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

[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 99 (Tuesday, May 22, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Page 28159]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-12780]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RP00-426-004]

Texas Gas Transmission Corporation; Notice of Negotiated Rate

May 16, 2001.
    Take notice that on May 11, 2001, Texas Gas Transmission 
Corporation (Texas Gas) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas 
Tariff, First Revised Volume No. 1, the following tariff sheet to 
become effective May 11, 2001.

First Revised Sheet No. 40

    Texas Gas states that the purpose of this filing is to reflect the 
new negotiated rate/non-conforming contract in its tariff as required 
Section 154.112(b) of the Commission's regulations and as directed by 
Commission Letter Order dated April 27, 2001.
    Texas Gas states that copies of the revised tariff sheet is being 
mailed to Texas Gas's jurisdictional customers and interested state 
commissions.
    Any person desiring to be heard or to protest said filing should 
file a motion to intervene or a protest with the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, in 
accordance with Sections 385.214 or 385.211 of the Commission's Rules 
and Regulations. All such motions or 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. Any person wishing to become a party must 
file a motion to intervene. 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. 01-12780 Filed 5-21-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
```
# C_2017144EN.01005001.xml

| 8.5.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 144/50 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.5.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 144/50

---

Action brought on 28 February 2017 — Scor v Commission

(Case T-135/17)

(2017/C 144/69)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Scor SE (Paris, France) (represented by: N. Baverez, N. Autet, M. Béas and G. Marson, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

| — | annul point ‘(i) an unlimited guarantee granted to the Caisse Centrale de Réassurance (CCR) for its business of reinsuring the risks of natural disasters in France’ of State aid Decision SA.37649 (2013/CP); SA.45860 (2016/PN); SA.45860 (2016/N) — France of 26 September 2016, C(2016) 5995 final; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul point ‘(i) an unlimited guarantee granted to the Caisse Centrale de Réassurance (CCR) for its business of reinsuring the risks of natural disasters in France’ of State aid Decision SA.37649 (2013/CP); SA.45860 (2016/PN); SA.45860 (2016/N) — France of 26 September 2016, C(2016) 5995 final;

| — | order the Commission to pay all of the costs, in accordance with Article 134 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission to pay all of the costs, in accordance with Article 134 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law, based on the contention that the contested decision rests on an incorrect legal basis for the purpose of assessing the compatibility of the guarantee granted to the Caisse Centrale de Réassurance. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, based on the contention that the contested decision rests on an incorrect legal basis for the purpose of assessing the compatibility of the guarantee granted to the Caisse Centrale de Réassurance.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging several failures to state reasons which vitiate the contested decision. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging several failures to state reasons which vitiate the contested decision.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 107(3)(c) TFEU. This plea is divided into two parts:






  — | first part, alleging errors of law relating to the application of the proportionality test; |
| --- | --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 107(3)(c) TFEU. This plea is divided into two parts:

—

first part, alleging errors of law relating to the application of the proportionality test;

| — | second part, alleging that the guarantee is disproportionate in nature. |
| --- | --- |

—

second part, alleging that the guarantee is disproportionate in nature.

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of the applicant’s procedural rights. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of the applicant’s procedural rights.

---
# C_2020161EN.01000601.xml

| 11.5.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 161/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.5.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 161/6

---

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 27 February 2020 — Constantin Film Produktion GmbH v European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

(Case C-240/18 P) (1)

(Appeal - EU trade mark - Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Article 7(1)(f) - Absolute ground for refusal - Mark contrary to accepted principles of morality - Word sign ‘Fack Ju Göhte’ - Rejection of the application for registration)

(2020/C 161/07)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Appellant: Constantin Film Produktion GmbH (represented by: E. Saarmann and P. Baronikians, Rechtsanwälte)

Other party to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) (represented by: D. Hanf, Agent)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Sets aside the judgment of the General Court of 24 January 2018, Constantin Film Produktion v EUIPO (Fack Ju Göhte) (T-69/17, not published, EU:T:2018:27); |
| --- | --- |

1.

Sets aside the judgment of the General Court of 24 January 2018, Constantin Film Produktion v EUIPO (Fack Ju Göhte) (T-69/17, not published, EU:T:2018:27);

| 2. | Annuls the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 1 December 2016 (Case R-2205/2015-5) relating to an application for registration of the word sign ‘Fack Ju Göhte’ as an EU trade mark; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Annuls the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 1 December 2016 (Case R-2205/2015-5) relating to an application for registration of the word sign ‘Fack Ju Göhte’ as an EU trade mark;

| 3. | Orders the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) to bear its own costs and pay those incurred by Constantin Film Produktion GmbH in relation both to the proceedings at first instance in Case T-69/17 and on appeal. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) to bear its own costs and pay those incurred by Constantin Film Produktion GmbH in relation both to the proceedings at first instance in Case T-69/17 and on appeal.

---

(1)  OJ C 249, 16.7.2018.

---
# CME

https://www.cmegroup.com/markets/equities/nasdaq/e-mini-nasdaq-100.contractSpecs.htmlhttps://www.cmegroup.com/markets/equities/russell/e-mini-russell-2000.contractSpecs.htmlhttps://www.cmegroup.com/markets/fx/g10/euro-fx.contractSpecs.htmlhttps://www.cmegroup.com/markets/equities/sp/e-mini-sandp500.contractSpecs.htmlhttps://www.cmegroup.com/markets/cryptocurrencies/bitcoin/bitcoin.contractSpecs.html

# CBOT

https://www.cmegroup.com/markets/equities/dow-jones/e-mini-dow.contractSpecs.html

# NYMEX

https://www.cmegroup.com/markets/energy/crude-oil/light-sweet-crude.contractSpecs.htmlhttps://www.cmegroup.com/markets/energy/natural-gas/natural-gas.contractSpecs.html

# COMEX

https://www.cmegroup.com/markets/metals/precious/gold.contractSpecs.htmlhttps://www.cmegroup.com/markets/metals/precious/silver.contractSpecs.htmlhttps://www.cmegroup.com/markets/metals/base/copper.contractSpecs.html
[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 96 (Thursday, May 17, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Page 27492]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-12483]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration


Evaluation of California Coastal Management Program; Change of 
Meeting Location

AGENCY: Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management, National Ocean 
Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), DOC.

ACTION: Notice of change of meeting location.

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

SUMMARY: On May 3, 2001, the NOAA Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource 
Management (OCRM) announced its intent to evaluate the performance of 
the California Coastal Management Program/California Coastal 
Commission. This Coastal Zone Management Program evaluation will be 
conducted pursuant to section 312 of the Coastal Zone Management Act of 
1972 (CZMA), as amended and regulations at 15 CFR Part 923.
    The site visit for this evaluation is June 5-13, 2001, and two 
public meetings are being held, June 6, and June 11, 2001, as part of 
the site visit.
    Notice is hereby given of a change of location of the second public 
meeting to be held June 11, 2001. The new public meeting location is: 
The Los Angeles Airport Marriott, Philadelphia Room, 5855 W. Century 
Blvd., Los Angeles, California 90045.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Douglas Brown, Acting Deputy Director, 
Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management, NOS/NOAA, 1305 East-
West Highway, Silver Spring, Maryland 20910, (301) 713-3155, Extension 
215.

    Dated: May 14, 2001.
Ted I. Lillestolen,
Deputy Assistant Administrator for Ocean Services and Coastal Zone 
Management.
[FR Doc. 01-12483 Filed 5-16-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-18-M
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 Gulfstream International Group, Inc.
(the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2010 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I,
David F. Hackett, Chief Executive Officer, 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 results of operations of the
Company.





A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to Gulfstream International Group, Inc. and will be retained by
Gulfstream International Group, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and
Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.





/s/  David F. HackettDavid F. HackettChief Executive Officer(Principal Executive Officer)





May 17, 2010
144 So. 584

#### MONTGOMERY, Superintendent of Banks, v. BOSTICK et al.

4 Div. 676.

Supreme Court of Alabama.

Nov. 25, 1932.

Halstead & Halstead, of Headland, for appellant.

T. M. Espy, of Dothan, for appellees.

ANDERSON, C. J.

The bill was filed by the appellant, as receiver or liquidating agent of the Abbeville State Bank, to foreclose a mortgage given by I. H. Bostick to said bank upon certáin personal property, including the crop to be grown by him for the year 1931. There was a decree in favor of the appellant as to all the property embraced in the mortgage, except as to the crop, and the appellant appeals because the decree did not include the crop.

The crop was grown on the land of one Armstrong, who rented the land to the mortgagor, I. H. Bostick. The Abbeville Bank closed about the 1st of April, 1931, and said mortgagor, claiming that he would not be able to cultivate the land, so reported to his landlord, Armstrong, who took the land back and rented it to Alphus Bostick, a grown son of the mortgagor, but had to or did waive his lien in favor of the government seed loan department in order that the said Alphus could *598borrow funds to enable him to cultivate the land. The sole question for our decision is, Was the crop made and owned by I. H. Bostick and subject to the appellant’s mortgage, or was it made and owned by Alphus Bostick?

 It is contended that this rearrangement between the father and son and the landlord was but a fraud and sham entered into for the purpose of defrauding the mortgagee. There are, of course, some suspicious circumstances connected with the transaction, and owing to the relationship of the parties, and the apparent unchange in the possession and occupancy of the premises, the burden is upon the respondents to show that the transaction was bona fide. As to this, we think the respondents have succeeded in doing by the evidence of the two Bosticks and Armstrong, and who are not seriously contradicted in any material respect. True, certain witnesses testify as to the unchanged possession and to seeing the father working on the farm, but this was explained to such an extent as to satisfy the trial court that the transaction was bona fide, and we are in accord with said conclusion, notwithstanding the evidence was not taken in the presence of the court, and no weight should therefore be accorded said conclusion: ,

The decree of the circuit court is affirmed.

Affirmed.

THOMAS, BROWN, and KNIGHT, JJ., concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<CIK>                         0001045942
<NAME>                        VOLU-SOL, INC.

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                    SEP-30-1998
<PERIOD-START>                       OCT-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                         JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                    21,318
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                             77,400
<ALLOWANCES>                             (2,188)
<INVENTORY>                              166,083
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                         262,613
<PP&E>                                   427,045
<DEPRECIATION>                         (300,684)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                           408,321
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                    163,639
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                            3,031,319
<COMMON>                                     270
<OTHER-SE>                           (2,786,907)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>             408,321
<SALES>                                  385,686
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                         385,686
<CGS>                                    258,170
<TOTAL-COSTS>                            258,170
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                         646,109
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                        27,766
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                0
<INCOME-TAX>                                 300
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                    (526,518)
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                        (100,165)
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                           (626,683)
<EPS-BASIC>                             (0.23)
<EPS-DILUTED>                             (0.23)



</TABLE>
(104 So. 916)

#### Paul L. COBLE et al. v. STATE.

(6 Div. 317.)

(Supreme Court, of Alabama.

May 28, 1925.)

Appeal from Circuit Court, Jefferson County; William M. Walker, Judge.

James J. Jackson, of Birmingham, for appellants.

William Vaughan, of Birmingham, for the State.

THOMAS, J.

Affirmed.
April 21, 2023

Re: Weekly Notification of Rule Amendments 

– Updates to Risk Parameters Established by 

ICC Pursuant to Section 5c(c)(1) of the 

Commodity Exchange Act and Commission 

Regulation 40.6(d)

VIA ELECTRONIC PORTAL

Mr. Christopher Kirkpatrick

Secretary

Commodity Futures Trading Commission

Three Lafayette Centre

1155 21st Street, NW

Washington, D.C. 20581

Dear Mr. Kirkpatrick:

ICE Clear Credit (“ICC”) hereby submits, pursuant to Section 5c(c)(1) of the Commodity Exchange Act and 

Commodity Futures Trading Commission (“Commission”) Regulation 40.6(d), a notification of changes to 

risk parameters established by ICC in consultation with the ICC Risk Committee, Trading Advisory Group 

and/or Risk Working Group. ICC is registered with the Commission as a derivatives clearing organization.

The purpose of this notification is to report any changes to the risk parameters established by ICC. During 

the week ending April 21, 2023, changes were made to the following parameters: 

• bid/offer widths for CDX and iTraxx credit indices risk factors

• concentration charge thresholds for index and single name risk factors

• Kendall Tau rank-order correlations for NA, EU, Asia/Pacific (“AP”), and Emerging Market (“EM”) 

risk factors

• MAD estimates (inclusive of EWMA) for NA, EU, AP, and EM risk factors

• left and right tail parameters for NA, EU, AP, and EM risk factors

ICC has posted a copy of this submission on its website concurrent with this filling. 

ICC would be pleased to respond to any questions the Commission or the staff may have regarding this 

submission. Please direct any questions or requests for information to the attention of the undersigned at 

olivia.bazor@ice.com or 904-855-5580.

Sincerely,

Olivia Bazor

Staff Attorney
EXHIBIT 31.2 Certification of 
Principal Executive Officer CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER PURSUANT TO 
SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 I, Lawrence Weisdorn, Secretary, Treasurer and Chief Financial Officer of Vision Industries Corp., a Florida corporation (the "Company"), certify that: 1.     I have reviewed this amended quarterly report on Form 10-Q of the Company; 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 Company as of, and for, the periods presented in this report; 4.     The Company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 Company 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)     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 c)     Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the Companys most recent fiscal quarter (the Companys fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant's internal control over financial reporting; and 5.     The Companys other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the Companys auditors and the audit committee of the Company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 Company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 Companys internal control over financial reporting. Date:  December 8, 2009  /S/ LAWRENCE WEISDORNLawrence Weisdorn
Principal Financial Officer
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 of Stream Global Services, Inc. (the Company) for the quarter ended
June 30, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the undersigned, R. Scott Murray, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certifies, pursuant to
Rule 13a-14(b) and 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 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 results of operations of the Company.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                      |  |                                                                              
|--------------------- |  | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
|Dated: August 5, 2010 |  | /s/ R. Scott Murray                                                          
|                      |  | R. Scott Murray                                                              
|                      |  | Chairman, Chief Executive Officer and President
(principal executive officer)
No. 488.

#### Komada & Co., Petitioner, *v.*The United States.

November 30, 1908.

Petition for a. writ of certiorari to the United States Circuit .Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit granted.' *Mr. John Mt Thurston, Mr. Thomas Fitch, Mr. J. J. Dunne*and *Mr. W. Wickham Smith*for petitioner. *The Attorney General, The Solicitor General*and *Mr. J. C. McReynolds*for respondent.
154 So. 920

#### Von L. THOMPSON v. STATE BAR.

6 Div. 78.

Supreme Court of Alabama.

April 17, 1934.

Von L. Thompson, of Birmingham, for appellant.

R. B. Evins and W. B. Harrison, both of Birmingham, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Appeal dismissed.