (Date of earliest event reported): December 11, 2006



---

MINN-DAK FARMERS COOPERATIVE

(Exact name of Registrant as specified in its charter)



North Dakota
        33-94644
        23-7222188(State or other jurisdiction
of incorporation)
        (Commission File Number)
        (I.R.S. Employer
Identification No.)




7525 Red River Road
Wahpeton, North Dakota
        
        58075(Address of principal executive offices)
        
        (Zip Code)






Registrants telephone number, including area code: (701) 642-8411



---

Check the appropriate box below if the Form 8-K filing is intended to simultaneously satisfy the filing obligation of the registrant under any of the following provisions:



oWritten communications pursuant to Rule 425 under the Securities Act (17 CFR 230.425)



oSoliciting material pursuant to Rule 14a-2 under the Exchange Act (17 CFR 240.14a-2)



oPre-commencement communications pursuant to Rule 14d-2(b) under the Exchange Act (17 CFR 240.14d-2(b))



oPre-commencement communications pursuant to Rule 13e-4(c) under the Exchange Act (17 CFR 240.13e-4(c))





---

Item 8.01
        OTHER EVENTS.




On November 28, 2006 the Company increased its
short-term line of credit that it has with its primay lender from $45 million to $70 million. The increased line of
credit, which will be in place from November 28, 2006 through May 31, 2007, was necessary to cover the Companys
cash flow requirements associated with the size of the 2006 sugarbeet crop. The Company does not anticipate difficulty in
servicing the larger line of credit with its lender.

---

SIGNATURE



Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, the registrant has duly caused this report to be signed on its behalf by the undersigned, thereunto duly
authorized.





MINN-DAK FARMERS COOPERATIVEDated:   December 11, 2006
        
        By
        /s/David H. RocheDavid H. Roche
President and Chief Executive Officer


---
Electronically Filed Intermediate Court of Appeals CAAP-12-0000903 28-MAY-2014 10:07 AM
Order entered February 10, 2020 

# S

In The 

## Court of Appeals

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05

- 20

- 00170

- CV

IN RE STEPHEN PERL A ND PM FACTORS, INC. D/B/A 1ST PMF BANCOR P

, Relators

Original Proceedings from the 193rd Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. DC

- 18

- 18862



### ORDER

Before Justices Bridges, Osborne, and Reichek

Opinion by Justice Osborne

Before the Court are relators’ February 10, 2020 petition for writ of mandamus and motion

for emergency r elief . Relators request that we stay the trial court’s January 28 th , 2020 order

compelling answers to certain interrogatories and responses to certain requests for production . We

GRANT the motion and until further order of this Court, stay relators’ obli gation to answer

Interrogatory Nos. 3, 6, and 8, or respond to Request for Production Nos. 3, 4, 5, and 15.

We further request that responde nt and real parties in interest file their responses, if any, to

relators’ petition for writ of mandamus by Februar y 24, 2020.2 /Leslie Osborne/

LESLIE OSBORNE

JUSTICE
HEDGE
Street

January 24, 2007

Ms. Eileen Donovan

Acting Secretary of the Commission
Commodity Futures Trading Commission
3 Lafayette Centre

1155 21* Street, N.W.

Washington D.C. 20581

RE: Certification: HedgeStreet is Changing Exchange Hours

Dear Acting Secretary Donovan:

Pursuant to Section 5c(c)(1) of the Commodity Exchange Act, as amended (the Act”) and
§40.6(a) of the regulations promulgated by the Commodity Futures Trading Commission
(the “Commission’”) under the Act, HedgeStreet, Inc. (““HedgeStreet”) hereby submits to
the Commission its intent change the hours in which the HedgeStreet exchange is open.
The exchange will be open from 8:00 a.m. - 4:00 p.m. Eastern Standard Time. HedgeStreet
Rule 5.11 will be amended to reflect this change in exchange hours.

No substantive opposing views were expressed to HedgeStreet with respect to this action.

This rule change will be implemented on Monday, January 29, 2007.

Should you have any questions regarding the above, please do not hesitate to contact me by
telephone at (650) 638-3511 or by email at stord@hedgestreet.com.

Sincerely,
Stephanie Ford
Vice President, Legal & Compliance

CC: _ Riva Adriance - Commodity Futures Trading Commission
Clarissa Manansala - HedgeStreet, Inc.

www.hedgestreet.com

1825 S, Grant Street
Suite 500

‘San Mateo, CA 94402
Tel: 650.638.3500
Fax: 650.638.3501


HEDGE
Street

RULE 5.11 | HOURS FOR TRADING HEDGELET CONTRACTS

The Market will be open for execution of your orders from 9:99 8.00 a.m. to
8:00 4:00 p.m. Eastern Standard Time Monday through Friday (each, a “Trade
Day”), with the exception of Market holidays, which will be announced on the
HedgeStreet website at least 30 calendar days in advance. You may access account
information and cancel any open orders while the Market is closed, but you may not
enter or modify orders unless the Market is open.

1825 S. Grant Street
Suite 500

San Mateo, CA 94402
Tel: 650.638.3500

www.hedgestreet.com Fax: 650.638.3501
# C_2020255EN.01000501.xml

| 3.8.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 255/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.8.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 255/5

---

Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 28 May 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Bucureşti — Romania) — World Comm Trading Gfz SRL v Agenţia Naţională de Administrare Fiscală (ANAF), Direcţia Generală Regională a Finanţelor Publice Ploieşti

(Case C-684/18) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Taxation - Value added tax (VAT) - Directive 2006/112/EC - Article 90 - Articles 184 to 186 - Principle of neutrality of VAT - Adjustment of the initial tax deduction - Discounts granted for intra-Community and internal supplies of good)

(2020/C 255/05)

Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Curtea de Apel Bucureşti

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: World Comm Trading Gfz SRL

Defendants: Agenţia Naţională de Administrare Fiscală (ANAF), Direcţia Generală Regională a Finanţelor Publice Ploieşti

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | Article 185 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax must be interpreted as meaning that the national tax authorities must require a taxable person to adjust the deduction of the value added tax initially made where, following the obtaining by that person of discounts on internal supplies of goods, those authorities consider that the deduction initially made was greater than that which that taxable person was entitled to make. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Article 185 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax must be interpreted as meaning that the national tax authorities must require a taxable person to adjust the deduction of the value added tax initially made where, following the obtaining by that person of discounts on internal supplies of goods, those authorities consider that the deduction initially made was greater than that which that taxable person was entitled to make.

| 2. | Article 185 of Directive 2006/112 must be interpreted as meaning that a adjustment of a deduction of value added tax (VAT) initially made is required in respect of a taxable person established in a Member State, even where that taxable person’s supplier has ceased his activities in that Member State and that supplier can therefore no longer claim repayment of part of the VAT he has paid. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Article 185 of Directive 2006/112 must be interpreted as meaning that a adjustment of a deduction of value added tax (VAT) initially made is required in respect of a taxable person established in a Member State, even where that taxable person’s supplier has ceased his activities in that Member State and that supplier can therefore no longer claim repayment of part of the VAT he has paid.

---

(1)  OJ C 44, 4.2.2019.

---
Exhibit 32.1
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, 
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO 
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2003
Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350 (as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2003), I, the undersigned Chief Executive Officer of Transport Corporation of America, Inc. (the Company), hereby certify that the Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the year ended December 31, 2004 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the SEC or its staff upon request. Date: March 3, 2005/s/ Michael J. PaxtonMichael J. PaxtonChairman, President and Chief Executive Officer


---