alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2017121EN.01003701.xml

| 18.4.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 121/37 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.4.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 121/37

---

Action brought on 7 February 2017 — PepsiCo v EUIPO — Intersnack Group (Exxtra Deep)

(Case T-82/17)

(2017/C 121/54)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: PepsiCo, Inc. (New York, New York, United States) (represented by: V. von Bomhard and J. Fuhrmann, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Intersnack Group GmbH & Co. KG (Düsseldorf, Germany)

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 trade mark at issue: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue:

Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘Exxtra Deep’ — EU trade mark No 12 161 981

Trade mark at issue:

Procedure before EUIPO: Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity

Procedure before EUIPO

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 24 November 2016 in Case R 482/2016-4

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;

| — | order EUIPO and the intervener to pay the costs of the applicant. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO and the intervener to pay the costs of the applicant.

Plea in law

Plea in law

| — | Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation No 207/2009. |
| --- | --- |

—

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

---
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: DW 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”), DW SEF LLC (“DW 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 DW 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, DW SEF hereby notifies the Commission that:

1. DW SEF certifies that it has posted the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) Swap 

Data Reporting (SDR) and public dissemination requirements Notice on DW SEF’s website and 

has provided this notification to the Commission;

2. DW SEF certifies that the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) Swap Data Reporting 

(SDR) and public dissemination requirements Notice complies with the DW 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 DW SEF by its governing board or committee members, members of DW 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 Shanmugham

DW SEF CCO
Mr. Christopher J. Kirkpatrick

Commodity Futures Trading Commission

November 22, 2022

2

Attachment A

Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) Swap Data Reporting (SDR) and

public dissemination requirements Notice
a6427692ex10_22.htm


Exhibit 10.22

















[COPYTELE, INC. LETTERHEAD]


 


 


September 9, 2010












Videocon Industries Limited


2nd Floor, Fort House, D.N. Road


Fort, Mumbai 400 001 (INDIA)




	Attention:	Venugopal N. Dhoot, Director
	 	Naveen Mandhana, Sr. Vice President







 


Dear Sirs:







With respect to the installments of the Technology Transfer Fee scheduled to be paid by February 16, 2009, November 16, 2009 and August 16, 2010, under the Amended and Restated Technology License Agreement between Videocon Industries Limited (“Videocon”) and CopyTele, Inc. (“CopyTele”), dated May 16, 2008 (the “License Agreement”), CopyTele hereby waives the February 16, 2009, November 16, 2009 and August 16, 2010 due dates for such installment payments on the condition (i) that Videocon make an additional payment of such installments of $300,000 no later than November 1, 2010, and (ii) that Videocon and CopyTele agree upon a mutually acceptable payment schedule for the balance of such installments prior to December 15, 2010.  Except as specifically set forth herein, all terms and conditions of the License Agreement shall remain unchanged and shall continue to be valid and binding upon the parties thereto.








	  	
Sincerely,

	 
	  	  	  	 
	  	
COPYTELE, INC.

	 
	  	  	  	 
	  	  	  	 
	  	
By:

	
/s/ Denis A. Krusos

	 
	  	  	
Denis A. Krusos

	 
	  	  	
Chairman and C.E.O.
# C_2018319EN.01002602.xml

| 10.9.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 319/26 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.9.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 319/26

---

Order of the General Court of 11 July 2018 — The Scotch Whisky Association v EUIPO — José Estévez (JOHN COR)

(Case T-469/17) (1)

(2018/C 319/32)

Language of the case: Spanish

The President of the First Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 309, 18.9.2017.

---
# C_2019399EN.01001301.xml

| 25.11.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 399/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.11.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 399/13

---

Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 19 September 2019 — Republic of Poland v European Commission

(Case C-358/18 P) (1)

(Appeal - EAGGF, EAGF and EAFRD - Expenditure excluded from EU financing - Expenditure incurred by the Republic of Poland - Producer group - Producer organisation)

(2019/C 399/14)

Language of the case: Polish

Parties

Appellant: Republic of Poland (represented by: B. Majczyna, acting as Agent)

Other party: European Commission (represented by: D. Tryantafyllou, M. Kaduczak and A. Stobiecka-Kuik, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | dismisses the appeal; |
| --- | --- |

1.

dismisses the appeal;

| 2. | orders the Republic of Poland to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

orders the Republic of Poland to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 276, 6.8.2018.

---
An LSEG Business

LCH | 10 Paternoster Square | London EC4M 7LS | T: +44 (0)20 7426 7000 | F: +44 (0)20 7426 7001 | lch.com

LCH Group Holdings Limited | LCH Limited | Banque Centrale de Compensation | LCH.Clearnet LLC

LCH Group Holdings Limited. Registered in England No. 4743602 Registered Office: 10 Paternoster Square, London, EC4M 7LS

CORPORATE

VIA EMAIL TO: FOIAsubmissions@CFTC.gov 

01 June 2023

Commodity Futures Trading Commission 

Attention: FOIA Compliance Office 1155 21st Street NW

Three Lafayette Centre

Washington, DC 20581

RE: FOIA Request for Confidential Treatment

Dear Sir/Madam,

In accordance with Commission Regulation 145.9(d), LCH Limited (“LCH”) respectfully requests 

confidential treatment under the Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”), 5 U.S.C. § 552, for Appendix I 

of the §40.6(a) rule filing submission submitted via the CFTC Portal on 1 June, 2023, titled 

“Confidential App I – LCH Margin Collateral Haircut Schedule” including any subsequent emails and 

replies between LCH and Commission staff (the “Information”) under §39.18(g)(1).

LCH is requesting confidential treatment for the Information pursuant to Commission Regulation 

145.9(d)(ii), which provides that confidential treatment may be requested on the grounds that 

disclosure would reveal trade secrets or confidential commercial or financial information. LCH further 

requests that the information receives confidential treatment in perpetuity. 

This request is not to be construed as a waiver of any other protection from disclosure or confidential 

treatment accorded by law, and LCH will rely on and invoke any such confidentiality protection. LCH 

requests notification from the Commission in advance of any disclosure of the Information pursuant 

to the FOIA or the Commission’s Rules of Practice so that this request for confidential treatment may 

be substantiated.

Yours sincerely,

Ebba Andersson

Senior Compliance Officer

LCH Limited
[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 100 (Wednesday, May 23, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Page 28548]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-13038]


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

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Antitrust Division


Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and 
Production Act of 1993--The SNP Consortium Ltd.

    Notice is hereby given that, on January 31, 2000 and April 14, 
2000, pursuant to Section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and 
Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. Sec. 4301 et seq. (``the Act''), The 
SNP Consortium (``TSC'') filed written notifications simultaneously 
with the Attorney General and the Federal Trade Commission disclosing 
changes in its membership status. The notifications were filed for the 
purpose of extending the Act's provisions limiting the recovery of 
antitrust plaintiffs to actual damages under specified circumstances.
    Specifically, International Business Machines Corporation, Armonk, 
NY; Motorola, Inc., Schaumburg, IL; and Amersham Pharmacia Biotech 
Inc., Piscataway, NJ have been added as parties to this venture. In 
addition, Hoechst Marion Roussel, Inc., Bridgewater, NJ, has been 
recognized and is now named Aventis Pharmaceuticals Inc.
    No other changes have been made in either the membership or planned 
activity of the group research project. Membership in this group 
research project remains open, and TSC intends to file additional 
written notification disclosing all changes in membership.
    On April 20, 1999, TSC filed its original notification pursuant to 
Section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of Justice published a notice 
in the Federal Register pursuant to Section 6(b) of the Act on October 
7, 1999 (64 FR 54645).

Constance K. Robinson,
Director of Operations, Antitrust Division.
[FR Doc. 01-13038 Filed 4-22-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-11-M
December 19, 2005

Ms. Jean A. Webb

Secretary

Commodity Futures Trading Commission

Three Lafayette Center

1155 21" Street, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20581
Reference File #2618.01
Rule Certification

Dear Ms. Webb:

Pursuant to Commission Regulation 40.6(a), the Chicago Board of Trade (CBOT®) hereby
submits the following:

- Discontinuance of trading authorization for contract months beyond March 2006
for CBOT 10 Year Municipal Note Index futures.

March 2006 is the only month with open interest in the above-referenced contract. The March
2006 contract will remain listed for trading until its normal expiration (last trading day March 22,
2006). Thereafter, the CBOT has no immediate intention to authorize trading in additional (new)
months for this contract.

There were no opposing views with respect to this action.

The CBOT certifies that this action complies with the Commodity Exchange Act and the rules
thereunder.

Sincerely,

Paul J. Draths
Vice President and Secretary

b121305
# C_2018392EN.01003001.xml

| 29.10.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 392/30 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.10.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 392/30

---

Order of the General Court of 19 July 2018 — Izba Gospodarcza Producentów i Operatorów Urządzeń Rozrywkowych v Commission

(Case T-750/17) (1)

((Access to documents - Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 - Request for access to the observations of the Commission and a detailed opinion of a Member State in the context of a notification procedure under Directive (EU) 2015/1535 - Refusal to grant access - Disclosure after commencement of the action - Action which has become devoid of purpose - No need to adjudicate))

(2018/C 392/37)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Izba Gospodarcza Producentów i Operatorów Urządzeń Rozrywkowych (Warsaw, Poland) (represented by: P. Hoffman, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: C. Ehrbar and M. Konstantinidis, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application pursuant to Article 263 TFEU seeking the annulment of European Commission Decision C(2017) 6020 final of 29 August 2017, rejecting the confirmatory application of the applicant for access to the Commission’s comments and the detailed opinion of the Republic of Malta issued in the framework of notification procedure 2016/398/PL, pursuant to Directive (EU) 2015/1535 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 September 2015 laying down a procedure for the provision of information in the field of technical regulations and of rules on Information Society services (OJ 2015 L 241, p. 1).

Operative part of the order

| 1. | There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the application. |
| --- | --- |

1.

There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the application.

| 2. | There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the Republic of Poland’s application for leave to intervene. |
| --- | --- |

2.

There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the Republic of Poland’s application for leave to intervene.

| 3. | Each party is to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Each party is to bear its own costs.

| 4. | The Republic of Poland is to bear its own costs relating to the application for leave to intervene. |
| --- | --- |

4.

The Republic of Poland is to bear its own costs relating to the application for leave to intervene.

---

(1)  OJ C 22, 22.1.2018.

---
# C_2019155EN.01001301.xml

| 6.5.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 155/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.5.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 155/13

---

Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 14 March 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Arbeidsrechtbank Antwerpen — Belgium) — Maria Vester v Rijksinstituut voor ziekte- en invaliditeitsverzekering

(Case C-134/18) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Social security systems - Invalidity benefits - Articles 45 and 48 TFEU - Freedom of movement for workers - Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 - Different benefit schemes in the Member States - ‘Primary period of incapacity to work’ - Duration - Benefits for incapacity for work - Disadvantages for migrant workers)

(2019/C 155/16)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Arbeidsrechtbank Antwerpen

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Maria Vester

Defendant: Rijksinstituut voor ziekte- en invaliditeitsverzekering

Operative part of the judgment

Articles 45 and 48 TFEU must be interpreted as precluding a situation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, in which a worker who is unfit to work for one year and who has been granted invalidity status by the competent institution of the Member State of his residence, without being entitled to receive invalidity benefits on the basis of the law of that Member State, is required by the competent institution of the Member State in which he completed all his insurance periods to complete an additional one-year period of incapacity to work in order to be granted invalidity status and receive pro-rata invalidity benefits, without receiving any benefits for incapacity to work during that period.

---

(1)  OJ C 182, 28.5.2018.

---
[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 101 (Thursday, May 24, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Page 28734]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-13135]


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

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 provision of 
the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35).
    Title and OMB Number: Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation 
Supplement (DFARS) Part 247, Transportation, and related Clauses at 
252.247; OMB Number 0704-0245.
    Type of Request: Extension.
    Number of Respondents: 60,270.
    Responses Per Respondent: 8.
    Annual Responses: 464,682.
    Average Burden Per Response: 20 minutes (average).
    Annual Burden Hours: 149,874.
    Needs and Uses: Department of Defense contracting officers use this 
information to verify that prospective contractors have adequate 
insurance prior to award of stevedoring contracts; to provide 
appropriate price adjustments to stevedoring contracts; and to assist 
the Maritime Administration in monitoring compliance with requirements 
for use of U.S.-flag vessels in accordance with the Cargo Preference 
Act of 1904 (10 U.S.C. 2631).
    Affected Public: Business or other for-profit; not-for-profit 
institutions.
    Frequency: On occasion.
    Respondent's Obligation: Required to obtain to retain benefits.
    OMB Desk Officer: Mr. David M. Pritzker.
    Written comments and recommendations on the proposed information 
collection should be sent to Mr. Pritzker 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: May 18, 2001.
Patricia L. Toppings,
Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
[FR Doc. 01-13135 Filed 5-23-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 5001-08-M
# C_2017424EN.01003702.xml

| 11.12.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 424/37 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.12.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 424/37

---

Action brought on 7 August 2017 — Ballesté Torralba and Others v SRB

(Case T-528/17)

(2017/C 424/54)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Parties

Applicants: María Ballesté Torralba (Alcarrás, Spain), David Lozano Jiménez (Alcarrás), María Carmen Estruch Martínez (Alcarrás) and Ramón Ribes Jové (Alcarrás) (represented by: E. Silva Pacheco, lawyer)

Applicants:

Defendant: Single Resolution Board

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the General Court should:

| — | Annul the decision of the Single Resolution Board of 7 June 2017, with effect ex tunc, thereby rendering it invalid and devoid of effects; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of the Single Resolution Board of 7 June 2017, with effect ex tunc, thereby rendering it invalid and devoid of effects;

| — | Order the payment of compensation in the sum of EUR 37 877 to applicants 1, in the sum of EUR 11 000 to applicants 2, and in the sum of EUR 1 309,14 to Ms María Ballesté Torralba. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the payment of compensation in the sum of EUR 37 877 to applicants 1, in the sum of EUR 11 000 to applicants 2, and in the sum of EUR 1 309,14 to Ms María Ballesté Torralba.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those put forward in Cases T-478/17, Mutualidad de la Abogacía and Hermandad Nacional de Arquitectos Superiores y Químicos v Single Resolution Board, T-481/17, Fundación Tatiana Pérez de Guzmán el Bueno and SFL v Single Resolution Board, T-482/17, Comercial Vascongada Recalde v Commission and Single Resolution Board, T-483/17, García Suárez and Others v Commission and Single Resolution Board, T-484/17, Fidesban and Others v Single Resolution Board, T-497/17, Sáchez del Valle and Calatrava Real State 2015 v Commission and Single Resolution Board, and T-498/17, Pablo Álvarez de Linera Granda v Commission and Single Resolution Board.

Mutualidad de la Abogacía and Hermandad Nacional de Arquitectos Superiores y Químicos

Single Resolution Board

Fundación Tatiana Pérez de Guzmán el Bueno and SFL

Single Resolution Board

Comercial Vascongada Recalde

Commission and Single Resolution Board

García Suárez and Others

Commission and Single Resolution Board

Fidesban and Others

Single Resolution Board

Sáchez del Valle and Calatrava Real State 2015

Commission and Single Resolution Board

Pablo Álvarez de Linera Granda

Commission and Single Resolution Board

---
### IN THE SUPREME COURT STATE OF NORTH DAKOT A

2021 ND 47

Joe Ramon Saucedo, Petitioner and Appellant

v. State of North Dakota, Respondent and Appellee

No. 20200265

Appeal from the District Court of Grand Forks County, Northeast Central Judicial District, the Honorable Donald Hager , Judge.

AFFIRMED

. Per Curiam.

Laura C. Ringsak, Bismarck, ND , for petitioner and appellant.

Carmell F. Mattison, Assistant State’s Attorney, Grand Forks, ND , for respondent and appellee.1 Saucedo v. State No. 20200265
Per Curiam

. [¶1] Joe Saucedo appealed from an order denying his second application for post

- conviction relief. Saucedo’s first application for post

- conviction relief alleged his trial counsel was ineffective. The district court denied his application, and we summarily affirmed. Saucedo v. State , 2018 ND 2, 905 N.W.2d 562.
[¶2] In his second application, Saucedo ar gued his post

- conviction counsel provided ineffective assistance. He also a rgued his trial attorney provided ineffective assistance because the attorney did not participate in or prepare for
a prese ntence investigation interview.
[¶3] On appeal, Saucedo argues the district court erred when it denied his second application. We summarily aff irm under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1( a)(7). Kalmio v. State , 2018 ND 182, ¶ 18, 915 N.W.2d 655 ( “[D] istrict courts are required to dismiss an applicant’s claims of ineffective assistance of post

conviction relief counsel in a Uniform Postconviction Procedure Act
pr oceeding. ” ); Jensen v. State , 2004 ND 200, ¶ 9, 688 N.W.2d 374 ( “ Post

conviction proceedings are not intended to allow defendants multiple opportunities to raise the same or similar issues, and defendants who inexcusably fail to raise all of their claims i n a single post

- conviction proceeding misuse the post

- conviction process by initiating a subsequent application raising issues that could have been raised in the earlier proceeding. ” )

. [¶4] Jon J. Jensen, C.J. Gerald W. VandeWalle Daniel J. Crothers Lisa Fair McEvers Jerod E. Tufte