alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2005180EN.01000201.xml

| 22.7.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 180/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.7.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 180/2

---

List of members of the European Security Research Advisory Board (ESRAB), set up by Commission Decision 2005/516/EC (1)

1

(2005/C 180/02)

| Group 1:
  Security research demand requirement | Group 2:
  Technology supply chain requirements |
| --- | --- |
| Marek Adamczyk | Helmut Bachmayer |
| Christian Bréant | Rebecca Bowden |
| Antonio Cameli | Manuel Carpio Cámara |
| Fernando Carvalho Rodrigues | Giancarlo Grasso |
| Brian Cranmer | Rene Hannon |
| Maria Dali-Ziampaka | Markus Hellenthal |
| Bertrand de Cordoue | Páraig Hennessy |
| Thomas Engel | Heinz Hoch |
| Jean-Louis Gerstenmayer | Milan Holl |
| Jacek Gierlinski | Ülo Jaaksoo |
| Nicole Gnesotto | Henryk Jan Knapczyk |
| Frits Gronsveld | Graham Jordan |
| Jérôme Joly | Terry Knibb |
| Helmut Krünes | Stephan Lechner |
| Štefan Luby | Erik Löwenadler |
| Janez Mozina | Livio Marchesini |
| Tamas Rath | Gendrutis Mažylis |
| Stefan Silvestri | Manel Medina |
| Marino Simancas | Jacques Paccard |
| Jurgen Stock | Kristiina Rinkineva |
| Mark Stroud | Tim Robinson |
| Klaus Thoma | Carmen Rodriguez-Augustin |
| Frank Vanaverbeke | Madelene Sandström |
| Nuno Gonçalo Vieira Matias | John-Erik Stig Hansen |
| Alessandro Zanasi | Cees Van Duyvendijk |

Group 1:

Security research demand requirement

Group 2:

Technology supply chain requirements

Marek Adamczyk

Helmut Bachmayer

Christian Bréant

Rebecca Bowden

Antonio Cameli

Manuel Carpio Cámara

Fernando Carvalho Rodrigues

Giancarlo Grasso

Brian Cranmer

Rene Hannon

Maria Dali-Ziampaka

Markus Hellenthal

Bertrand de Cordoue

Páraig Hennessy

Thomas Engel

Heinz Hoch

Jean-Louis Gerstenmayer

Milan Holl

Jacek Gierlinski

Ülo Jaaksoo

Nicole Gnesotto

Henryk Jan Knapczyk

Frits Gronsveld

Graham Jordan

Jérôme Joly

Terry Knibb

Helmut Krünes

Stephan Lechner

Štefan Luby

Erik Löwenadler

Janez Mozina

Livio Marchesini

Tamas Rath

Gendrutis Mažylis

Stefan Silvestri

Manel Medina

Marino Simancas

Jacques Paccard

Jurgen Stock

Kristiina Rinkineva

Mark Stroud

Tim Robinson

Klaus Thoma

Carmen Rodriguez-Augustin

Frank Vanaverbeke

Madelene Sandström

Nuno Gonçalo Vieira Matias

John-Erik Stig Hansen

Alessandro Zanasi

Cees Van Duyvendijk

---

(1)  OJ L 191 of 22.7.2005, p. 71.

1

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

Christopher Bowen

Managing Director and Chief Regulatory Counsel

Legal Department

May 4, 2022

VIA ELECTRONIC PORTAL

Assistant Secretary of the Commission for

FOI, Privacy and Sunshine Acts Compliance

Commodity Futures Trading Commission

Three Lafayette Centre

1155 21st Street, N.W.

Washington, DC 20581

Re: FOIA Confidential Treatment Request 

To Whom It May Concern:

By electronic portal dated today, May 4, 2022, NEX SEF Limited (“NEX SEF”) submitted a supplemental 

rule certification filing (Submission No. 22-202s) to the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (“CFTC” 

or “Commission”) pursuant to Commission Regulation 40.6(a) to certify Revisions to NEX SEF Limited 

Form SEF Exhibits to Reflect Changes to the Board of Directors and Officer Composition and, 

Administrative Amendments NEX/CME Group integration and minor edits to the Compliance Manual

(collectively, the “Revisions”). This supplemental filing includes an Appendices A through E.

NEX SEF requests confidential treatment of Appendices A through E (“Confidential Information”), on the 

grounds that Appendices A through E contain confidential commercial information of the submitter (NEX 

SEF). NEX SEF requests that confidential treatment be maintained for Appendices A through E until 

further notice from NEX SEF. We also request that the Commission notify the undersigned immediately 

after receiving any FOIA request for said Appendices A through E or any other court order, subpoena, or 

summons for same. Finally, we request that we be notified in the event the Commission intends to 

disclose such Appendices A through E to Congress or to any other governmental agency or unit pursuant 

to Section 8 of the CEA. NEX SEF does not waive its notification rights under Section 8(f) of the CEA with 

respect to any subpoena or summons for such Appendices A through E.

Please contact the undersigned at (212) 299-2200 should you have any questions concerning this matter.

Sincerely,

/s/ Christopher Bowen

Managing Director and Chief Regulatory Counsel
No. 382.

#### Walter Gresham, Petitioner, *v.*Arabella D. Huntington et al., as Executors, etc.

November 16, 1908.

Petition for a . writ of certiorari to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied. *Mr. James B. Stubbs*and *Mr. T. D. Gresham*and *Mr. Walter Gresham*for petitioner. *Mr. R. S. Lovett, Mr. Maxwell Evarts*and *Mr. J. W. Terry*for respondents.
#### Moffat v. Griswold.

1. Promissory note. An endorser of a promissory note who waives notice of protest will be relieved from liability thereon, if the holder does not notify him within a reasonable time of its non-payment nor use due diligence to collect it of the maker.

This was an action brought in the District Court for Otoe county upon a promissory note of which the following is a copy:

“Kearney City, *Avgust*3, 1857.

“ Thirty days after date we, or either of us, promise to “pay Joseph Moffat, or order, one hundred and fifty dollars “in gold, with five per cent per month interest from date, ' for value received. “ C. W. PIERCE,

“JOHN CAMPBELL.

Endorsed as follows :

“Eor value received, I assign the within note to H. O. “Blackman. Protest waived July 2, 1859.

“JOSEPH MOEFAT,”

“H. H. HARDING.”

“H. C.'Blackman.”

The defendants, Harding and Moffat, answered, alleging that the plaintiff had not used due diligence in presenting the note to the makers for payment and-notifying them of non-payment, that when it became due, and for a long time afterwards, the makers were possessed of property out of which the amount could have been made, but at the time the endorsers were informed that the note had not been paid, the makers were insolvent. These facts appeared in evidence. Judgment was rendered for the amount due on the note, and Moffat brought the case here by petition in error.

*S. E. McOracJcen,*for plaintiff in error.

*J. M. Wootworth,*contra.

*416The court,

by Dundy, J.,

held that Moffat was relieved of liability on the note by reason of the neglect of the holder to notify him of its non-payment and to enforce it against the makers.

Judgment reversed.
Exhibit 99.1  CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO RULE 13a-14 OR
15d-14 OF THE
SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002  I, Randall K. Eresman,
certify that:  1.I
have reviewed this annual report on Form 40-F of EnCana 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 issuer as of, and for,
the periods presented in this report;  4.The
issuers other certifying officer 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)) for the issuer 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 issuer, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is
made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the
period in which this report is being prepared;  (b)Evaluated
the effectiveness of the issuers disclosure controls and procedures and
presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the
disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this
report based on such evaluation; and  (c)Disclosed
in this report any change in the issuer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 issuers
internal control over financial reporting; and  5.The
issuers other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most
recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the issuers
auditors and the audit committee of the issuers board of directors (or persons
performing the equivalent function):  (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 issuers ability to record, process, summarize and report
financial information; and


(b)Any
fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who
have a significant role in the issuers internal control over financial
reporting.   Dated: February 17, 2006/s/ Randall K. EresmanRandall K. EresmanPresident & Chief Executive Officer
  (Principal Executive Officer)
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.                  

###### Small Business Administration

          - [Declaration of Disaster #3315] 

In accordance with a notice received from the Federal Emergency Management Agency, dated January 8, 2001, the above-numbered Declaration is hereby amended to establish the incident period for this disaster as beginning on December 12, 2000 and continuing through January 8, 2001.

All other information remains the same, i.e., the deadline for filing applications for physical damage is February 27, 2001 and for economic injury the deadline is October 1, 2001. 

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 59002 and 59008.) 

Dated: January 10, 2001. 

Herbert L. Mitchell, 

Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance. 

[FR Doc. 01-1325 Filed 1-16-01; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 8025-01-P
# C_2020222EN.01000701.xml

| 6.7.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 222/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.7.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 222/7

---

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 19 March 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Sofiyski gradski sad — Bulgaria) — Komisia za protivodeystvie na koruptsiyata i za otnemane na nezakonno pridobitoto imushtestvo v BP, AB, PB, ‘Тrast B’ ООD, ‘Agro In 2001’ EOOD, ‘ACounT Service 2009’ EOOD, ‘Invest Management’ OOD, ‘Estate’ OOD, ‘Bromak’ OOD, ‘Bromak Finance’ EAD, ‘Viva Telekom Bulgaria’ EOOD, ‘Balgarska Telekomunikationna Kompania’ AD, ‘Hedge Investment Bulgaria’ AD, ‘Kemira’ OOD, ‘Dunarit’ AD, ‘Technologichen Zentar-Institut Po Mikroelektronika’ AD, ‘Еvrobild 2003’ EOOD, ‘Тechnotel Invest’ AD, ‘Ken Trade’ EAD, ‘Konsult Av’ EOOD, Louvrier Investments Company 33 SA, EFV International Financial Ventures Ltd, Interv Investment SARL, LIC Telecommunications SARL, V Telecom Investment SCA, V2 Investment SARL, Empreno Ventures Ltd

(Case C-234/18) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Judicial cooperation in criminal matters - Proceedings for the confiscation of illegally obtained assets in the absence of a criminal conviction - Directive 2014/42/EU - Scope - Framework Decision 2005/212/JHA)

(2020/C 222/06)

Language of the case: Bulgarian

Referring court

Sofiyski gradski sad

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Komisia za protivodeystvie na koruptsiyata i za otnemane na nezakonno pridobitoto imushtestvo

Defendants: BP, AB, PB, ‘Тrast B’ ООD, ‘Agro In 2001’ EOOD, ‘ACounT Service 2009’ EOOD, ‘Invest Management’ OOD, ‘Estate’ OOD, ‘Bromak’ OOD, ‘Bromak Finance’ EAD, ‘Viva Telekom Bulgaria’ EOOD, ‘Balgarska Telekomunikationna Kompania’ AD, ‘Hedge Investment Bulgaria’ AD, ‘Kemira’ OOD, ‘Dunarit’ AD, ‘Technologichen Zentar-Institut Po Mikroelektronika’ AD, ‘Еvrobild 2003’ EOOD, ‘Тechnotel Invest’ AD, ‘Ken Trade’ EAD, ‘Konsult Av’ EOOD, Louvrier Investments Company 33 SA, EFV International Financial Ventures Ltd, Interv Investment SARL, LIC Telecommunications SARL, V Telecom Investment SCA, V2 Investment SARL, Empreno Ventures Ltd

Other party to the proceedings: Corporate Commercial Bank, in liquidation

Operative part of the judgment

Council Framework Decision 2005/212/JHA, of 24 February 2005 on Confiscation of Crime-Related Proceeds, Instrumentalities and Property, must be interpreted as not precluding legislation of a Member State which provides that the confiscation of illegally obtained assets is ordered by a national court following proceedings which are not subject either to a finding of a criminal offence or, a fortiori, the conviction of the persons accused of committing such an offence.

---

(1)  OJ C 240, 9.7.2018.

---
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 on Form 10-Q/A of SinoHub, Inc. (the “Company”) for the quarter ending March 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), Henry T. Cochran, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to his 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.








Date: June 3, 2011
By:
/s/ Henry T. CochranHenry T. CochranChief Executive Officer
[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 103 (Tuesday, May 29, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Page 29099]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-13358]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. CP01-79-000]


ANR Pipeline Company; Notice of Site Visit

May 22, 2001.
    On May 30 and 31, 2001, the staff of the Office of Energy Projects 
(OEP) will conduct a pre-certification site visit of ANR Pipeline 
Company's (ANR) Badger Pipeline Project in Racine and Kenosha Counties, 
Wisconsin. The project area will be inspected by automobile and on 
foot, as appropriate. The site visit will start each day at 8:00 am at 
the lobby of the Country Inns & Suites at 7011 122nd Ave., Kenosha, 
Wisconsin. Representatives of ANR will accompany the OEP staff.
    All interested parties may attend. Those planning to attend must 
provide their own transportation. For additional information, contact 
the Commission's Office of External Affairs (202) 208-1088.

David P. Boergers,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 01-13358 Filed 5-25-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JOSE EDUARDO CRUZ RIOS, 

Petitioner, 

 v. 

MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney 

General, 

Respondent.

No. 15-73107 

Agency No. A206-912-132 

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted August 17, 2022**

Before: S.R. THOMAS, PAEZ, and LEE, Circuit Judges. 

Jose Eduardo Cruz Rios, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions pro se for 

review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an 

immigration judge’s decision denying his applications for asylum, withholding of 

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

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

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

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

FILED

AUG 22 2022

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 

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

agency’s factual findings. Conde Quevedo v. Barr, 947 F.3d 1238, 1241 (9th Cir. 

2020). We deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Cruz Rios 

failed to demonstrate a nexus between the harm he experienced or fears in Mexico 

and a protected ground. See Zetino v. Holder, 622 F.3d 1007, 1016 (9th Cir. 2010) 

(an applicant’s “desire to be free from harassment by criminals motivated by theft 

or random violence by gang members bears no nexus to a protected ground”). 

Thus, Cruz Rios’s asylum and withholding of removal claims fail.

Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of CAT protection 

because Cruz Rios failed to show it is more likely than not he would be tortured by 

or with the consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to Mexico. See 

Aden v. Holder, 589 F.3d 1040, 1047 (9th Cir. 2009).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
# C_2019305EN.01001501.xml

| 9.9.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 305/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.9.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 305/15

---

Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 4 July 2019 — FTI Touristik GmbH v European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO), Harald Prantner, Daniel Giersch

(Case C-99/18 P) (1)

(Appeal - EU trade mark - Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Opposition proceedings - Article 8(1)(b) - Application for registration of the figurative mark including the word element ‘Fl’ - Opposition by the proprietor of the figurative mark including the word element ‘fly.de’ - Rejection - Similarity between the signs - Name in normal script in the European Union Trade Marks Bulletin - Likelihood of confusion)

(2019/C 305/18)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Appellant: FTI Touristik GmbH (represented by: A. Parr, Rechtsanwältin)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) (represented by: D. Walicka and D. Botis, Agents), Harald Prantner, Daniel Giersch (represented by: S. Eble, Rechtsanwalt)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the appeal;

| 2. | Orders FTI Touristik GmbH to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the Office of the European Union for Intellectual Property (EUIPO); |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders FTI Touristik GmbH to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the Office of the European Union for Intellectual Property (EUIPO);

| 3. | Orders Mr Harald Prantner and Mr Daniel Giersch to bear their own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders Mr Harald Prantner and Mr Daniel Giersch to bear their own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 182, 28.5.2018.

---
#### Eugene JACKSON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. J.R. CARAWAY, Warden, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 13-6764.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Sept. 17, 2013.

Decided: Oct. 4, 2013.

*300Eugene Jackson, Appellant Pro Se. Joshua L. Kaul, Office of the United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.

Before DUNCAN and FLOYD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Eugene Ernst Jackson seeks to appeal: the district court’s orders: treating his motion for reconsideration as a successive 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp.2013) motion and dismissing it on that basis; and denying his motion for reconsideration. The district court’s orders are not appeal-able unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2006). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. *Slack v. McDaniel,*529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); *see Miller-El v. Cockrell,*537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. *Slack,*529 U.S. at 484-85, 120 S.Ct. 1595. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Jackson has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal.

Additionally, we construe Jackson’s notice of appeal and informal brief as an application to file a second or successive § 2255 motion. *See United States v. Winestock,*340 F.3d 200, 208 (4th Cir.2003). In order to obtain authorization to file a successive § 2255 motion, a prisoner must assert claims based on either: (1) newly discovered evidence, not previously discoverable by due diligence, that would be sufficient to establish by clear and convincing evidence that, but for constitutional error, no reasonable factfinder would have found the movant guilty of the offense; or (2) a new rule of constitutional law, previously unavailable, made retroactive by the Supreme Court to cases on collateral review. 28 U.S.C. § 2255(h) (West Supp. 2013). Jackson’s claims do not satisfy either of these criteria. Therefore, we deny authorization to file a successive § 2255 motion.

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*DISMISSED.*