alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2017369EN.01003101.xml

| 30.10.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 369/31 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.10.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 369/31

---

Action brought on 21 August 2017 — UC v Parliament

(Case T-572/17)

(2017/C 369/43)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: UC (represented by: A. Tymen, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Parliament

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | declare the present action admissible and well founded |
| --- | --- |

—

declare the present action admissible and well founded

and consequently

| — | annul the applicant’s staff report for 2015 and the decision to award him only two merit points for that year; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the applicant’s staff report for 2015 and the decision to award him only two merit points for that year;

| — | annul the decision of the appointing authority of 9 May 2017 rejecting the applicant’s complaint of 13 January 2017; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of the appointing authority of 9 May 2017 rejecting the applicant’s complaint of 13 January 2017;

| — | order the defendant to pay damages, to be fixed ex aequo et bono at EUR 9 000, to compensate the applicant for the non-material damage suffered; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to pay damages, to be fixed ex aequo et bono at EUR 9 000, to compensate the applicant for the non-material damage suffered;

ex aequo et bono

| — | order the defendant to pay all the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to pay all the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging, first, infringement of Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights and Article 25 of the Staff Regulations of Officials and, secondly, infringement of the obligation to state reasons and of the applicant’s rights of defence. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging, first, infringement of Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights and Article 25 of the Staff Regulations of Officials and, secondly, infringement of the obligation to state reasons and of the applicant’s rights of defence.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the right to be heard and Article 41 of the Charter. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the right to be heard and Article 41 of the Charter.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging a manifest error of assessment. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging a manifest error of assessment.

---
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 State

          - [Public Notice 3663] 

The Advisory Committee on Historical Diplomatic Documentation will meet in the Department of State, 2201 “C” Street NW., Washington, DC, June 18-19, 2001 in Conference Room 1107. Prior notification and a valid photo are mandatory for entrance into the building. One week before the meeting, members of the public planning to attend must notify Gloria Walker, Office of the Historian (202-663-1124) to provide dates of birth, Social Security numbers, and telephone numbers. 

The Committee will meet in open session from 1:30 p.m. through 3 p.m. on Monday, June 18, 2001, to discuss declassification and transfer of Department of State electronic records to the National Archives and Records Administration and the Foreign Relations series. The remainder of the Committee's sessions from 3:30 p.m. to 4:45 p.m. on Monday, June 18, 2001 and from 9 a.m. to 1 p.m. on Tuesday, June 19, 2001, will be closed in accordance with Section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463). The agenda calls for discussions of still unresolved options for modernizing the Foreign Relations series as well as agency declassification decisions concerning the series. These are matters not subject to public disclosure under 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(1), and the public interest requires that such activities be withheld from disclosure. 

                    Questions concerning the meeting should be directed to Marc J. Susser, Executive Secretary, Advisory Committee on Historical Diplomatic Documentation, Department of State, Office of the Historian, Washington, DC 20520, telephone (202) 663-1123, (e-mail                     *history@state.gov*).                 

Dated: May 16, 2001.

Marc J. Susser, 

Executive Secretary of the Advisory Committee on Historical Diplomatic Documentation, Department of State.

[FR Doc. 01-13147 Filed 5-23-01; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4710-11-P
# C_2019280EN.01003801.xml

| 19.8.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 280/38 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.8.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 280/38

---

Judgment of the General Court of 6 June 2019 — EIB v Syria

(Case T-590/17) (1)

(Arbitration clause - Water Supply Sweida Region Loan Agreement No 80212 - Non-performance of the agreement - Repayment of the sums advanced - Default interest - Procedure by default)

(2019/C 280/53)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: European Investment Bank (represented by: initially by P. Chamberlain, T. Gilliams, F. Oxangoiti Briones and J. Shirran, and subsequently by F. Oxangoiti Briones, J. Klein and J. Shirran, acting as Agents, and D. Arts, lawyer, and T. Cusworth, Solicitor)

Defendant: Syrian Arab Republic

Re:

Action pursuant to Article 272 TFEU, seeking an order that the Syrian Arab Republic repay sums due under Water Supply Sweida Region Loan Agreement No 80212, plus default interest.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Orders the Syrian Arab Republic to repay the European Union, represented by the European Investment Bank (EIB), the sum of EUR 726 942,81; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Orders the Syrian Arab Republic to repay the European Union, represented by the European Investment Bank (EIB), the sum of EUR 726 942,81;

| 2. | Declares that that sum is to bear default interest, on the principle amounts and on the contractual interest, at the annual rate of 3.5%, from 25 August 2017 until the date that payment is made; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Declares that that sum is to bear default interest, on the principle amounts and on the contractual interest, at the annual rate of 3.5%, from 25 August 2017 until the date that payment is made;

| 3. | Dismisses the action as to the remainder; |
| --- | --- |

3.

Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

| 4. | Orders the Syrian Arab Republic to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Orders the Syrian Arab Republic to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 369, 30.10.2017.

---
CX Futures Exchange and

CX Clearinghouse

499 Park Avenue 

New York, NY 10022

+1 877-300-4555

info@cantorexchange.com

www.cantorexchange.com

CX is a registered trademark of CX Futures Exchange, L.P. or its affiliates in the U.S. and/or other countries.

September 9, 2021

By CFTC Portal Submission

Assistant Secretary of the CFTC 

for FOIA Matters 

Three Lafayette Centre

1155 21st Street, NW

Washington, DC 20581

Re: Freedom of Information Act Confidential Treatment Request for:

Confidential Attachment A to Submission 2021-05 (CX Compliance Manual 

Addendum - Comm w CFTC 2021-09)

Dear Sir or Madam:

CX Futures Exchange L.P. (the “Requestor”) hereby requests that the 

documents referenced above and enclosed herewith be afforded confidential 

treatment in accordance with the Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”), 5 USC 

552 and CFTC rules thereunder, 17 C.F.R. 145.9, for an indefinite period of time 

due to the sensitive commercial and proprietary nature of such information, 

public disclosure of which could be detrimental to the Requestor. As prescribed 

by 17 C.F.R. 145.9(d)(4), each page of the documents included in this request 

bear the legend “Confidential Treatment Requested by CX Futures Exchange, 

L.P.”

In accordance with the foregoing regulations, kindly notify me at 

thomas.thompson@cantorexchange.com or 212-829-5214 of any request under 

FOIA for access to the enclosed documents to enable the Requestor to 

substantiate the grounds for confidential treatment, or if you have any questions 

regarding this document.

Thank you very much for your consideration.

Sincerely,

Thomas Thompson

Chief Compliance Officer

CX Futures Exchange, L.P.

Enclosures: CX Compliance Manual Addendum - Comm w CFTC 2021-09.pdf
# Fourth Court of Appeals **San Antonio, Texas** MEMORANDUM OPINION
N o. 04

- 13

- 00286

- CV Alberto TR EVINO , III and Eloisa Trevino

- Yglecias, Appellant s

v. Gloria Lopez TREVINO, Individually, and on behalf of the Estate of Alberto Trevino, Ethelina Glor ia Lopez TREVINO , Individually, and on B ehalf of the Estate of Alberto Trevino, Jr., Appellee From the 49th Judicial District Court, Zapata County, Texas Trial Court No. 8,257 Honorable Jose A

. Lopez, Judge Presiding
PER CURIAM Sitting: Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice Delivered and Filed: August 21, 2013 REVERSED AND RENDERED, TEMPORARY INJUNCTION DISSOLVED Appellants Alberto Trevino, III and Eloisa Trevino

- Yglecias bring this interlocutor y appeal challenging the trial court’s order granting a temporary injunction. Based on this court’s opinion
in a related mandamus proceeding, we reverse the judgmen t of the trial court and render judgment dissolving the temporary injunction. See In re the Estate of Alberto Trevino, Jr ., No. 04

- 13

- 00404

- CV (Tex. App.

— San Antonio Aug. 21 , 2013) (orig. proceeding) , issued simultaneously with this opinion.04

- 13

- 00286

- CV On June 24, 2013, relator Alberto Trevino, III filed a petition for writ of mandamus complaining of the trial court’s order transferring the underlying probate proceeding from the constitutional county court in Zapata County to the 49th Judicial District Court in Zapata County

. T his c ourt concluded that the county court abused its discretion in transfer ring the underlying probate proceeding to the district court before a matter in the proceeding had become contested

. We further held that the district court’s subsequent orders were void. We thus conditionally granted relator’s petition for writ of manda mus and returned the cause to the constitutional county court in Zapata County for further proceedings. See In re the Estate of Alberto Trevino, Jr ., No. 04

- 13

- 00404

- CV. Accordingly , we hold that the district court acted without jurisdiction in grant ing the temporary injunction at issue in this interlocutory appeal , and therefore the order granting temporary injunction is void. T he trial court’s order granting the temporary injunction is reversed, and judgment is rendered dissolving the temporary injunc tion. The motion for temporary orders filed by appellee on July 15, 2013 is denied as moot

.

PER CURIAM

- 2

-
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Daniel Vasquez, Appellant.

Submitted January 17, 2012;

decided February 9, 2012

Reported below, 87 AD3d 1042.

Motion for assignment of counsel granted and Lynn W.L. Fahey, Esq., Appellate Advocates, 2 Rector Street, 10th Floor, New *897York, NY 10006 assigned as counsel to the appellant on the appeal herein.
Exhibit 31.2



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO RULE 13a-14(a)/15d-14(a)

UNDER THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934,
AS AMENDED

(SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF
2002)



I, Antonio Treminio, certify that:



1. I have reviewed this
Amendment No. 1 to the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Alternative Investment Corp; and



2. Based upon 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.



|Date: August 24, 2020 |                         | 
|--------------------- | ----------------------- | 
|                      | /s/ Antonio Treminio    | 
|                      | Antonio Treminio        | 
|                      | Chief Financial Officer |
#### Post v. City of Evansville.

*Circuit Court, D. Indiana.*

November *2,*1885

.Demurrer to Complaint.

*T. C. Mather,*for plaintiff.

*McDonald, Butler & Mason*and *J. B. Bucker,*for defendant.

Woods, J.

This action is upon interest coupons of three series of negotiable bonds of the city of Evansville. The bonds are denominated “Redemption Bonds/' and contain recitals to the effect that they were issued in order to pay or redeem other bonds of the city. The objection made to the complaint is that the city had no power to make such bonds. The same question arose in the case of *Portland Savings Bank v. City of Evansville, ante,*389, involving the same series of bonds, and was then decided against the city. The demurrer is therefore overruled.
# C_2018052EN.01003901.xml

| 12.2.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 52/39 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.2.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 52/39

---

Action brought on 15 December 2017 — Seco Belgium and Vinçotte v Parliament

(Case T-812/17)

(2018/C 052/51)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicants: Seco Belgium (Brussels, Belgium) and Vinçotte (Vilvoorde, Belgium) (represented by: A. Delvaux and R. Simar, lawyers)

Applicants:

Defendant: European Parliament

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

| — | declare the action for annulment admissible; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare the action for annulment admissible;

| — | annul the decision, the date of which is unknown, whereby the European Parliament decided to award Contract [06D20/2017/M005 — Assignments to perform inspections and provide technical opinions in the context of construction works, projects and purchases at the European Parliament in Brussels (OJ 2017/S 118-236114)] to [another tenderer]; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision, the date of which is unknown, whereby the European Parliament decided to award Contract [06D20/2017/M005 — Assignments to perform inspections and provide technical opinions in the context of construction works, projects and purchases at the European Parliament in Brussels (OJ 2017/S 118-236114)] to [another tenderer];

| — | order the Parliament to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Parliament to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicants rely on a single plea in law, alleging infringement of Articles 1.1, 1.2 and 1.3 of the ‘Technical specifications’ annex to the Tender Specification relating to Contract Notice 06D20/2017/M005 — Assignments to perform inspections and provide technical opinions in the context of construction works, projects and purchases at the European Parliament in Brussels (OJ 2017/S 118-236114), a manifest error of assessment, infringement of general principles of EU law, breach of the duties of care and scrutiny, infringement of the principles of equal treatment and transparency, failure to fulfil the duty to state reasons deriving from, inter alia, Article 113 of Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 966/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2012 on the financial rules applicable to the general budget of the Union and repealing Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 (OJ 2012 L 298, p. 1) and Article 161 of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 1268/2012 of 29 October 2012 on the rules of application of Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 966/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council on the financial rules applicable to the general budget of the Union (OJ 2012 L 362, p. 1), infringement of the right to an effective remedy, and infringement of some of the provisions governing the award of the contract in question.

---
# C_2004194EN.01000601.xml

| 30.7.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 194/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.7.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 194/6

---

EX POST NOTIFICATION OF EUROSTAT GRANTS IN 2003

Public information

(2004/C 194/04)

In accordance with Article 110(2) of the Financial Regulation and Article 169 of its implementing rules, the public is hereby informed of actions which benefited from a Eurostat grant in 2003.

The electronic file which covers the actions in question can be found on the EUROPA server (http://europa.eu.int). The file, which takes the form of a list, can be accessed by following the path ‘Institutions’, ‘Commission’, ‘Statistics’, ‘Eurostat Activities’ and ‘Calls for tenders and grants’, and then going into the file ‘Eurostat: List of grants awarded in 2003’.

‘Eurostat: List of grants awarded in 2003’

The list indicates the file number, the unit responsible, the name and country of the beneficiaries, the title of the action, the amount granted and the co-financing rate of the action.

All of these actions were the subject of ex ante notification.

ex ante

---
Exhibit 10.10
Accrued Compensation - Verlise Walker

[Liska Biometry LOGO]

November 15, 2005

Verlise Walker
1900 City Park Drive
Suite 510
Ottawa, ON
K1J 1A3

RE: Employee Equity Bonus

Dear Verlise,

      Liska Biometry, Inc. is delighted to notify you that for services
previously rendered, in recognition of excellent work and dedication to Liska
Biometry, Inc., we are hereby granting you a bonus in the form of equity in the
amount of 32,315 shares of common stock. Please be advised that said shares will
be registered pursuant to Form S-8. We recognize and acknowledge that your
services were not, in any way, in connection with the sale of securities in a
capital-raising transaction, nor were they directly or indirectly in connection
with promoting or maintaining a market for Liska's securities. Thank you for
your recognized contributions to our company.

Sincerely,

Liska Biometry, Inc.
* The court has determined that this opinion should not be

published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in Local Rule 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-41202 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus WINDY RAINEY, Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas USDC No. 6:96-CR-9-2
- - - - - - - - - - April 29, 1997 Before Wisdom, King, and Smith, Circuit Judges, PER CURIAM: * Windy Rainey argues that the district court (1) erred in determining the drug quantity attributable to her under the sentencing guidelines and (2) erred in refusing to reduce her offense level under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2 based on her minor role in the offense. We have reviewed the record, including the presentence report, the briefs and the transcript of the sentencing hearing,No. 96-41202 - 2 -

1 See United States v. Bermea , 30 F.3d 1539, 1575 (5th Cir.), cert. denied , 115 S. Ct. 1113, 1825 (1995).

2 See United States v. Tremelling , 43 F.3d 148, 152-53 (5th Cir.), cert. denied , 115 S. Ct. 1990 (1995). and find that the district court’s determination that Rainey was accountable for 250.20 grams of cocaine base was not clearly
erroneous. 1 We further find that the district court did not err in refusing to make an adjustment for Rainey’s role in the offense. 2 AFFIRMED
# C_2017231EN.01004401.xml

| 17.7.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 231/44 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.7.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 231/44

---

Action brought on 17 May 2017 — Sata v EUIPO — Zhejiang Rongpeng Air Tools (3000)

(Case T-300/17)

(2017/C 231/55)

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 ‘3000’ — EU trade mark No 12 511 119

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 653/2016-4

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.

---