alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2020287EN.01000501.xml

| 31.8.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 287/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

31.8.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 287/5

---

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 9 July 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Timişoara — Romania) — CT v Administraţia Judeţeană a Finanţelor Publice Caraş-Severin — Serviciul Inspecţie Persoane Fizice, Direcţia Generală Regională a Finanţelor Publice Timişoara — Serviciul Soluţionare Contestaţii 1

(Case C-716/18) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Taxation - Common system of value added tax (VAT) - Directive 2006/112/EC - Point 4 of the first paragraph of Article 288 - Special scheme for small enterprises - Method of calculating annual turnover which serves as a reference for the application of the special scheme for small enterprises - Concept of ‘ancillary real estate transaction’ - Letting of immovable property by a natural person who exercises several liberal professions)

(2020/C 287/06)

Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Curtea de Apel Timişoara

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: CT

Defendant: Administraţia Judeţeană a Finanţelor Publice Caraş-Severin — Serviciul Inspecţie Persoane Fizice, Direcţia Generală Regională a Finanţelor Publice Timişoara — Serviciul Soluţionare Contestaţii 1

Operative part of the judgment

Point 4 of the first paragraph of Article 288 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax, as amended by Council Directive 2009/162/EU of 22 December 2009, must be interpreted as meaning that, with respect to a taxable person who is a natural person and whose economic activity consists of the exercise of several liberal professions and the letting of immovable property, such a letting does not constitute an ‘ancillary transaction’ under that provision where that transaction is carried out in the context of a usual business activity of the taxable person.

---

(1)  OJ C 65, 18.2.2019.

---
EXHIBIT 1

SPIKES Customer Volume Incentive Program

Program Purpose

The purpose of the SPIKES Customer Volume Incentive Program (the “Program”) is to enhance liquidity in

the products listed below. The resulting increase in liquidity on central limit order book liquidity benefits all 

participant segments in the market.

Product Scope

SPIKES Volatility Index Futures that are traded on MGEX via the CME Globex® trading platform 

(“Product”).

Eligible Participants

There is no limit to the number of participants in the Program. There are no member requirements for 

participants. Participants must complete an application with the Exchange to be eligible for the Program. 

An application can be received by contacting MGEX at mgex@mgex.com.

Program participants must not be Proprietary Trading Groups, which are defined by the CFTC as an 

organization whose owners, employees, and/or contractors trade in the name of accounts owned by the 

group and exclusively use the funds of the group for all of their trading activity. The Exchange, in its sole 

determination and based on a variety of factors, will have the final decision regarding disputes of eligibility.

Program Term

Start date is March 1, 2023. End date is September 30, 2023December 31, 2023.

Obligations

Upon meeting certain volume thresholds in the Product, participants will be eligible to receive 

predetermined incentives.

Incentives

Upon meeting all obligations, as determined by the Exchange, participants will be eligible to receive 

predetermined incentives.

Monitoring and Termination of Status

The Exchange will monitor trading activity and participants’ performance and retain the right to revoke 

participant status if it concludes from review that a participant no longer meets the eligibility requirements, 

fails to meet the obligations of the Program, or fails to comply with Exchange rules (including, but not limited 

to, rules relating to market manipulation, wash trades, etc.) or any applicable law.
#### Frehiwot JEMANEH, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 05-1529.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: April 26, 2006.

Decided: June 9, 2006.

Allan Ebert, Law Offices of Allan Ebert, Washington, D.C., for Petitioner. Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney General, M. Jocelyn Lopez Wright, Assistant Director, Larry P. Cote, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.

Before MICHAEL, GREGORY, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

*300PER CURIAM:

Frehiwot Jemaneh, a native and citizen of Ethiopia, seeks review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Board) denying her motion to reopen. We have reviewed the administrative record and conclude that the denial of the motion to reopen was not an abuse of discretion. *See INS v. Doherty, 502*U.S. 314, 323-24, 112 S.Ct. 719, 116 L.Ed.2d 823 (1992). Moreover, we find Jemaneh’s contention that the Board violated her right to due process in denying reopening to be without merit. *See Obioha v. Gonzales,*431 F.3d 400, 409 (4th Cir.2005).

We accordingly deny the petition for review. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*PETITION DENIED.*
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2359 Enrolled Bill (ENR)]

        H.R.2359

                     One Hundred Sixteenth Congress

                                 of the

                        United States of America

                          AT THE SECOND SESSION

           Begun and held at the City of Washington on Friday,
            the third day of January, two thousand and twenty

                                 An Act

 
  To direct the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to submit to Congress a 
 report on the Department of Veterans Affairs advancing of whole health 
                             transformation.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
    This Act may be cited as the ``Whole Veteran Act''.
SEC. 2. REPORT ON DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS ADVANCING OF WHOLE 
HEALTH TRANSFORMATION.
    (a) Report.--Not later than 180 days after the date of the 
enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Veterans Affairs shall submit 
to Congress a report on the implementation of the Department of 
Veterans Affairs memorandum dated February 12, 2019, on the subject of 
Advancing Whole Health Transformation Across Veterans Health 
Administration.
    (b) Matters Included.--The report under subsection (a) shall 
include the following:
        (1) An analysis of the accessibility and availability of each 
    of the following services at medical facilities of the Department 
    of Veterans Affairs (including community based outpatient clinics, 
    vet centers, and community living centers):
            (A) Massage.
            (B) Chiropractic services.
            (C) Whole health clinician services.
            (D) Whole health coaching.
            (E) Acupuncture.
            (F) Healing touch.
            (G) Whole health group services.
            (H) Guided imagery.
            (I) Meditation.
            (J) Hypnosis.
            (K) Yoga.
            (L) Tai chi or Qi gong.
            (M) Equine assisted therapy.
            (N) Any other service the Secretary determines appropriate.
        (2) An assessment of the health outcomes derived from the 
    services specified in paragraph (1).
        (3) An assessment of the resources required to expand such 
    services to the entire Veterans Health Administration.
        (4) A plan to provide the services referred to in paragraph (1) 
    to veterans who reside in a geographic area where no community-
    based outpatient clinic, medical center, Vet Center, or community 
    living center is located.

                               Speaker of the House of Representatives.

                            Vice President of the United States and    
                                               President of the Senate.
```
## ELECTRONIC RECORD
COA # 03-13-00066-CR OFFENSE: 2.03 MauriceSamuel Arrington v. The 

## STYLE: state ofTexas COUNTY: Bell 

# 3*8-/5

COA DISPOSITION: AFFIRMED TRIAL COURT: 426th District Court DATE: 03/05/15 Publish: NO TC CASE #: 69198



### IN THE COURTOF CRIMINALAPPEALS Maurice Samuel Arrington STYLE: State ofTexas v. The Petition 

# 31$-AT PRO SE CCA Disposition: FOR DISCRETIONARYREVIEW IN CCA IS: DATE: 

# R&0*?P JUDGE: 

# DATE: /D/i>7/*-0Lr JUDGE: IjU CU^^- SIGNED: PC: PUBLISH: DNP:
MOTION FOR REHEARING IN CCA IS: JUDGE: 

### ELECTRONIC RECORD
433 West Van Buren Street › Suite 700S › Chicago, IL 60607 › cboe.com

December 20, 2023

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 a license incentive program for CDE Trading Privilege Holders 

(“TPHs”) that are futures commission merchants (“FCMs”) (CDE-2023-17E), submitted to the CFTC 

via the CFTC Portal on December 20, 2023 (“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
**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**

|   | (1) | The                Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d)                of                the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m(a) or 78o(d));                and |
|--------|-----|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

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

|   | /s/                STUART A. BENSON                                                   |
|--------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   | Stuart                A. Benson                                                       |
|   | Chief                Executive Officer, acting Chief Financial                Officer |

----
[925 NE2d 93, 899 NYS2d 750]

#### In the Matter of Suffolk County Community College et al., Respondents, v New York State Division of Human Rights, Appellant and Cross Petitioner. Bruce Simmons, Respondent on the Cross Petition.

Decided February 23, 2010

APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL

*Michael K. Swirsky,*Bronx, for appellant.

*Christine Malafi, County Attorney,*Hauppauge *(Jennifer K. McNamara*of counsel), for respondents.

OPINION OF THE COURT

On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.11 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.11), order, insofar

*763as appealed from, reversed, with costs, and matter remitted to the Appellate Division, Second Department, for consideration of issues raised but not determined on the proceedings before that court. Substantial evidence in the record supports the determination of the State Division of Human Rights that complainant was subjected to unlawful discriminatory employment practices.

Concur: Chief Judge Lippman and Judges Ciparick, Graffeo, Read, Smith, Pigott and Jones.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Alton Jerome MOORE, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 08-50408

Conference Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Oct. 26, 2010.

Joseph H. Gay, Jr., Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office Western District of Texas, San Antonio, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Alton Jerome Moore, Beaumont, TX, pro se.

Before SMITH, DENNIS, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Alton Jerome Moore, federal prisoner # 40249-080, seeks leave to appeal in for-*913ma pauperis (IFP) from the denial of his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) motion. Moore was convicted of possession with intent to distribute crack cocaine and sentenced as a career offender under U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1 to 360 months of imprisonment. By moving to proceed IFP, Moore is challenging the district court’s certification decision that his appeal was not taken in good faith because it is frivolous. *See Baugh v. Taylor,*117 F.3d 197, 202 (5th Cir.1997).

On appeal, Moore argues that he was entitled to a sentence reduction despite the fact that he was sentenced as a career offender. He contends that one of his prior convictions did not support his classification as a career offender. He also complains that the district court failed to notify him regarding an addendum to the presentence report (PSR), and he argues that the holding of *United States v. Booker,*543 U.S. 220, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005), applies to § 3582(c)(2) proceedings.

Moore’s guidelines range of imprisonment was not derived from the quantity of crack cocaine involved in the offense but rather from his status as a career offender. Therefore, the district court correctly determined that Moore was not eligible for a sentence reduction. *See*§ 3582(c)(2); *United States v. Anderson,*591 F.3d 789, 790-91 (5th Cir.2009). The Supreme Court’s decision in *Booker*does not apply to sentence reductions under § 3582(c)(2) because such proceedings are not full re-sentencings. *United States v. Doublin,*572 F.3d 235, 238 (5th Cir.), *cert. denied,*- U.S. -, 130 S.Ct. 517, 175 L.Ed.2d 366 (2009); *see also Dillon v. United States,*— U.S. -, 130 S.Ct. 2683, 2691-94, 177 L.Ed.2d 271 (2010) (holding that *Booker*does not apply to § 3582(c)(2) proceedings). Moore’s complaint regarding his classification as a career offender is not cognizable under § 3582(c)(2), *see United States v. Whitebird,*55 F.3d 1007, 1011 (5th Cir.1995), and any error regarding a PSR addendum was harmless. *See*Fed.R.CrimP. 52(a).

Moore has failed to show that he will raise a nonfrivolous issue on appeal. *See Howard v. King,*707 F.2d 215, 220 (5th Cir.1983). Accordingly, his IFP motion is DENIED. Because the appeal is frivolous, it is DISMISSED. *See*5th Cir. R. 42.2. His motion for the appointment of counsel is also DENIED.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be *913published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
H. R. 2502 

One Hundred Sixteenth Congress 

of the 

United States of America 

AT THE SECOND SESSION 

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Friday, 

the third day of January, two thousand and twenty 

An Act 

To amend title 40, United States Code, to require certain prospectuses for public 

buildings to be made publicly available, and for other purposes. 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 

the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Transparency in Federal 

Buildings Projects Act of 2019’’. 

SEC. 2. PUBLIC AVAILABILITY OF BUILDING PROJECT INFORMATION. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—Chapter 33 of title 40, United States Code, 

is amended by adding at the end the following new section: 

‘‘SEC. 3318. AVAILABILITY OF FEDERAL BUILDING PROJECT INFORMATION. 

‘‘(a) IN GENERAL.—Not later than 180 days after the date of 

enactment of this section, and, at a minimum, on a quarterly 

basis thereafter, the Administrator shall make publicly available 

on a subpage of the website of the General Services Administration 

all prospectuses submitted pursuant to sections 3307 and 3316, 

and associated information subject to the following requirements: 

‘‘(1) The Administrator shall maintain such information 

in an easily accessible and readable, organized, downloadable, 

and searchable format. 

‘‘(2) The Administrator shall ensure the information is current and prospectuses and associated information updated on 

a regular basis. 

‘‘(3) The information required under this section shall be 

inclusive for a period of not less than 10 years. 

‘‘(4) The information shall include— 

‘‘(A) the last date on which the relevant webpage was 

updated; 

‘‘(B) approval dates of respective authorizing resolutions by each committee of jurisdiction, if applicable; 

‘‘(C) copies of respective committee of jurisdiction resolutions authorizing such prospectuses, as appropriate; 

‘‘(D) cross-references to any resubmitted or amended 

prospectuses and associated resolutions; and 

‘‘(E) such other information as determined by the 

Administrator. 

‘‘(b) DEFINITIONS.—In this section, the following definitions 

apply: 
H. R. 2502—2 

‘‘(1) PROSPECTUS.—The term ‘prospectus’ means 

prospectuses, building surveys, and factsheets submitted to the 

committees of jurisdiction pursuant to sections 3307 and 3316. 

‘‘(2) COMMITTEES OF JURISDICTION.—The term ‘committees 

of jurisdiction’ means the Committee on Transportation and 

Infrastructure of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Environment and Public Works of the Senate. 

‘‘(3) ASSOCIATED INFORMATION.—The term ‘associated 

information’ means resolutions approved by the committees 

of jurisdiction and other information as required pursuant to 

subsection (a).’’. 

(b) CONFORMING AMENDMENT.—The table of chapters for 

chapter 33 of title 40, United States Code, is amended by adding 

at the end the following: 

‘‘3318. Availability of Federal building project information.’’. 

Speaker of the House of Representatives. 

Vice President of the United States and

President of the Senate.
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

I, Ronald L. Marquardt, hereby 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 Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Winchester International Resorts
          Inc. for the period ended September 30, 2009 (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 Winchester International Resorts Inc.

Dated: November 16, 2009

                                 /s/ Ronald L. Marquardt
                                 -----------------------------------------------
                                 Ronald L. Marquardt
                                 President, Chief Operating Officer and Director
                                 (Principal Executive Officer)
                                 Winchester International Resorts Inc.

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other
document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that
appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement
required by Section 906, has been provided to Winchester International Resorts
Inc. and will be retained by Winchester International Resorts Inc. and furnished
to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Juan Jose PEREZ-CORONEL, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 10-40017

Conference Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Oct. 26, 2010.

James Lee Turner, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Marjorie A. Meyers, Federal Public Defender, Laura Fletcher Leavitt, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.

*9Before SMITH, DENNIS, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Juan Jose Perez-Coronel has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). Perez-Coronel has not filed a response. Our independent review of the record and counsel’s brief discloses no nonfrivolous issue for appeal. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. *See*5th Cir. R. 42.2.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.