alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT
32.2





CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO


18
U.S.C. SECTION 1350


AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





The
undersigned, Shmaya Glick,
Treasurer, Secretary and Director of Watchtower, Inc. (the “Company”),
certifies, under the standards set forth and solely for the purposes of 18
U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that, to his knowledge, the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company
for the quarter ended March 31, 2009 fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and information
contained in that Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the Company.








Date: May
14, 2009





By.
            /s/
      Shmaya
      GlickName:
            Shmaya
  GlickTitle:
            Treasurer,
      Secretary and Director
              (Principal
      Financial & Accounting Officer)








A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to
the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities
and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
Christopher Bowen

Managing Director & Chief Regulatory Counsel 

Legal Department

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

June 14, 2023

VIA ELECTRONIC PORTAL

CFTC FOIA Compliance Office

CommodityFuturesTradingCommission

Three Lafayette Centre

1155 21st Street, N.W

Washington, D.C. 20581

Re: CFTC Regulation 40.10(a) Advance Notice. Chicago Mercantile Exchange Inc.’s Notification to the 

Commission Regarding the Migration of Clearing and Settlement Systems to the Google Cloud 

Platform. 

ConfidentialTreatment Request – Supporting Exhibits A through Y.

CME Submission No. 23-233S.

To Whom it May Concern:

On June 14, 2023, Chicago Mercantile Exchange Inc. (“CME” or “CME Clearing”) submitted advance 

notice that CME will migrate the systems supporting its clearing and settlement functions to a cloud-based 

infrastructure hosted on the Google Cloud Platform (“GCP”) to the Commodity Futures Trading

Commission (“CFTC” or “Commission”) via the CFTC Electronic Portal pursuant to CFTC Regulaton

40.10(a). The submission consisted of the submission cover sheet, letter, and supplemental Exhibits A

through Y (the “Confidential Information”).

Pursuant to Sections 8 and 8(a) of the Commodity Exchange Act (“CEA”), as amended, and Commission

Regulation 145.9(d), CME Clearing requests confidential treatment for the Confidential Information on

the grounds that disclosure of the contents would reveal confidential commercial information of the

CME Clearing. Pursuant to Commission Regulation 145.9(d)(5), CME Clearing requests that

confidential treatment be maintained until further notice from CME Clearing. CME Clearing also 

requests that the Commission notify the undersigned immediately after receiving any FOIA request

or any other court order, subpoena or summons for same. Finally, CME Clearing requests notification

in the event the Commission intends to disclose the Confidential Information to Congress or to any

other governmental agency or unit pursuant to Section 8 of the CEA. CME Clearing does not waive 

its notification rights under Section 8(f) of the CEA with respect to any subpoena or summons for the

Confidential Information.

If you have any questions, please contact the undersigned at 212 -299-2200 or via email at

christopher.bowen@cmegroup.com. 

Sincerely,

/s/ Christopher Bowen

Managing Director & Chief Regulatory Counsel
153 So. 640

#### TENNESSEE COAL, IRON *&*R. CO. v. WARNER.

6 Div. 526.

Supreme Court of Alabama.

March 22, 1934.

*382Benners, Burr, McKamy & Forman and Wm. Henry Beatty, all of Birmingham, for appellant.

*383E. M. Zeidman, of Birmingham, for appellee.

BROWN, Justice.

Error is manifest on the face of the record, not only in the fact that the judgment against the garnishee exceeds by $76.65 the judgment against the defendants [Carroll v. Milner & Kettig, 93 Ala. 301, 9 So. 221], but it does not appear to which of the defendants the money condemned to the satisfaction of plaintiff’s judgment was due, whether to one or all, or how much was due to each. This much was necessary to enable the garnishee to protect itself against the respective defendants.

As observed by Stone, C. J.: “Garnishment is a proceeding of purely statutory creation, unknown to the common law; and while we are inclined to construe it favorably, as highly remedial and beneficial, we have no power to originate machinery, or process, by which to adapt it to conditions, which its statutory provisions are not broad enough to cover.” Jones’ Adm’r v. Crews, 64 Ala. 368, 371.

When the writ of garnishment issued on the 13th of July, 1932, was servedi on the garnishee and brought it to answer, that writ served its purpose, and when the answer of the garnishee disclosed the fact that the amount admitted to be due to the respective defendants was less than $25, and that it was due “as wages, salary or other compensation” of laborers or employees, residents of this state, for personal service, the levy was rendered void by the statute, unless the plaintiff in garnishment contested the same at the term of court at which the answer was filed. Code 1923, §§ 7887, 8076; Richardson v. Kaufman, 143 Ala. 243, 39 So. 368; Friedman Bros. v. Cullman Building & Loan Association, 124 Ala. 344, 27 So. 332.

There is no provision in our statute for the issuance of an alias writ of garnishment, and under the authority above cited, the court was without power to originate process. When the. writ issued in the first instance was served, bringing the garnishee to answer, on which the only judgment that could be entered was one discharging the garnishee, and the plaintiff failed to contest, that proceeding spent its force, and the writ became functus officio. The subsequent proceedings, in the absence of a new affidavit praying for the issuance of a garnishment on plaintiff’s judgment, were clearly irregular and erroneous.

The judgment of the Jefferson county court of common claims is reversed, and a judgment here rendered discharging the .garnishee.

Reversed and rendered.

ANDERSON, C. J., and THOMAS and KNIGHT, JJ., concur.
# C_2017374EN.01004801.xml

| 6.11.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 374/48 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.11.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 374/48

---

Action brought on 18 September 2017 — Aeris Invest v Commission and SRB

(Case T-628/17)

(2017/C 374/71)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Aeris Invest Sàrl (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) (represented by: M. Roca Junyent, J. Calvo Costa, R. Vallina Hoset and A. Sellés Marco, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendants: European Commission and Single Resolution Board

Defendants:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

| — | Annul Decision SRB/EES/2017/08 of the Single Resolution Board of 7 June 2017 concerning the adoption of a resolution scheme in respect of Banco Popular Español, S.A.; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul Decision SRB/EES/2017/08 of the Single Resolution Board of 7 June 2017 concerning the adoption of a resolution scheme in respect of Banco Popular Español, S.A.;

| — | Annul Commission Decision (EU) 2017/1246 of 7 June 2017 endorsing the resolution scheme the Banco Popular Español, S.A.; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul Commission Decision (EU) 2017/1246 of 7 June 2017 endorsing the resolution scheme the Banco Popular Español, S.A.;

| — | Where appropriate, declare Articles 15, 18, 20, 21, 22 and/or 24 of Regulation No 806/2014 inapplicable, in accordance with Article 277 TFEU; |
| --- | --- |

—

Where appropriate, declare Articles 15, 18, 20, 21, 22 and/or 24 of Regulation No 806/2014 inapplicable, in accordance with Article 277 TFEU;

| — | Order SRB and the European Commission to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order SRB and the European Commission to pay the costs.

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

---
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Donald Strickland, Appellant.

Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Defendant has failed to preserve for review the issue of the sufficiency of his plea allocution *(see, People v Lopez,*71 NY2d 662). Even were we to find that defendant’s claim falls within the narrow exception to the preservation rule *(see, People v Pellegrino,*60 NY2d 636; *People v Bell,*47 NY2d 839; *People v Warren,*47 NY2d 740), a reversal would not be required. The court received an affirmative response to its inquiry of defendant whether he was entering a plea of guilty to avoid the risk of conviction of the more serious crime charged, and thus the plea was properly accepted *(see, People v Serrano,*15 NY2d 304). (Appeal from judgment of Jefferson County Court, Aylward, J. — sexual abuse, first degree.) Present — Dillon, P. J., Doerr, Boomer, Pine and Lawton, JJ.
#### In the Matter of the Estate of Rita DeLorenzo, Deceased. Joya Paterson et al., Respondents; Sun Life Insurance and Annuity Company of New York, Appellant.

Submitted January 4, 2010;

decided February 23, 2010

Motion for leave to appeal dismissed upon the ground that the order sought to be appealed from does not finally determine the proceeding within the meaning of the Constitution.
# Third District Court of Appeal

State of Florida

Opinion filed March 4, 2015.

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________

No. 3D14-3018

Lower Tribunal No. 14F-06104

________________



### Abel Di Nobile

, Appellant,

vs.



### Florida Department of Children and Families

,

Appellee.

An Appeal from the Florida Department of Children and Families.

Abel Di Nobile, in proper person.

Leslie Hinds St-Surin

, Office of General Counsel, Florida Department of

Children and Families, for appellee.

Before SUAREZ, EMAS and SCALES, JJ.

SCALES, J.On October 16, 2014, a hearing officer for the Florida Department of

Children and Families (“DCF”) conducted a hearing on DCF’s denial of Abel Di

Nobile’s (“Di Nobile”) application for Medicaid benefits. On November 14, 2014,

the hearing officer entered a Final Order affirming DCF’s denial of Medicaid

benefits.

On December 16, 2014, Di Nobile filed a notice of appeal with this Court.

As required by rule 9.110(d) of the Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure, the

notice of appeal provided the date of rendition as November 14, 2014. Yet contrary

to rule 9.110(d), Di Nobile did not attach to the notice of appeal a conformed copy

of the Final Order, for the order he attached did not contain DCF’s date stamp.

Subsequently, DCF filed with this Court a date-stamped copy of the Final

Order showing the date of rendition as November 14, 2014. DCF then filed a

motion to dismiss Di Nobile’s appeal on the basis that Di Nobile’s appeal was

untimely. DCF argued that because Di Nobile filed his notice of appeal more than

thirty days after the date of rendition of the Final Order, this Court lacks

jurisdiction to hear the appeal. Fla. R. App. P. 9.110(b).

We are compelled to grant DCF’s motion. We lack jurisdiction to hear an

appeal of final agency action when the notice of appeal is not filed within thirty

days of the rendition of the order to be reviewed. Hawks v. Walker

, 409 So. 2d 524

(Fla. 5th DCA 1982).

2We are powerless to modify this jurisdictional rule even when, as Di Nobile

alerts this Court, the copy of the order he received from DCF did not contain a

date-stamped first page.

Appeal dismissed.

3
#### COXE v. F. S. HARDY & CO.

(Circuit Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

October 29, 1913.)

No. 2507.

Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the Northern District of Alabama; William I. Grubb, Judge. In the matter of the Selman Heating & Plumbing Company, bankrupt; John S. Coxe, trustee. From an order permitting F. S. Hardy & Co. to reclaim property, the trustee appeals.

Affirmed.

For opinion below, see 203 Fed. 777.

See, also, 204 Fed. 839.

Max J. Winkler, of Birmingham, Ala., and Victor H. Smith, of Pell City, Ala., for appellant.

L. J. Cox, of Birmingham, Ala., for appellee.

Before PARDEE and SHELBY, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

We have examined the record in this ease, and find that

the facts were correctly found and the case properly decided by the trial judge, and that none of the assignments of error are well taken. The decree appealed from is affirmed.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Agriculture

###### Agricultural Marketing Service

          - [Docket No. TB-01-02]

In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App.) announcement is made of the following committee meeting: 

*Name:*                         Flue-Cured Tobacco Advisory Committee.                    

*Date:*                         June 21, 2001.                    

*Time:*                         9 a.m.                    

*Place:*                         United States Department of Agriculture, (USDA), Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS), Tobacco Programs, Flue-Cured Tobacco Cooperative Stabilization Corporation Building, Room 223, 1306 Annapolis Drive, Raleigh, North Carolina 27608.                    

*Purpose:*                         To elect officers, establish submarketing areas, recommend opening dates, discuss selling schedules, and other related matters for the 2001 flue-cured tobacco marketing season.                    

The meeting is open to the public. Persons, other than members, who wish to address the Committee at the meeting should contact John P. Duncan III, Deputy Administrator, Tobacco Programs, AMS, USDA, STOP 0280, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW., Room 502 Cotton Annex Building, Washington, DC 20250-0280, (202) 205-0567, prior to the meeting. Written statements may be submitted to the Committee before, at, or after the meeting. If you need any accommodations to participate in the meeting, please contact the Tobacco Programs at (202) 205-0567 by June 15, 2001, and inform us of your needs. 

Dated: May 17, 2001

Kenneth C. Clayton,

Acting Administrator.

[FR Doc. 01-12936 Filed 5-22-01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410-02-P
EXHIBIT 32.1

SECTION 906 CERTIFICATION

In connection with the Annual Report of Nuvilex, Inc. on Form 10-K for the period ending April 30, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Patricia Gruden, Interim Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 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 result of operations of the Company.



|                                                                                                                                      
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                                                                                      
|By: /s/ Patricia Gruden Patricia Gruden, Interim Chief Executive Officer
(Interim Principal Executive Officer)
Date: December 28, 2010

---

EXHIBIT 32.2

SECTION 906 CERTIFICATION

In connection with the Annual Report of Nuvilex, Inc. on Form 10-K for the period ending April 30, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Patricia Gruden, Interim Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 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 result of operations of the Company.



|                                                                                                                                      
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                                                                                      
|By: /s/ Patricia Gruden Patricia Gruden, Interim Chief Executive Officer
(Interim Principal Executive Officer)
Date: December 28, 2010





---
Exhibit 31.1  Section 302 Certification of Chief Executive Officer  I, Joseph Levi, certify that:  1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Green Mountain Recovery, Inc.  2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly 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 quarterly report;  3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this quarterly report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this quarterly report;  4. I am responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and have:  a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to me by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this quarterly report is being prepared;  b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and procedures as of a date within 90 days prior to the filing date of this quarterly report (the Evaluation Date); and  c) presented in this quarterly report my conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures based on my evaluation as of the Evaluation Date;  5. I have disclosed, based on my most recent evaluation, to the registrants auditors and the audit committee of registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):  a) all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal controls which could adversely affect the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial data and have identified for the registrants auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls; and  b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrants internal controls  6. I have indicated in this quarterly report whether or not there were significant changes in internal controls or in other factors that could significantly affect internal controls subsequent to the date of my most recent evaluation, including any corrective actions with regard to significant deficiencies and material weaknesses.  August 14, 2008 /s/ Joseph Levi Joseph Levi Title: President and Chief Executive Officer
EXHIBIT 99.10

CONSENT OF EXPERT

Reference is made to the Annual Report
on Form 40-F (the 40-F) of Ivanhoe Mines Ltd. (the Company) to be filed with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission pursuant to the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended and to the report, dated
March 29, 2012, titled IDOP Technical Report (the Report).

I, Lawrie Gillett, on
behalf of AMC Consultants Pty Ltd., consent to the use of our name and references to the Report, or portions thereof, as described in the 40-F and documents filed as part of the 40-F, and to the incorporation by reference of such information in the
Companys Form S-8 (333-113048, 333-128205, 333-135595, 333-143550 and 333-160783).



|                                                             
|-------------------------------------------------------------
|Sincerely,                                                   
|                                                             
|/s/ Lawrie Gillett                                           
|Title: Director/Global Practice Leader  Corporate Consulting
|Company: AMC Consultants Pty Ltd.                            

Date: March 30, 2012
# Sch. 1001 (SEF PTC)-IRS