alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
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 Labor

###### Employment and Training Administration

          - [TA-W-38,405]

Pursuant to 29 CFR 90.18(C) an application for administrative reconsideration was filed with the Director of the Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance for workers at Cabot Performance Materials, Boyertown, Pennsylvania. The application contained no new substantial information which would bear importantly on the Department's determination. Therefore, dismissal of the application was issued.

TA-W-38,405; Cabot Performance Materials, Boyertown, Pennsylvania (May 2, 2001)

Signed at Washington, D.C. this 3rd day of May, 2001.

Edward A. Tomchick,

Director, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.

[FR Doc. 01-13005  Filed 5-22-01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4510-30-M
# C_2017078EN.01003901.xml

| 13.3.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 78/39 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.3.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 78/39

---

Action brought on 26 January 2017 — TDH Group v EUIPO — Comercial de Servicios Agrigan (Pet Cuisine)

(Case T-46/17)

(2017/C 078/54)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: TDH Group (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: D. Chen, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Comercial de Servicios Agrigan, SA (Huesca, Spain)

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: International registration designating the European Union No 1 203 373 in respect of figurative mark containing the word elements ‘Pet Cuisine’

Trade mark at issue:

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Procedure before EUIPO

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 10 November 2016 in Case R 685/2016-2

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.

---
N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT C ARLOS C ASTR O -R

AM IREZ, Pe titione r, v. ER IC H. HOLDER , Jr., Attorne y Ge ne ra l, R

e sponde n t . No. 09-70017 Age n c y No. A074-149-446 M EM O R ANDUM *

On Pe tition for Re vie w of a n Orde r of the B oa rd of Im m igration Appe a ls Subm itte d Ja

nua ry 21, 2015 ** B e fore : C ANB Y, GOULD, a n d N.R . SM ITH, C irc uit Judge s. C arlos C a stro-R am i re z , a native and c itiz e n

of Guate m a la , pe titions pro se for re vie w of the B o a

rd of Im m igration Appe a ls’ orde r dism issing his a ppe a l from an im m igration judge ’ s de c ision de ny ing his motion to re ope n de porta tion proc e e dings c onduc te d in a bse ntia . W e have jurisdic tion unde r 8 U.S.C . § 1252.



# FIL ED JAN 29 2015 M OLLY C. DW Y E R, CLERK U. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3. ** The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without oral a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).W e re vie wfor a buse of disc re tion the de n i a l of a m otion to re ope n. Arrie ta v . IN S , 117 F.3d 429, 430 (9th C ir. 1997) (pe r c uriam ). W e de ny the pe tition for re vie w. The a ge n c y

did not a b u se its disc re tion in de ny ing C a s tro-R am ire z ’ s m otion to re ope n on the ground tha t notic e wa s prope r and C a s tro-R a m ire z fa ile d to re but the s trong pre sum

ption of e ffe c tive se rvic e arising from the se rvic e of his he aring notic e by c e rtifie d m a il. Se eid. at 431; Matte r of Grijalv a , 21 I. & N. De c . 27, 37 (B IA 1995). The a ge n c y

a l so did not a

buse its disc re t ion in de ny ing a s untim e ly C a stroR am i re z ’ s m otion to re ope n to a pply for a djustm e nt of sta

tus, whe re he wa s re quire d to file tha

t m otion by Se pte m

be r 30, 1996, but file d it m o re tha n 10 y e ars late r. S e e 8 C .F.R . § 1003.23(b)(1) (a m otion to re ope n de porta tion or e x c lusion proc e e dings m

ust be file d

no la te r tha n 90 da y s a fte r a fina l orde r or on or be fore Se pte m be r 30, 1996, whic he ve r is la te r); Matte r of M-S- , 22 I. & N. De c . 349, 356- 57 (B IA 1998) (a

m otion to re ope n a

n in a bse ntia orde r to a

pply for a djustm e nt of sta tus is subje c t to re quire m e nts of 8 C .F.R . § 1003.23(b)(1)). C a stro-R am ire z ’ s re m a ining c onte ntions a re una va iling. This dism issa l is without pre

judic e to pe titione r’ s se e king prose c utoria l disc re tion or de fe rre d a c t ion from the De pa rtm e nt of Hom e l and Se c urity . Se e Re no v . Ame ric an-Arab Anti-Discrimination C ommitte e (AADC

) , 525 U.S. 471,

0 9 - 7 0 0 1 7 2483-85 (1999) (sta ting tha t prose c utoria l disc re tion by the a ge nc y

c an be grante d at any sta ge , inc luding a fte r the c onc lusion of judic ia l re vie w). PE T IT IO N FO R RE V IE WDE NIE D.

0 9 - 7 0 0 1 7 3
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

 March 28, 2014

p0324

Order 

Clerk

March 28, 2014

148067

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 148067

COA: 314109

Saginaw CC: 11-036750-FC

SENARCHI DEVONTE BUFORD,

Defendant-Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the September 26, 2013 

order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the question presented should be reviewed by this Court.
```

[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 100 (Wednesday, May 23, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Page 28452]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-12957]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RP01-417-000]

Eastern Shore Natural Gas Co.; Notice of Proposed Changes in FERC 
Gas Tariff

May 17, 2001.
    Take notice that on May 14, 2001, Eastern Shore Natural Gas Company 
(ESNG) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff, Second 
Revised Volume No. 1, certain revised tariff sheets in the above 
captioned docket, bear a proposed effective date of May 1, 2001.
    ESNG states that the purpose of this instant filing is to track 
rate changes attributable to storage services purchased from 
Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Corporation (Transco) under its Rate 
Schedules GSS and LSS. The costs of the above referenced storage 
services comprise the rates and charges payable under ESNG's respective 
Rate Schedules GSS and LSS. This tracking filing is being made pursuant 
to Section 3 of ESNG's Rate Schedules GSS and LSS.
    ESNG states that copies of the filing have been served upon its 
jurisdictional customers and interested State Commissions.
    Any person desiring to protest said filing should file a protest 
with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., 
Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with section 385.211 of the 
Commission's Rules and Regulations. All such protests must be filed in 
accordance with section 154.210 of the Commission's Regulations. 
Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the 
appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants 
parties to the proceedings. Copies of this filing are on file with the 
Commission and are available for public inspection in the Public 
Reference Room. This filing may be viewed on the web 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 on the Commission's web site at 
http://www.ferc.fed.us/efi/doorbell.htm.

David P. Boergers,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 01-12957 Filed 5-22-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
```
143 So. 924

#### MONROE COUNTY BANK v. J. L. SMITH et al.

1 Div. 693.

Supreme Court of Alabama.

Oct. 6, 1932.

See, also, 223 Ala. 53,134 So. 797.

PER CURIAM.

Appeal dismissed by appellant.
**Exhibit
        32.2**
 **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 International Vineyard, Inc. a Delaware
        corporation (the “Company”) on Form 10-QSB for the period ending September 30,
        2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
        (the “Report”), Robert DeMate, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certifies
        to the best of his knowledge, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted
        pursuant to § 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.
 
 A
        signed
        original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided
        to
        International Vineyard, Inc., and will be retained by International Vineyard,
        Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff
        upon
        request.
  /s/
                    Robert DeMateRobert
                    DeMateChief
                    Financial OfficerNovember
                    7, 2007
SUBMISSION COVER SHEET

IMPORTANT: Check box if Confidential Treatment is requested

Registered Entity Identifier Code (optional): 23-163

Organization: Chicago Mercantile Exchange Inc. ("CME")

Filing as a: DCM SEF DCO SDR 

Please note - only ONE choice allowed.

Filing Date (mm/dd/yy): 04/03/23 Filing Description: Weekly Notification of Rule 

Amendments - Week of March 27, 2023

SPECIFY FILING TYPE 

Please note only ONE choice allowed per Submission.

Organization Rules and Rule Amendments

Certification § 40.6(a)

Approval § 40.5(a)

Notification § 40.6(d)

Advance Notice of SIDCO Rule Change § 40.10(a)

SIDCO Emergency Rule Change § 40.10(h)

Rule Numbers: N/A

New Product Please note only ONE product per Submission.

Certification § 40.2(a) 

Certification Security Futures § 41.23(a)

Certification Swap Class § 40.2(d)

Approval § 40.3(a)

Approval Security Futures § 41.23(b)

Novel Derivative Product Notification § 40.12(a)

Swap Submission § 39.5

Official Product Name:

Product Terms and Conditions (product related Rules and Rule Amendments)

Certification § 40.6(a) 

Certification Made Available to Trade Determination § 40.6(a)

Certification Security Futures § 41.24(a)

Delisting (No Open Interest) § 40.6(a) 

Approval § 40.5(a)

Approval Made Available to Trade Determination § 40.5(a)

Approval Security Futures § 41.24(c)

Approval Amendments to enumerated agricultural products § 40.4(a), § 40.5(a)

“Non-Material Agricultural Rule Change” § 40.4(b)(5)

Notification § 40.6(d)

 Official Name(s) of Product(s) Affected: 

Rule Numbers: 
300 Vesey Street New York, NY 10282 T 212 299 2200 F 212 301 4645 christopher.bowen@cmegroup.com cmegroup.com

1

Christopher Bowen 

Managing Director and Chief Regulatory Counsel

Legal Department

April 3, 2023

VIA ELECTRONIC PORTAL

Christopher J. Kirkpatrick

Office of the Secretariat

Commodity Futures Trading Commission

Three Lafayette Centre

1155 21st Street, N.W.

Washington, DC 20581

RE: Weekly Notification of Rule Amendments

CME Clearing Submission No. 23-163

Dear Mr. Kirkpatrick:

Pursuant to Commission Regulation 40.6(d), the clearing house division of Chicago Mercantile Exchange Inc. (“CME 

Clearing”) submits this Weekly Notification of the following rule amendments issued during the week of March 27, 2023: 

• Clearing House Advisory Notice 23-106 (March 29, 2023), Dress Rehearsal 4 for LIBOR to SOFR 

Conversion of USD Interest Rate Swaps - Effective March 29, 2023

• Clearing House Advisory Notice 23-108 (March 30, 2023), Performance Bond Requirements: Energy & 

Metals Margins - Effective March 31, 2023

• Clearing House Advisory Notice 23-109 (March 30, 2023), Performance Bond Requirements - Energy 

Margin - Effective March 31, 2023

Copies of the above-referenced materials are available at www.cmegroup.com. If you require any additional 

information, please e-mail CMEGSubmissionInquiry@cmegroup.com or contact the undersigned at (212) 299-2200.

Sincerely,

/s/ Christopher Bowen

Managing Director and Chief Regulatory Counsel
Cash Management Fee Advisory

Please be advised that beginning January 1st, 2021, Nodal Clear will collect from Clearing

Members a cash management fee on all cash deposits used to meet House and Customer

Initial Margin as well as Guaranty Fund deposits to defray the costs of managing and 

securing those funds. The cash management fee will be collected on a monthly basis at an 

annualized rate of 15 basis points (0.15%) applied to the combined daily House Initial

Margin, Customer Initial Margin, and Guaranty Fund cash deposit balances. The cash 

management fee will be included in the Monthly Invoice Report. 

Daily amounts are calculated as follows: 

Daily Amount = (Sum of daily end-of-day Clearing Member House Initial Margin, Customer

Initial Margin, and Guaranty Fund cash contributions) * (annual rate/360) 

Please be advised that beginning August 1, 2022, the cash management fee on House and 

Customer Initial Margin will be waived if the average Secured Overnight Financing Rate for 

the respective calendar month is at or above 50 basis points (0.50%).

The Monthly Invoice Report will be slightly reorganized to segregate Exchange and 

Clearing Fees from Treasury and Custody fees, where the cash management fee will be 

itemized by account type (House Initial Margin, Customer Initial Margin, and Guaranty 

Fund). In addition to the Monthly Invoice Report PDF, a detailed CSV file will be generated 

at month-end and made available on the Nodal Platform. The detailed CSV file will include

the: 1) daily end-of-day cash balances, 2) annual rate, and 3) daily accrued charges.
# EUR-Lex - 52005AP0293 - EN

Important legal notice

*|*

# 52005AP0293

**Proposal for a Council decision on the conclusion, on behalf of the European Community, of the Agreement between the European Union, the European Community and the Swiss Confederation concerning the latter's association with the implementation, application and development of the Schengen acquis (13054/2004 - COM(2004)0593 - C6-0241/2004 - 2004/0199(CNS)) **

*
Official Journal 157 E , 06/07/2006 P. 0464 - 0464 *

P6_TA(2005)0293

EU — EC-Switzerland Agreement (Schengen) *

Proposal for a Council decision on the conclusion, on behalf of the European Community, of the Agreement between the European Union, the European Community and the Swiss Confederation concerning the latter's association with the implementation, application and development of the Schengen "acquis" (13054/2004 — COM(2004)0593 — C6-0241/2004 — 2004/0199(CNS))

(Consultation procedure)

The proposal was amended as follows [1]:

TEXT PROPOSED BY THE COMMISSION | AMENDMENTS BY PARLIAMENT |

Amendment 3

Citation 1

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community, and in particular Articles 62, 63(3), 66 and 95 in conjunction with the second sentence of the first subparagraph of Article 300(2) and the first subparagraph of Article 300(3) thereof, | Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community, and in particular Articles 62, 63(3), 66 and 95 in conjunction with the second sentence of the first subparagraph of Article 300(2) and the second subparagraph of Article 300(3) thereof, |

Amendment 4

Citation 3

Having regard the opinion of the European Parliament, | Having regard to the assent of the European Parliament, |

[1] The matter was then referred back to committee pursuant to Rule 53(2) (A6-0201/2005).

--------------------------------------------------
Case 1:07-cv-05867-PAC Document 2 Filed 06/20/2007 Page 1 of 2
Case 1:07-cv-05867-PAC Document 2 Filed 06/20/2007 Page 2 of 2
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision **

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

IRENE MELENDEZ,

 Petitioner,

 v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 08-73913

Agency No. A098-964-718

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted June 15, 2011** 

Before: CANBY, O’SCANNLAIN, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.

Irene Melendez, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions for review of

the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing her appeal from an

immigration judge’s decision denying her application for asylum, withholding of

removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have

FILED

JUN 21 2011

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 08-73913

jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence factual

findings, Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1184-85 (9th Cir. 2006), and we

review de novo due process claims, Vasquez-Zavala v. Ashcroft, 324 F.3d 1105,

1107 (9th Cir. 2003). We deny the petition for review. 

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s finding that Melendez failed to

establish she suffered past persecution or has a well-founded fear of future

persecution on account of a protected ground. See Molina-Morales v. INS, 237

F.3d 1048, 1052 (9th Cir. 2001); see also Parussimova v. Mukasey, 555 F.3d 734,

740-41 (9th Cir. 2009) (“[t]he Real ID Act requires that a protected ground

represent ‘one central reason’ for an asylum applicant’s persecution”). We decline

to consider whether Melendez’s family constitutes a particular social group

because Melendez did not present that distinct argument to the BIA. See Barron v.

Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir. 2004). Accordingly, Melendez’s asylum and

withholding of removal claims fail.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because

Melendez failed to establish it is more likely than not that she will be tortured if

returned to El Salvador. See Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049, 1067-68 (9th Cir.

2009). 
3 08-73913

Finally, Melendez’s contention that she was denied due process because the

BIA failed to provide a reasoned explanation for its decision is belied by the

record. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000) (petitioner must

show error and prejudice to establish a due process violation). 

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
# C_2019044EN.01006401.xml

| 4.2.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 44/64 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.2.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 44/64

---

Order of the General Court of 14 November 2018 — Spinoit v Commission and Others

(Case T-711/17) (1)

((Action for annulment and damages - Measure adopted by the Head of Section of the Delegation of the European Union to Algeria in the context of a public service contract - Decision requesting the replacement of the applicant as an expert - Termination of the agreement between the contracting company and the applicant further to that decision - No capacity as a defendant - Act not open to challenge - No sufficiently serious breach of a rule of law conferring rights on individuals - Causal link - Action manifestly inadmissible in part and manifestly lacking any foundation in law in part))

(2019/C 44/83)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Bernard Spinoit (Charleroi, Belgium) (represented by: H. Hansen, lawyer)

Defendants: European Commission (represented by: A. Aresu, Agent), European External Action Service (represented by: S. Marquardt and R. Spac, Agents), Delegation of the European Union to Algeria

Re:

Action, first, under Article 263 TFEU for annulment of the letter of 3 August 2017 requesting the replacement of the applicant as an expert in the context of a public services contract and, second, under Article 268 TFEU for compensation for the harm that the applicant claims to have suffered further to that decision.

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The action is dismissed. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The action is dismissed.

| 2. | Mr Bernard Spinoit shall pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Mr Bernard Spinoit shall pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 13, 15.1.2018.

---