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

|   | (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 results of operations of the Company. |
|--------|-----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|               |   |                             |   |
|--------------------|--------|----------------------------------|--------|
| Date: May 24, 2010 | By:    | /s/ Andreas Klimm           |   |
|               |   | Andreas Klimm, President         |   |
|               |   | (as Principal Executive Officer) |   |
|               |   |                             |   |

----
#### Rio ZAMMIT, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Dora B. SCHRIRO, Director, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 05-15021.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted June 13, 2006.*

Filed June 15, 2006.

Harriette P. Levitt, Esq., Law Offices of Harriette P. Levitt, Tucson, AZ, for Petitioner-Appellant.

Donna Jeanne Lam, AGAZ — Office of the Arizona Attorney General, Tucson, AZ, for Respondent-Appellee.

Before: RYMER, T.G. NELSON, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Rio Zammit appeals the district court’s denial in part and dismissal in part of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus. We certified two issues for appeal, and affirm as to each.

We review the district court’s dismissal of a petition for writ of habeas corpus due to procedural default de novo. *Morrison v. Mahoney,*399 F.3d 1042, 1045 (9th Cir. 2005). We see no error, as the Arizona Court of Appeals applied a procedural bar to consideration of Zammit’s claim that his sentence was excessive and in violation of the Eighth Amendment because he preserved no such issue in the Arizona trial court. *See State v. Calabrese,*157 Ariz. 189, 755 P.2d 1177 (1988). As the district court found, Zammit made no showing of cause and prejudice. Nor is his case an extraordinary one where the fundamental miscarriage of justice exception applies. *See Murray v. Carrier,*477 U.S. 478, 106 S.Ct. 2639, 91 L.Ed.2d 397 (1986); *Schlup v. Delo,*513 U.S. 298, 321, 115 S.Ct. 851, 130 L.Ed.2d 808 (1995).

Arizona’s waiver rule is well established and there is no indication that it is not consistently applied. *Bennett v. Mueller,*322 F.3d 573, 585-86 (9th Cir.2003) (establishing burden-shifting process); *see, e.g., State v. Navarro,*201 Ariz. 292, 298 n. 6, 34 P.3d 971 (2001) (noting that Eighth *653Amendment claim is waived if not raised before trial court); *State v. Bolton,*182 Ariz. 290, 297, 896 P.2d 830 (1995) (holding that constitutional issues are waived if not raised in the trial court). It is thus an independent and adequate state ground, *Harris v. Reed,*489 U.S. 255, 109 S.Ct. 1038, 103 L.Ed.2d 308 (1989); *Martinez-Villareal v. Lewis,*80 F.3d 1301, 1306 (9th Cir.1996), which precludes habeas review by a federal court, *Coleman v. Thompson,*501 U.S. 722, 731, 111 S.Ct. 2546, 115 L.Ed.2d 640 (1991).

Zammit’s Blakely1 argument is uncertified and we decline to consider it as it raises no debatable issue.

AFFIRMED.

**

 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.

1

. *Blakely v. Washington,*542 U.S. 296, 124 S.Ct. 2531, 159 L.Ed.2d 403 (2004).
[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 102 (Friday, May 25, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Page 28906]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-13243]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION


Public Information Collection Approved by Office of Management 
and Budget

May 15, 2001.
    The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has received Office of 
Management and Budget (OMB) approval for the following public 
information collections pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 
1995, Public Law 96-511. An agency may not conduct or sponsor a 
collection of information unless it displays a currently valid control 
number. Not withstanding any other provisions of law, no person shall 
be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of 
information subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) that does not 
display a valid control number. Questions concerning the OMB control 
numbers and expiration dates should be directed to Judy Boley, Federal 
Communications Commission, (202) 418-0214.

Federal Communications Commission

    OMB Control No.: 3060-0809.
    Expiration Date: 04/30/03.
    Title: Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act, Report 
and Order and Order on Reconsideration.
    Form No.: N/A.
    Estimated Annual Burden: 36,000 burden hours annually, 6 hours per 
response; 6,000 responses.
    Description: The information filed with the Commission will be used 
to verify telecommunications carriers' conformance with the CALEA 
requirements, and the information made available to law enforcement 
officials will be used to determine the accountability and accuracy of 
telecommunications carriers' compliance with lawful electronic 
surveillance orders.

    OMB Control No.: 3060-0957.
    Expiration Date: 05/31/04.
    Title: Wireless Enhanced 911 Service, Fourth MO&O.
    Form No.: N/A.
    Estimated Annual Burden: 7,500 burden hours annually, approximately 
3 hours per response; 2,500 responses.
    Description: The Commission will use the information submitted by 
petitioners to ensure that carriers comply with critically important 
Phase II requirements in an orderly, timely, comprehensive fashion with 
no unnecessary delay.

Federal Communications Commission.
Magalie Roman Salas,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 01-13243 Filed 5-24-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
433 West Van Buren Street › Suite 700S › Chicago, IL 60607 › cboe.com

January 24, 2024

CFTC FOIA Compliance Office 

Three Lafayette Centre 

1155 21st Street, N.W. 

Washington, D.C. 20581 

FOIAsubmissions@cftc.gov

Re: FOIA Confidential Treatment Request:

Petition Pursuant to Regulation 145.9(d)

All: 

Pursuant to § 145.9(d) of the regulations promulgated by the Commodity Futures Trading 

Commission (“Commission” or “CFTC”) under the Commodity Exchange Act (“CEA”) and pursuant 

to the Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”), Cboe Digital Exchange, LLC (“CDE”) hereby petitions 

the Commission for confidential treatment of Exhibit A (including Exhibit A-1 and Exhibit A-2) 

to the Self-Certification for updates to an incentive program for CDE Trading Privilege Holders

that are default auction liquidity providers (CDE-2024-03E), submitted to the CFTC via the CFTC

Portal on January 24, 2024 (“Covered Information”).

The Covered Information should be afforded confidential treatment based on, among 

other things, § 145.9(d)(1)(ii) of the Commission’s regulations, which implements FOIA 

Exemption 4 of the Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(4)), because disclosure would 

reveal CDE trade secrets and confidential commercial or financial information. CDE hereby 

requests that the Covered Information be afforded confidential treatment in perpetuity. 

CDE requests that the Commission notify CDE upon the receipt of any request by any party 

for any access under FOIA to the Covered Information or any court order, subpoena, or summons for 

disclosure of the Covered Information for the entire duration that the Commission retains the 

Covered Information. CDE further requests notification in the event that the Commission intends to 

disclose the Covered Information in whole or in part to Congress or to any other governmental 

agency or unit pursuant to Section 8 of the CEA. CDE does not waive its notification rights under 

Section 8(f) of the CEA with respect to any subpoena or summons for the Covered Information. 

The address at which CDE can be reached is as follows:

433 West Van Buren Street, Suite 700S

Chicago, Illinois 60607

Attention: General Counsel

Please contact me at kkirkpatrick@cboe.com or (312) 786-7431 if you have any questions
regarding this request.

Cboe Digital Exchange, LLC

/s/ Katherine Kirkpatrick

By: Katherine Kirkpatrick, Chief Legal Officer
#### Timothy Makara, Respondent, v Kelly Makara, Appellant. Karen Khan, Nonparty Appellant; Raylene Shayo, Nonparty Respondent.

Submitted December 21, 2009;

decided February 23, 2010

Motion, insofar as it seeks leave to appeal from the portion of the September 2009 Appellate Division order that affirmed the imposition of sanctions against appellants and the grant of a counsel fee award to nonparty Shayo, denied; motion for leave to appeal otherwise dismissed upon the ground that the remainder of the September 2009 Appellate Division order and the Appellate Division order denying reargument or, in the alternative, leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals, do not *766finally determine the action within the meaning of the Constitution.
# C_2019054EN.01001803.xml

| 11.2.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 54/18 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.2.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 54/18

---

Order of the President of the Court of 15 November 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Social No 33 de Barcelona — Spain) — Magdalena Molina Rodríguez v Servicio Público de Empleo Estatal (SEPE)

(Case C-279/18) (1)

(2019/C 54/29)

Language of the case: Spanish

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

---

(1)  OJ C 259, 23.7.2018.

---
# C_2019155EN.01004302.xml

| 6.5.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 155/43 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.5.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 155/43

---

Order of the General Court of 12 March 2019 — Strabag Belgium v Parliament

(Case T-784/17) (1)

(Action for annulment - Public works contracts - Tender procedure - General contractor works for European Parliament buildings in Brussels - Rejection of a tenderer’s bid and award of the contract to other tenderers - Replacement of the contested measure in the course of the proceedings - Action which has become devoid of purpose - No need to adjudicate)

(2019/C 155/52)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Strabag Belgium (Antwerp, Belgium) (represented by: initially by M. Schoups, K. Lemmens and M. Lahbib, and subsequently by M. Schoups and K. Lemmens, lawyers)

Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: Z. Nagy and B. Simon, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action under Article 263 TFEU seeking, first, annulment of the decision of the Parliament of 24 November 2017 rejecting the applicant’s tender and awarding to five tenderers a framework contract involving general contractor works for Parliament buildings in Brussels (Belgium) (call for tenders 06D20/2017/M036) and, second, an order for the Parliament to produce various documents.

Operative part of the order

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

1.

There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the action;

| 2. | The European Parliament is ordered to pay the costs, including those relating to the proceedings for interim measures; |
| --- | --- |

2.

The European Parliament is ordered to pay the costs, including those relating to the proceedings for interim measures;

| 3. | The head of claim requesting that the Parliament be ordered to pay ‘procedural compensation’ is rejected as inadmissible. |
| --- | --- |

3.

The head of claim requesting that the Parliament be ordered to pay ‘procedural compensation’ is rejected as inadmissible.

---

(1)  OJ C 32, 29.1.2018.

---
**Exhibit
      99.2**





CERTIFICATE
      PURSUANT TO


18
      U.S.C.
      SECTION 1350


AS
      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION
      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002








In
      connection with the Annual Report (the “Report”) on the Form 10-KSB of
      Tylerstone Ventures Corporation (the “Company”) for the year ended August 31,
      2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof,
      I, Laurence Stephenson, Chief Executive Officer, President and Director,
      certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section
      906
      of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge and
      belief:





1.
      The
      Annual Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13 (a) or 15
      (d)
      of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and





2.
            The
                information contained in this Annual Report fairly presents, in all
                material respects, the financial condition and results of operation
                of the
                Company.











Date:
      October 2, 2006


LAURENCE
      STEPHENSON


Laurence
      Stephenson


Chief
      Executive Officer,


President
      and
      Director








-1-
**Exhibit 99.6**

** **

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

In connection with the Annual Report of Encana Corporation (the “Company”) on Form 40-F for the year ended December 31, 2011, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, William A. Stevenson, Executive Vice-President & Chief Accounting 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 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   results of operations of the Company. |

 

 
|   | By:                           | /s/ William A. Stevenson                                       |   |
|--------|-------------------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
|   |                          | William A. Stevenson                                           |
|   |                          | Executive   Vice-President & Chief Accounting Officer |
|   |                          |
|   | Dated: February 23, 2012 |

 

----
EXHIBIT 32.1





CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In connection with the Annual Report of DTLL, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-KSB for the year ended May 31, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), I, Russell G. Felten, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §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 results of operations of the Company.



Dated:  August 30, 2004







/s/ Russell G. Felten



Russell G. Felten

Chief Executive Officer





---
# C_2019413EN.01001601.xml

| 9.12.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 413/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.12.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 413/16

---

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 3 October 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Raad voor Vreemdelingenbetwistingen — Belgium) — X v Belgische Staat

(Case C-302/18) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Immigration policy - Status of third-country nationals who are long-term residents - Directive 2003/109/EC - Conditions for acquiring long-term resident status - Article 5(1)(a) - Stable, regular and sufficient resources)

(2019/C 413/17)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Raad voor Vreemdelingenbetwistingen

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: X

Defendant: Belgische Staat

Operative part of the judgment

Article 5(1)(a) of Council Directive 2003/109/EC of 25 November 2003 concerning the status of third-country nationals who are long-term residents must be interpreted as meaning that the concept of ‘resources’ referred to in that provision does not concern solely the ‘own resources’ of the applicant for long-term resident status, but may also cover the resources made available to that applicant by a third party provided that, in the light of the individual circumstances of the applicant concerned, they are considered to be stable, regular and sufficient.

---

(1)  OJ C 276, 6.8.2018.

---
#### In the Matter of Cunntrel A. and Others. Onondaga County Department of Social Services, Respondent; Jermaine D.A., Appellant, et al., Respondent.

Submitted March 8, 2010;

decided May 6, 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. Motion for poor person relief dismissed as academic.
EXHIBIT 32.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

(SUBSECTIONS (A) AND (B) OF SECTION 1350,

CHAPTER 63 OF TITLE 18, UNITED STATES CODE)

I, Gregory B. Milton, of OMNI Energy Services Corp., certify, pursuant
to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



|(1) | Amendment No. 2 to the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2007 (the Periodic Report) which this statement accompanies 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 Periodic Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of OMNI Energy Services Corp.
|--- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: August 29, 2007



/s/ Gregory B. MiltonGregory B. MiltonChief Accounting Officer
CERTIFICATIONS PURSUANT TO THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906

OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





I, Richard Whatley, Chief Financial Officer of Alpha Gold Corp. (the Company) do hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge:



1. This Annual Report on Form 20-F of the Company for the period ended February 28, 2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (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 results of operations of the Company.



Date: August 14, 2006





/s/  Richard Whatley

Richard Whatley

Chief Financial Officer













#
# C_2017078EN.01003701.xml

| 13.3.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 78/37 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.3.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 78/37

---

Action brought on 20 January 2017 — Skyleader v EUIPO — Sky International (SKYLEADER)

(Case T-34/17)

(2017/C 078/51)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Skyleader a.s. (Ústí nad Labem, Czech Republic) (represented by: K. Malmstedt, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Sky International AG (Zug, Switzerland)

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: EU figurative mark containing the word element ‘SKYLEADER’ — EU trade mark No 6 347 827

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 21 Novembre 2016 in Case R 805/2016-4

Contested decision

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the decision No 11084 C of the Cancellation Division and the contested decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision No 11084 C of the Cancellation Division and the contested decision;

| — | order EUIPO and Sky International to pay the costs of the proceedings both before the General Court and EUIPO. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO and Sky International to pay the costs of the proceedings both before the General Court and EUIPO.

Pleas in law

Pleas in law

| — | Infringement of EU law and of substantial procedural measures of EU law; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of EU law and of substantial procedural measures of EU law;

| — | Infringement of principles of good and sound administration; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of principles of good and sound administration;

| — | Infringement of Rule 45(5) of Regulation No 2868/95. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Rule 45(5) of Regulation No 2868/95.

---
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v *751Robert Mason, Appellant.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Sullivan, J.), rendered September 17, 1986, convicting him of robbery in the first degree and burglary in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing, of that branch of the defendant’s omnibus motion which was to suppress identification testimony.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The findings of the hearing court are entitled to great deference and should not be set aside unless clearly unsupported by the record (see, *People v Prochilo,*41 NY2d 759; *People v Yukl,*25 NY2d 585, *cert denied*400 US 851; *People v Hayes,*127 AD2d 607; *People v Armstead,*98 AD2d 726). In the instant case, there was nothing suggestive about the photographic array consisting of six photographs of males of similar age, race, build, stature, and hairstyle *(see, People v Reid,*137 AD2d 844; *People v Campbell,*149 AD2d 719).

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution *(see, People v Contes,*60 NY2d 620), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence (CPL 470.15 [5]).

Further, we find no basis for modifying the sentence imposed by the trial court *(see, People v Suitte,*90 AD2d 80).

We have examined the defendant’s remaining contentions, including those raised in his supplemental *pro se*brief, and find them to be without merit. Bracken, J. P., Brown, Lawrence and Kooper, JJ., concur.