alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
December 6, 2023

Via E-mail

Assistant Secretary of the Commission for FOI, Privacy and Sunshine Acts Compliance

Commodity Futures Trading Commission

Three Lafayette Centre

1155 21st Street, NW

Washington, DC 20581

201-418-5000

FOIAsubmissions@cftc.gov

Re: FOIA Confidential Treatment Request 

Dear Sir or Madam:

ICE Clear Europe Limited (“Submitter”) hereby respectfully requests that the Commodity Futures Trading 

Commission (the “CFTC”) accord confidential treatment under 17 C.F.R. §145.9 in relation to the ‘Risk 

Identification Framework’ document submitted today which bear the bates number 06.12.2023-000001-CFTC 

and 06.12.2023-000008-CFTC and all information derived therefrom (collectively, the “Confidential 

Information”).

This request for confidential treatment is made pursuant to 17 C.F.R. §145.9(d) (1) because Submitter believes 

that the Confidential Information is covered by one or more exemptions in the Freedom of Information Act (the 

“FOIA”) (5 U.S.C. §552(b)) and is therefore exempt from the CFTC’s public disclosure requirements pursuant 

to 17 C.F.R. §145.5. In particular, 5 U.S.C. §552(b) (4) and 17 C.F.R. §145.9(d) (1) (ii) exempts disclosure that 

would reveal the Submitter’s trade secrets or confidential commercial or financial information. Submitter 

believes that the Confidential Information contains confidential commercial and financial information as well as 

proprietary information regarding business procedures and systems that should be protected from public 

disclosure pursuant to this exemption. Confidential treatment is requested for a period of five years. 

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

accorded by law, and Submitter will rely on and invoke any such confidentiality protection. Submitter requests 

that the CFTC advise the undersigned, pursuant to 17 C.F.R. §145.9(e) (1), in advance of any disclosure of the 

Confidential Information pursuant to the FOIA, so that this request for confidential treatment may be 

substantiated.

If you should have any questions or comments or require further information, please do not hesitate to contact the 

undersigned at philip.tooke@ice.com or +44 (0)20 3142 0842.

Very truly yours,

Philip Tooke
Senior Compliance Analyst
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Edwin Rodriguez, Appellant.

Submitted December 7, 2009;

decided February 23, 2010

Motion to enlarge the record on appeal herein granted.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Calvin Tyrell, Appellant.

Submitted March 22, 2010;

decided March 25, 2010

Motion for an extension of the time within which to apply for permission to appeal pursuant to CPL 460.20 granted and motion papers treated as a timely CPL 460.20 application.
---

Exhibit 32.1





CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER

PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT BY

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In connection with the quarterly report of Lincoln Mining Corp. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the three months ended March 31, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, John Pulos, Chief Executive Officer of Lincoln Mining Corp., certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge:



(1) the Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13 (a) or 15 (d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and



(2) the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.







Date: May 07, 2009



John Pulos, Chief Executive Officer









---
#### RAINTREE HOMEOWNERS ASSOC’N v. RAINTREE COUNTRY CLUB

No. 395P98

Case below: 130 N.C.App. 757

Motion by defendant (Raintree Country Club) for temporary stay denied 10 September 1998.
#### In re NORTHWEST AIRLINES CORPORATION, Debtor, Mark Francis, Appellant, v. Northwest Airlines Corporation, Appellee.

No. 09-0408-bk.

United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.

April 21, 2010.

Mark Francis, pro se, Rosemount, Minnesota, for Appellant.

Gregory M. Petrick and Christopher Updike, Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft LLP, New York, New York; Bruce R. Zirinsky and Nathan A. Haynes, Green-berg Traurig, LLP, New York, New York, for Appellee.

PRESENT: DENNIS JACOBS, Chief Judge, RALPH K WINTER, WALKER, Circuit Judges.

*SUMMARY ORDER*

Appellant Mark Francis appeals from a judgment dismissing his appeal of a bankruptcy court order. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, the procedural history, and the issues presented for review.

We affirm for substantially the reasons stated in the district court’s opinion. *See Francis v. Nw. Airlines Corp.,*No. 08-Civ-6616 (SHS) (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 19, 2008).

Finding no merit in Cook’s remaining arguments, we hereby AFFIRM the judgment of the district court.
**EXHIBIT
      31.2**


**CERTIFICATIONS**





I,
      Eugene
      Gartlan, certify that:





1.
      I have
      reviewed this annual report on Form 10-KSB/A of Innova Holdings, Inc.;





2.
      Based
      on my knowledge, this annual 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 annual report;





3.
      Based
      on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information
      included in this annual 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 annual report;





4.
      The
      registrant's other certifying officers 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 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 us by others within those entities, particularly during the
      period in which this annual report is being prepared;





b)
      Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and
      procedures and presented in this annual report our conclusions about the
      effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the
      annual period covered by this report based on our evaluation;





c)
      Disclosed in this annual report any change in the issuer's internal control
      over
      financial reporting that occurred during the period covered by this annual
      report that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially
      affect, the registrant's internal control over financial reporting; and





5.
      The
      registrant's other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our 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 and material weaknesses in the design or operation
      of
      internal controls over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to
      adversely affect the 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
      who
      have a significant role in the registrant's internal controls over financial
      reporting.






*Date:
                September 28, 2006*
              
              */s/* *Eugene
                Gartlan**Principal
                Financial Officer*
I 

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2289 

To amend section 240(c)(7)(C) of the Immigration and Nationality Act to 

eliminate the time limit on the filing of a motion to reopen a removal 

proceeding if the basis of the motion is fraud, negligence, misrepresentation, or extortion by, or the attempted, promised, or actual practice 

of law without authorization on the part of, a representative. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 10, 2019 

Mr. VEASEY (for himself, Ms. ESCOBAR, Ms. CLARKE of New York, Mr. SOTO, 

Mr. CORREA, Ms. GARCIA of Texas, Mr. ESPAILLAT, Mr. AGUILAR, Ms. 

OCASIO-CORTEZ, Mrs. NAPOLITANO, Mr. VARGAS, Ms. NORTON, Ms. 

ROYBAL-ALLARD, Mr. GRIJALVA, Ms. VELA ́ZQUEZ, and Mr. MCGOVERN) 

introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the 

Judiciary 

A BILL 

To amend section 240(c)(7)(C) of the Immigration and Nationality Act to eliminate the time limit on the filing 

of a motion to reopen a removal proceeding if the basis 

of the motion is fraud, negligence, misrepresentation, 

or extortion by, or the attempted, promised, or actual 

practice of law without authorization on the part of, 

a representative. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
2 

•HR 2289 IH

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Notario Victim Relief 

3 Act’’. 

4 SEC. 2. ELIMINATION OF TIME LIMIT ON MOTIONS TO RE5 OPEN IN CERTAIN CASES. 

6 Section 240(c)(7)(C) of the Immigration and Nation7 ality Act (8 U.S.C. 1229a(c)(7)(C)) is amended by adding 

8 at the end the following: 

9 ‘‘(v) FRAUD, NEGLIGENCE, MISREPRE10 SENTATION, OR EXTORTION BY, OR AT11 TEMPTED, PROMISED, OR ACTUAL PRAC12 TICE OF LAW WITHOUT AUTHORIZATION

13 ON THE PART OF, A REPRESENTATIVE.— 

14 There is no time limit on the filing of a 

15 motion to reopen if the basis of the motion 

16 is to apply for relief due to fraud, neg17 ligence, misrepresentation, or extortion by, 

18 or attempted, promised, or actual practice 

19 of law without authorization on the part 

20 of, a representative described in subsection 

21 (a) or (b) of section 1292.1 of title 8, Code 

22 of Federal Regulations, or a person who 

23 claimed to be such a representative, and 

24 the alien establishes such fraud, neg25 ligence, misrepresentation, or extortion by, 

26 or attempted, promised, or actual practice 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
3 

•HR 2289 IH

1 of law without authorization on the part 

2 of, such a representative (or person) by a 

3 preponderance of evidence.’’. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
EXHIBIT 32.1

            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934
                         RULE 13a-14(b) OR 15d-14(b) AND
                             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 Jurak Corporation World
Wide, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for quarter ended February 28, 2005,
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission of the date hereof, I,
Anthony C. Jurak, Chairman of the Board and Director and Chief Executive Officer
of the Company, certify for the purpose of complying with Rule 13a-14(b) or Rule
15d-14(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") and
Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code, that:

        (1)  the Company's Quarterly 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 Quarterly Report fairly presents,
             in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
             operations of the Company.

Date: April 20, 2005       /s/ Anthony C. Jurak
                           -------------------------------
                           Anthony C. Jurak
                           Chairman of the Board and Director
                           Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer
#### Alicia CHAVEZ-GONZALEZ, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 04-72009.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted June 12, 2006.*

Filed June 16, 2006.

Alicia Chavez-Gonzalez, Redwood City, CA, pro se.

Regional Counsel, Western Region Immigration & Naturalization Service, Laguna Niguel, CA, OIL, U.S. Department of Justice Civil Div./Offiee of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.

Before: KLEINFELD, PAEZ and BERZON, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Alicia Chavez-Gonzalez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions pro se for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) dismissing her appeal from an immigration judge’s order denying her application for cancellation of removal. To the extent we have jurisdiction, it is conferred by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review due process claims de novo, *see MartinezRosas v. Gonzales,*424 F.3d 926, 930 (9th Cir.2005), and we dismiss in part and deny in part the petition for review.

We lack jurisdiction to review the agency’s determination that Chavez-Gonzalez failed to demonstrate “exceptional and extremely unusual hardship.” *Id.*at 929 (whether an alien demonstrated exceptional and extremely unusual hardship is not reviewable under 8 U.S.C. § 1252).

To the extent Chavez-Gonzalez raises a due process challenge to the hardship determination, we lack jurisdiction because her claims are not colorable. *See Torres-Aguilar v. INS,*246 F.3d 1267, 1271 (9th Cir.2001) (indicating that an applicant may not create the jurisdiction Congress chose to remove simply by cloaking an abuse of discretion argument in constitutional garb).

We do not consider whether Chavez-Gonzalez established continuous physical presence and good moral character because her failure to establish the requisite hardship is dispositive. *See*8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(l); *Romero-Torres v. Ashcroft,*327 F.3d 887, 889 (9th Cir.2003) (noting that an applicant must establish continuous physical presence, good moral character and hardship to qualify for relief).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
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.                  

###### National Aeronautics and Space Administration

###### Notice (01-062) 

# AGENCY:

National Aeronautics and Space Administration.

# ACTION:

Notice of prospective patent license.

      ( print page 29186)    

# SUMMARY:

NASA hereby gives notice that Phoenix Systems International, Inc., of Ashtabula, OH, has applied for an exclusive patent license to practice the invention described in NASA Case No. KSC-12235-1, entitled High Temperature Decomposition of Hydrogen Peroxide,” which is assigned to the United States of America as represented by the Administrator of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. Written objections to the prospective grant of a license should be sent to Randy Heald, Patent Counsel, John F. Kennedy Space Center, Kennedy Space Center, FL 32899. 

# DATE(S):

Responses to this notice must be received by July 30, 2001. 

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

                        Melanie Chan, Licensing Commercialization Manager, John F. Kennedy Space Center, Mail Code YA-C1, Kennedy Space Center, FL 32899,                         *melanie.chan-1@ksc.nasa.gov*, telephone (321) 867-6367.                     

Dated: May 22, 2001.

Edward A. Frankle, 

General Counsel.

[FR Doc. 01-13396 Filed 5-25-01; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7510-01-P
# FCM DATA JUNE 2006
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.                  

###### Federal Reserve System

# Agency Holding the Meeting:

Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.

# Time and Date:

11 a.m., Tuesday, May 29, 2001. 

# Place:

Marriner S. Eccles Federal Reserve Board Building, 20th and C Streets, NW., Washington, DC 20551. 

# Status:

Closed.

# Matters to be Considered: 

1. Personnel actions (appointments, promotions, assignments, reassignments, and salary actions) involving individual Federal Reserve System employees. 

2. Any items carried forward from a previously announced meeting. 

# Contact Person for More Information:

Michelle A. Smith, Assistant to the Board; 202-452-3204. 

# Supplementary Information:

You may call 202-452-3206 beginning at approximately 5 p.m. two business days before the meeting for a recorded announcement of bank and bank holding company applications scheduled for the meeting; or you may contact the Board's Web site at http://www.federalreserve.gov for an electronic announcement that not only lists applications, but also indicates procedural and other information about the meeting. 

Dated: May 18, 2001. 

Robert deV. Frierson, 

Associate Secretary of the Board. 

[FR Doc. 01-13074 Filed 5-18-01; 3:59 pm] 

BILLING CODE 6210-01-P
#### 68-49 Woodhaven Boulevard Holding Corp., Appellant, v Exxon Mobil Corporation, Formerly Known as Mobil Oil Corporation, Defendant and Third-Party Plaintiff Respondent. AC Woodhaven Inc. et al., Third-Party Defendants-Appellants.

Submitted February 1, 2010;

decided April 29, 2010

Motion for leave to appeal, insofar as made by third-party appellants, dismissed upon the ground that they are not parties aggrieved *(see*CPLR 5511); motion for leave to appeal otherwise denied.
# C_2018052EN.01002801.xml

| 12.2.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 52/28 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.2.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 52/28

---

Judgment of the General Court of 14 December 2017 — RL v Court of Justice of the European Union

(Case T-21/17) (1)

1

((Civil Service - Officials - Promotion - 2015 promotion year - Decision not to promote the applicant to grade AD 10, with effect from 1 July 2015 - Interinstitutional transfer - Prorata temporis system - Comparative examination of the merits - Article 45 of the Staff Regulations - Liability))

(2018/C 052/39)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: RL (represented by: C. Bernard-Glanz and A. Tymen, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Court of Justice of the European Union (represented by: J. Inghelram and V. Hanley-Emilsson, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Application on the basis of 270 TFEU and seeking, firstly, the annulment of the decision of the Court of Justice of the European Union of 11 May 2016 refusing to promote the application on 1 July 2015 and, secondly, compensation for the loss which the applicant allegedly suffered.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders RL to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders RL to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 95, 27.3.2017.

1

---
# C_2017231EN.01004501.xml

| 17.7.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 231/45 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.7.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 231/45

---

Action brought on 17 May 2017 — Sata v EUIPO — Zhejiang Rongpeng Air Tools (2000)

(Case T-301/17)

(2017/C 231/56)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Sata GmbH & Co. KG (Kornwestheim, Germany) (represented by: M.-C. Simon, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Zhejiang Rongpeng Air Tools Co. Ltd (Pengjie Town, China)

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: Applicant

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue:

Trade mark at issue: The sign ‘2000’ — EU trade mark No 12 511 069

Trade mark at issue:

Procedure before EUIPO: Invalidity proceedings

Procedure before EUIPO

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 8 March 2017 in Case R 651/2016-4

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 to pay the costs; |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO to pay the costs;

| — | in the event that the respondent before the Board of Appeal decides to intervene in the proceedings, order that intervener to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

in the event that the respondent before the Board of Appeal decides to intervene in the proceedings, order that intervener to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

Pleas in law

| — | Infringement of Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009;

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

—

Infringement of Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation No 207/2009;

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

—

Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009;

| — | Infringement of the principle of equal treatment and the principle of sound administration. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of the principle of equal treatment and the principle of sound administration.

---