alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 11 (Wednesday, January 17, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Page 4000]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-1317]


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

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Office of the Secretary


Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request

ACTION: Notice.

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

    The Department of Defense has submitted to OMB for clearance, the 
following proposal for collection of information under the provisions 
of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35).
    Title, Form, and OMB Number: Application for Department of Defense 
Common Access Card--DEERS Enrollment; DD Form 1172-2; OMB Number 0704-
0415.
    Type of Request: Extension.
    Number of Respondents: 300,000.
    Responses Per Respondent: 1.
    Annual Responses: 300,000.
    Average Burden Per Response: 20 minutes.
    Annual Burden Hours: 100,000.
    Needs and Uses: This information collection is needed to obtain the 
necessary data to establish eligibility for the DoD Common Access Card 
for those individuals not pre-enrolled in the DEERS, and to maintain a 
centralized database of eligible individuals. This information is used 
to establish eligibility for the DoD Common Access Card for individuals 
either employed by or associated with the Department of Defense; is 
used to control access to DoD facilities and systems; and it provides a 
source of data for demographic reports and mobilization dependent 
support.
    Affected Public: Individuals or Households.
    Frequency: On Occasion.
    Respondent's Obligation: Required to Obtain or Retain Benefits.
    OMB Desk Officer: Mr. Edward C. Springer. Written comments and 
recommendations of the proposed information collection should be sent 
to Mr. Springer at the Office of Management and Budget, Desk Officer 
for DoD, Room 10236, New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 
20503.
    DOD Clearance Officer: Mr. Robert Cushing. Written requests for 
copies of the information collection proposal should be sent to Mr. 
Cushing, WHS/DIOR, 1215 Jefferson Davis Highway, Suite 1204, Arlington, 
VA 22202-4302.

    Dated: January 10, 2001.
Patricia L. Toppings,
Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
[FR Doc. 01-1317 Filed 1-16-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 5001-10-M
144 So. 111

#### In re OPINIONS OF THE JUSTICES.

No. 20.

Supreme Court of Alabama.

Nov. 2, 1932.

*503Response of the Justices.

To the House of Representatives:

Replying to your House Resolution 166 inquiring as to the constitutionality of House Bill 449, which attempts to levy an occupation tax on the officers or employees therein mentioned, will say: Regardless of what our attitude or duty may be as a court in the event of a legal test of the question, or of any interest we may have in the outcome, we feel impelled to give you our individual opinion as to the information sought, since your resolution requesting same was adopted evidently with the knowledge that we are interested to a certain extent.

Section 150 of the Constitution expressly forbids the reduction of salaries of the judicial officers during their term.

Section 281 provides that the salary, fees, or compensation of any officer holding any civil office of profit under this state or any county or municipality thereof shall not be increased or diminished during the term for which he shall have been elected or appointed.

We may add that sections 68 and 118 also forbid the increase or decrease in the salary, fees, or compensation of certain officers.

It is manifest that any act expressly reducing the salary of the offices covered by the foregoing provisions would be plainly and palpably unconstitutional. So, the question is, Can these provisions be violated indirectly and evaded by clothing the reduction in the guise of an “occupation tax?” That which is forbidden directly cannot be done indirectly, and the law abhors evasions and subterfuges. The highest court of the land, in the case of Evans v. Gore, 253 U. S. 245, 40 S. Ct. 550, 64 L. Ed. 887, 11 A. L. R. 519, has held that a constitutional provision forbidding the diminution of an officer’s salary cannot be violated or ignored by the levy of a tax on or against said salary. We think that a careful reading of said ease should not only convince the legal, but the lay, mind as well, that the act in question is not only violative of sections 150 and 281, but other provisions of our Constitution.

Signed this the 2d day of November, 1932.

JNO. C. ANDERSON, Chief Justice.

LUCIEN D. GARDNER,

WILLIAM H. THOMAS,

VIRGIL BOULDIN,

JOEL B. BROWN,

ARTHUR B. FOSTER,

THOMAS E. KNIGHT, Associate Justices.
#### Kara MAUGHON, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Levi Blasdel, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. CARNIVAL CORPORATION, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 09-15890

Non-Argument Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.

May 30, 2013.

Susan Scrivani Lerner, Russo Appellate Firm P.A., David Bert Mishael, Miami, FL, D. Michael Campbell, Winter Haven, FL, Barbara Weiss Green, Coral Gables, FL, for Plaintiffs-Appellants.

Before HULL, JORDAN and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Since the filing of this appeal in 2009, the Supreme Court and our Court have touched on the precise issues raised in this appeal. Under our prior precedent rule, “we are bound to follow a prior binding precedent ‘unless and until it is overruled by this court en banc or by the Supreme Court.’” *United States v. Vega-Castillo,*540 F.3d 1235, 1236 (11th Cir.2008) (quoting *United States v. Brown,*342 F.3d 1245, 1246 (11th Cir.2003)); *see also id.*(“Even if the reasoning of an intervening high court decision is at odds with a prior appellate court decision, that does not provide the appellate court with a basis for departing from its prior decision.”).

We hold that we are bound by our decision in *Pendergast v. Sprint Nextel Co.,*691 F.3d 1224 (11th Cir.2012), to affirm the district court’s Order compelling arbitration. *See Vega-Castillo,*540 F.3d at 1236.

AFFIRMED.
Exhibit 32.1



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO



18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,



AS ADDED BY



SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with the Quarterly Report of United Refining Company (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended February 29, 2008, as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), I, John A. Catsimatidis, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as added by 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
| | -- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



To my knowledge:



| | 2. | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company as of and for the period covered
by the Report.
| | -- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                      |  |     |  |                          |  |                            
|--------------------- |  | --- |  | ------------------------ |  | ---------------------------
|                      |  |    
|Dated: April 14, 2008 |  | By: |  | /s/ John A. Catsimatidis
|                      |  |     |  |                          |  | John A. Catsimatidis       
|                      |  |     |  |                          |  | Principal Executive Officer
#### In re STANDING PANEL ON ADMISSION AND DISCIPLINE.

Misc.No. 7-06.

United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims.

Sept. 7, 2006.

Before GREENE, Chief Judge, and KASOLD, HAGEL, MOORMAN, LANCE, DAVIS, and SCHOELEN, Judges.

ORDER

GREENE, Chief Judge:

Rule 1(e) of the Court’s Rules of Admission and Practice (Rules) provides for referring cases under those Rules to a standing panel if the Court decides to establish such a panel on a rotating or permanent basis. The Standing Panel on Admission and Discipline (Standing Panel) was created on January 27, 2005, by Miscellaneous Order No. 01-05, to consider disciplinary cases coming before the Court. Pursuant to a December 23, 2004, Resolution of the Board of Judges, on August 1 of each succeeding year, the membership of the panel shall be redesignated so that “the senior judge of the Standing Panel will be replaced by the judge who is immediately junior to the junior judge then on the Standing Panel.”

Upon consideration of the foregoing, it is

ORDERED that, effective immediately, the Standing Panel will consist of Judges Kasold, Hagel, and Moorman.
# C_2017239EN.01006801.xml

| 24.7.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 239/68 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.7.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 239/68

---

Action brought on 31 May 2017 — Hotelbeds Spain v EUIPO — Guidigo Europe (Guidego what to do next)

(Case T-346/17)

(2017/C 239/78)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Hotelbeds Spain, SL (Palma de Mallorca, Spain) (represented by: L. Broschat García, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Guidigo Europe SARL (Paris, France)

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: EU figurative mark containing the words elements ‘Guidego what to do next’ — Application for registration No 12 944 898

Trade mark at issue:

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Procedure before EUIPO

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 21 March 2017 in Case R 449/2016-4

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;

| — | grant the European Union trade mark application No 12 944 898, in classes 39, 41 and 43. |
| --- | --- |

—

grant the European Union trade mark application No 12 944 898, in classes 39, 41 and 43.

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.

---
**Exhibit 31.2****CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER****Pursuant to Rule 13a-14(d)/15d-14(d)**I, Theodore L. Salter, certify that:(1) I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of Gateway Financial Holdings, Inc., a NorthCarolina corporation (the “registrant”);(2) Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report;(3) Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in thisreport;(4) The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:  (a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controlsand procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material informationrelating to the registrant, 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 internalcontrol over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to providereasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparationof financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generally acceptedaccounting principles;   (c) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and proceduresand presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosurecontrols and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on suchevaluation; and   (d) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter thathas materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting; and(5) The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and theaudit committee of the registrant’s board of directors:  (a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affectthe registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information;and   (b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees whohave a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.        Date: March 16, 2007 By:  */s/ Theodore L. Salter*    Theodore L. Salter    Senior Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
1

 

May 15, 2023

(Submitted via the CFTC Portal)

Assistant Secretary of the Commission

FOIA, Privacy and Sunshine Act Compliance

Commodity Futures Trading Commission

Three Lafayette Centre

1155 21st Street, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20851

RE: FOIA Request for Confidential Treatment

Dear Sir or Madam:

The Minneapolis Grain Exchange, LLC (“MGEX”) has submitted to the Commission a Rule Certification 

Submission pursuant to CFTC Regulation 40.6(a) for modifications to the SPIKES Customer Volume 

Incentive Program (hereinafter referred to as the “Confidential Submission” or “Program”). This Confidential 

Submission included as Exhibit A contains confidential commercial or financial information. MGEX 

respectfully requests that the Commission not release the Confidential Submission. 

MGEX specifically requests confidential treatment of the Confidential Submission pursuant to Commission 

Regulations 145.9 and 145.5. Under Commission Regulation 145.9, a submitter making this request “shall 

specify the grounds on which confidential treatment is being requested.” Confidential treatment is being 

sought on the basis that the Confidential Submission contains confidential commercial or financial 

information under Commission Regulation 145.9(d)(1)(ii). In addition, MGEX represents that the 

Confidential Submission is a nonpublic record pursuant to Commission Regulation 145.5. 

In accordance with Commission Regulation 145.9(d)(5), MGEX asks the Commission to afford confidential 

treatment to the Confidential Submission in perpetuity.

Should the Commission receive a Freedom of Information Request for the Confidential Submission, MGEX 

acknowledges that it will be notified of the request and then instructed to provide a detailed written 

justification for confidential treatment, per Commission Regulation 145.9(e)(1). 

If there are any questions regarding this request, please contact me at (612) 321-7128 or 

psparby@mgex.com.

Sincerely,

Peter D. Sparby

Vice President, Counsel

Enclosure
[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: 01-13361]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RP01-359-001]


Dominion Transmission, Inc.; Notice of Status Report and Request 
for Waiver

May 22, 2001.
    Take notice that on May 15, 2001, Dominion Transmission Inc. (DTI) 
tendered for filing a status report reconciling actual stranded costs 
and surcharge recoveries under DTI's Stranded Account No. 858 tracking 
mechanism for the annual period ending April 30, 2001.
    DTI states that the purpose of this filing is to comply with its 
commitment to file a report with the Commission to reconcile its 
surcharge collections and actual costs, as it agreed to do in its 
earlier March 30, 2001 filing. Further, DTI requests waiver of Section 
18.2 of its GT&C of its tariff, so that it can return excess 
collections of $177,306, with interest, in its next annual 
Transportation Cost Rate Adjustment (TCRA) filing to become effective 
November 1, 2001 rather than through the stranded cost tracking 
mechanism of its tariff.
    DTI states that copies of its letter of transmittal and enclosures 
are being mailed to its customers and to 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 on 
or before May 30, 2001. 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. 01-13361 Filed 5-25-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
Case 7:07-cv-05926-CS Document 16-3 Filed 06/30/2008 Page 1 of 10
Case 7:07-cv-05926-CS Document 16-3 Filed 06/30/2008 Page 2 of 10
Case 7:07-cv-05926-CS Document 16-3 Filed 06/30/2008 Page 3 of 10
Case 7:07-cv-05926-CS Document 16-3 Filed 06/30/2008 Page 4 of 10
Case 7:07-cv-05926-CS Document 16-3 Filed 06/30/2008 Page 5 of 10
Case 7:07-cv-05926-CS Document 16-3 Filed 06/30/2008 Page 6 of 10
Case 7:07-cv-05926-CS Document 16-3 Filed 06/30/2008 Page 7 of 10
Case 7:07-cv-05926-CS Document 16-3 Filed 06/30/2008 Page 8 of 10
Case 7:07-cv-05926-CS Document 16-3 Filed 06/30/2008 Page 9 of 10
Case 7:07-cv-05926-CS Document 16-3 Filed 06/30/2008 Page 10 of 10
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA No. DA 22
- 0147 IN THE MATTER OF: R.S., Respondent and Appellant. **ORDER** Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, and good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension of time to and including December 7, 2022, within which to prepare, file, and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by: Mike McGrath Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

October 27 2022

10/27/2022

Case Number: DA 22-0147
# C_2017112EN.01004502.xml

| 10.4.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 112/45 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.4.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 112/45

---

Action brought on 13 February 2017 — King.com v EUIPO — TeamLava (Animated icons)

(Case T-96/17)

(2017/C 112/63)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: King.com Ltd (St. Julians, Malta) (represented by: M. Hawkins, Solicitor and T. Dolde, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: TeamLava LLC (Redwood Suite, California, United States)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal:

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietor of the design at issue: Applicant

Proprietor of the design at issue:

Design at issue: Community design No 2216416-0049

Design at issue:

Contested decision: Decision of the Third Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 1/12/2016 in Case R 1948/2015-3

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 and the other party, should it intervene, to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO and the other party, should it intervene, to pay the costs.

Plea in law

Plea in law

| — | Infringement of Article 25(1)(b) in conjunction with Articles 5, 6 and 7 of Regulation No 6/2002. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 25(1)(b) in conjunction with Articles 5, 6 and 7 of Regulation No 6/2002.

---
*1177 Avenue of Americas*

*New York, New York 10036*

Mr. Christopher J. Kirkpatrick

Commodity Futures Trading Commission

November 22, 2022	

November 22, 2022

***Submitted via CFTC Portal***

Mr. Christopher J. Kirkpatrick

Office of the Secretariat

Commodity Futures Trading Commission

Three Lafayette Centre

1155 21st Street, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20581

Re: 	TW SEF LLC – Notice to Participants

Dear Mr. Kirkpatrick:

Pursuant to Section 5c(c) of the Commodity Exchange Act (the “Act”) and Section 40.6(a) of the regulations of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (the “Commission”), Tradeweb SEF LLC (“TW SEF”) hereby notifies the Commission that it is self-certifying a Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) Swap Data Reporting (SDR) and public dissemination requirements Notice to All Participants of TW SEF LLC: SDR Reporting  (the “Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) Swap Data Reporting (SDR) and public dissemination requirements Notice”). The Notice will become effective on December 7, 2022, no fewer than ten business days from the date hereof.

In connection with its submission, TW SEF hereby notifies the Commission that:

1. TW SEF certifies that it has posted the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) Swap Data Reporting (SDR) and public dissemination requirements Notice on TW SEF’s website and has provided this notification to the Commission;

2. TW SEF certifies that the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) Swap Data Reporting (SDR) and public dissemination requirements Notice complies with the TW SEF Rulebook, the Act and the Commission’s regulations; and

3. No substantive opposing views with respect to the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) Swap Data Reporting (SDR) and public dissemination requirements Notice were expressed to TW SEF by its governing board or committee members, members of TW SEF or market participants

Should you have questions regarding this submission, please contact the undersigned at (646) 767-4923 or by email at Devi.Shanmugham@tradeweb.com. 

Very truly yours,

Devi ShanmughamTW SEF CCO

**Attachment A**

Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) Swap Data Reporting (SDR) and public dissemination requirements Notice

2

# image1.png

# image2.emf