alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
* Local Rule 47.5 provides: "The publication of opinions

that have no precedential value and merely decide particular

cases on the basis of well-settled principles of law imposes

needless expense on the public and burdens on the legal

profession." Pursuant to that Rule, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published. 

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

__________________

No. 95-40112

Conference Calendar

__________________

ERIC ANTONIO HOWARD,

 Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

TIM TAYLOR,

 Defendant-Appellee.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Texas

USDC No. 2:94-CV-117

- - - - - - - - - -

June 30, 1995

Before JONES, WIENER, and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Appellant Eric Antonio Howard appeals the district court's

dismissal of his civil rights action against Tim Taylor, county

attorney for Titus County, Texas, as frivolous. Howard argues

that Taylor failed to perform his duty under article 2.03(a) of

the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure when he refused to present

before the grand jury evidence of wrongdoing by other officers.

Prosecutors are immune from § 1983 suits for acts that are

within the scope of their prosecutorial duties. Imbler v.
No. 95-40112

-2-

Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409, 431 (1976). Prosecutorial immunity has

been extended to a prosecutor's actions in initiating,

investigating, and pursuing a criminal prosecution. Cook v.

Houston Post, 616 F.2d 791, 793 (5th Cir. 1980); McGruder v.

Necaise, 733 F.2d 1146, 1148 (5th Cir. 1984). Quasi-judicial

conduct, such as a prosecutor's decision whether to file criminal

charges, is also immune. Oliver v. Collins, 904 F.2d 278, 281

(5th Cir. 1990); Chrissy F. v. Mississippi Dep't of Pub. Welfare,

925 F.2d 844, 850 (5th Cir. 1992). 

The prosecutor's duty to present by information evidence of

neglect is not distinct from or independent of his decision to

file criminal charges. Because that decision falls within his

scope of prosecutorial duties, he is absolutely immune from

liability. 

Although neither absolute nor qualified immunity extends to

suits for injunctive or declaratory relief, Chrissy F., 925 F.2d

at 849, Howard is not entitled to such relief because there is no

constitutionally protected right to have any other person

criminally prosecuted. Sattler v. Johnson, 857 F.2d 224, 227

(4th Cir. 1988). Accordingly, the district court did not abuse

its discretion in dismissing Howard's complaint, and its judgment

is AFFIRMED.
1177 Avenue of Americas

New York, New York 10036

August 31, 2022

Submitted via CFTC Portal

Mr. Christopher J. Kirkpatrick

Office of the Secretariat

Commodity Futures Trading Commission

Three Lafayette Centre

1155 21st Street, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20581

Re: TW SEF LLC - Rule Changes - Fully Integrated API Services Fee Schedule (Rate Swaps)

Dear Mr. Kirkpatrick:

Pursuant to Section 5c(c) of the Commodity Exchange Act (the “Act”) and Section 40.6(a) of the regulations of 

the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (the “Commission”), Tradeweb SEF LLC (“TW SEF”) hereby 

submits amendments to its Fully Integrated API Services Fee Schedule (Rate Swaps) (“Fee Schedule”), which 

have been amended to reflect updates to certain terms and fees. The amendments will become effective on 

November 1, 2022, which is more than ten business days from the date hereof. Pursuant to Commission 

Regulations 40.8 and 145.9(d), attached as Appendix A is the update to the Fee Schedule, with the additions 

and deletions indicated in redline format. In connection with this submission, TW SEF hereby notifies the 

Commission that:

1. Pursuant to CFTC Regulations 40.8 and 145.9, TW SEF is seeking to keep certain information 

confidential because it would otherwise reveal trade secrets or confidential commercial or financial 

information and has posted a notice of pending certification with the Commission and a redacted 

copy of this submission on TW SEF’s website.

2. TW SEF certifies that the Rule complies with the Act and the Commission’s regulations thereunder, 

including Core Principle 2 (Compliance with rules), as the Fee Schedule is a rule of the SEF; and

3. No substantive opposing views with respect to the Rule were expressed to TW SEF by its 

governing board or committee members, members of TW SEF or market participants.

If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact the undersigned at (646) 767-4923 or by email at 

Devi.Shanmugham@tradeweb.com.

Very truly yours,

Devi Shanmugham

TW SEF CCO
CONFIDENTIAL TREATMENT REQUESTED BY TW SEF LLC PURSUANT TO 17 CFR PART 145

APPENDIX A

Fully Integrated API Services Fee Schedule (Rate Swaps) 

(Blackline and Clean Copies)

[REDACTED]
Exhibit
10.4


 






CERTAIN INFORMATION (INDICATED BY “[***]”) IN THIS EXHIBIT HAS
BEEN OMITTED AND FILED SEPARATELY WITH THE SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE
COMMISSION.  CONFIDENTIAL TREATMENT HAS
BEEN REQUESTED WITH RESPECT TO THE OMITTED PORTIONS.


 


TOSHIBA


Toshiba America Electronic Components, Inc.


2950 Orchard Parkway, San Jose, CA 95131


 


Design and Production Agreement


 


Amendment #1


 


Netlist Inc.


 


This
Design and Production Agreement Amendment effective May 22, 2009 (the “Effective
Date”) is between Toshiba America Electronic Components, Inc., with a
principal place of business at 19900 MacArthur Boulevard, Suite 400, Irvine,
CA 92612 (“TAEC”) and Netlist Inc. with a place of business at 51 Discovery, Suite 150
Irvine, CA 92618 (“Customer”) and sets out the terms and conditions under which
TAEC will design the product identified herein for Customer.


 


1.             Project Name


 


Register
ASIC


 


2.             Summary


 


This
Amendment #1 to the Register ASIC Design and Production Agreement, dated July 31,
2008, (TAEC#27N1242613) is hereby amended to remove the Major Project
Milestones in section 4. Schedule and replace with the following Major Project
Milestones as follows:


 


4.             Schedule


 


Major
Project Milestones


 


	
  Event

  	
   

  	
  Target Date/Completed

  
	
  [***]

  	
   

  	
  [***]

  
	
  [***]

  	
   

  	
  [***]

  
	
  [***]

  	
   

  	
  [***]

  
	
  [***]

  	
   

  	
  [***]

  
	
  [***]

  	
   

  	
  [***]

  
	
  [***]

  	
   

  	
  [***]

  
	
  [***]

  	
   

  	
  [***]

  
	
  [***]

  	
   

  	
  [***]

  
	
  [***]

  	
   

  	
  [***]

  
	
  [***]

  	
   

  	
  [***]

  
	
  [***]

  	
   

  	
  [***]

  
	
  [***]

  	
   

  	
  [***]

  



 

















 


Except
as modified herein, all other terms and conditions of the Design and Production
Agreement shall remain in full force and effect per their terms.


 


 


	
  Toshiba
  America Electronic Components, Inc.

  	
   

  	
  NetList
  Inc.

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  /s/
  Takeshi Iwamoto

  	
   

  	
  /s/
  James P. Perrott

  
	
  Signature

  	
   

  	
  Signature

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
  James
  P. Perrott, SVP Sales & Marketing

  
	
  Takeshi
  Iwamoto VP, Customer SoC & Foundry Business Unit

  	
   

  	
  Printed
  Name and Title

  
	
  Printed
  Name and Title

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
  5-22-09

  
	
  5-22-09

  	
   

  	
  Date

  
	
  Date
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

R.G.R., a Child,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

No. 4D19-509

[February 20, 2020]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm 

Beach County; James L. Martz, Judge; L.T. Case No. 50-2018-CJ-002512-

XXXX-MB.

Carey Haughwout, Public Defender, and Virginia Murphy, Assistant 

Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Lindsay A. Warner, 

Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

MAY, CIKLIN and GERBER, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
# C_2017256EN.01004001.xml

| 7.8.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 256/40 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.8.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 256/40

---

Action brought on 23 June 2017 — Lackmann Fleisch- und Feinkostfabrik v EUIPO (Лидер)

(Case T-386/17)

(2017/C 256/46)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Lackmann Fleisch- und Feinkostfabrik GmbH (Bühl, Germany) (represented by: A. Lingenfelser, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Defendant:

Details of the procedure before EUIPO

Details of the procedure before EUIPO

Mark at issue: EU figurative mark containing the word element ‘Лидер’ — Application No 15 466 791

Mark at issue:

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 28 April 2017 in Case R 2066/2016-1

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.

Plea in law

Plea in law

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

—

Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation No 207/2009.

---
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Patrick Stephen WALSH, a/k/a Patrick Steven Walsh, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 09-8171.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: April 22, 2010.

Decided: May 11, 2010.

Patrick Stephen Walsh, Appellant Pro Se. Chan Park, Assistant United States Attorney, Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appel-lee.

Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Patrick Stephen Walsh seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp.2009) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006). A certificate of ap-pealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that any assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district court is likewise debatable. *Miller-El v. Cockrell,*537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003); *Slack v. McDaniel,*529 U.S. 473, 484-85, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); *Rose v. Lee,*252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir.2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Walsh has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of ap-pealability and dismiss the appeal. We *332dispense 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.

*DISMISSED.*
Exhibit 32.1  CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER 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 Quarterly Report of Spectrum Acquisition Corporation on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended December 31, 2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Harry Orfanos, Chief Executive Officer of Spectrum Acquisition Corporation certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that: 1) The Report fully complies with the requirement of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and 2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the Company's financial position and results of operations.  /s/Harry OrfanosHarry Orfanos, Chief Executive Officer February 14, 2008
No. 69772 

# FILED

MAR 1 8 2016

TR CIE K. LMIDEMAN CLERK4JFAUPREME COURT BY -yo

DEPUTY CLERK I IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA

GABRIEL GARCIA, Petitioner,
vs. THE EIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA, IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF CLARK; AND THE HONORABLE ELISSA F. CADISH, DISTRICT JUDGE, Respondents, and STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY; AND JOYCE KING, Real Parties in Interest.
ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS This original petition for a writ of mandamus challenges a district court order dismissing, for failure to state a viable claim, the portion of a complaint seeking to renew a judgment against real party in interest Joyce King. Having considered the petition, we conclude that petitioner has failed to demonstrate that our extraordinary intervention is warranted. A writ of mandamus is available to compel legally-required action by an inferior state tribunal, but the writ generally will not issue when the petitioner has a plain, speedy, and adequate remedy at law. NRS 34.160; NRS 34.170; Mineral Cty. v. State, Dep't of Conservation & Nat. Res., 117 Nev. 235, 242-43, 20 P.3d 800, 805 (2001). Here, petitioner has indicated that, after King was dismissed, the underlying case was removed to the federal district court. As a result, the respondent district court lacks jurisdiction, and petitioner's remedy properly lies with the

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA
(0) '947A

- 0 8& 3 5

# taaal federal court. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1446(d) and 1450 (2012); Ackerman v.

ExxonMobil Corp., 734 F.3d 237, 249 (4th Cir. 2013); Laguna Viii., Inc. v. Laborers' Intl Union of N. Am., 672 P.2d 882, 885 (Cal. 1983). Accordingly, we conclude that our extraordinary intervention is not warranted or appropriate, Mineral Cty., 117 Nev. 235, 20 P.3d 800 (denying a writ petition out of deference to the proper, federal court forum), and we

ORDER the petition DENIED. 

# Ao_A Hardesty

J. Saitta


## Pieith AI)

, J. Pickering

cc: Hon. Elissa F. Cadish, District Judge Christensen Law Offices, LLC Harper Law Group Eighth District Court Clerk

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 2 (0) 1947A 0
No. 550.

#### Borum et al. *v.*United States.

Argued January 22, 1932.

Decided January 25, 1932.

*Mr. John H. Burnett,*with whom *Messrs. James A. O’Shea*and *Bertrand Emerson*were on the brief, for Borum et al., maintained that the verdict was. bad for inconsistency, citing:

Reporter’s statement: The certificate set forth an indictment in four counts charging the three defendants with murder in the first degree. The first count named one of the defendants, the second another, and the third the last as having held the pistol with which the crime was committed. The fourth count alleged that the weapon was held by one of the defendants but that his name was to the grand jurors unknown, The certificate also set out a part of the instructions of the trial judge, and showed that all three defendants were found not guilty under the first three counts but guilty under the fourth, and were sentenced to death.

The question certified was:

“ Can the judgment of the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia, based upon the conviction of the defendants on the fourth count of the indiótment, be sustained in view of the acquittal of each and all of the defendants of the charge of murder in the first degree as contained in the first three.counts of the indictment? ”

*Per Curiam:*

Question answered “ Yes.” *Dunn*v. *United States, ante,*p. 390.

*597
      *Solicitor General Thacher*and *Messrs. Erwin N. Gris-wold, Leo A. Rover,*U. S. Attorney for the District of Columbia, and *Wm. H. Collins,*Assistant U. S. Attorney, were on the brief for the United States.
Exhibit 32.1

Certification
Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as Adopted Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

In connection with the Annual
Report of The Valspar Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-K for the fiscal
year ended October 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, William L. Mansfield, Chief
Executive Officer of the Company and I, Lori A. Walker, Chief Financial Officer
of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

|   |                                                                                                                                                       
|-- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|1. | The Report fully complies
 with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities 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.

| | /s/ William L. Mansfield                        
| | ------------------------------------------------
| |                                                 
| | William L. Mansfield                            
| | President and Chief
 Executive Officer          
| |                                                 
| | December 23, 2008                               
| |                                                 
| | /s/ Lori A. Walker                              
| |                                                 
| | Lori A. Walker                                  
| | Senior Vice President
 (Chief Financial Officer)
| |                                                 
| | December 23, 2008                               

54

---
---

|CERTIFICATION OF                                         
|---------------------------------------------------------
|CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL
      OFFICER
|PURSUANT TO                                              
|18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,                                  
|AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO                                   
|SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002            

I, Kerry J. McCullagh, the Chief Executive Officer and Chief
Financial Officer of Contact Minerals Corp. (the Company), 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 the best of my knowledge:

| | (i)  | the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company, for the
      fiscal quarter ended January 31, 2011, and to which this certification is
      attached as Exhibit 32.1 (the Report) fully complies with the
      requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of
      1934, as amended; and
| | ---- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| |      |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           
| | (ii) | the information contained in the Report fairly presents,
      in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
      operations of the Company.                                                                                                                                                          

| | By:    | /s/ Kerry J. McCullagh     
| | ------ | ---------------------------
| |        |                            
| | Name:  | KERRY J. MCCULLAGH         
| |        |                            
| | Title: | Chief Executive Officer and
| |        | Chief Financial Officer    
| |        |                            
| | Date:  | March 7, 2011              
| |        |                            

A signed original of this written statement required by
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 has been provided to the Company
and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission or its staff upon request.

This certification accompanies the Form 10-Q to which it
relates, is not deemed filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission and is
not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company under the
Securities Act of 1933 or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (whether made
before or after the date of the Form 10-Q), irrespective of any general
incorporation language contained in such filing.

---
# C_2019413EN.01001001.xml

| 9.12.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 413/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.12.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 413/10

---

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 3 October 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Nejvyšší soud — Czech Republic) — Jana Petruchová v FIBO Group Holdings Limited

(Case C-208/18) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Judicial cooperation in civil matters - Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 - Article 17(1) - Jurisdiction over consumer contracts - Notion of ‘consumer’ - Natural person carrying out transactions on the international exchange market through the intermediary of a brokerage company - Regulation (EC) No 593/2008 (Rome I) - Directive 2004/39/EC - Notion of ‘retail client’)

(2019/C 413/11)

Language of the case: Czech

Referring court

Nejvyšší soud

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Jana Petruchová

Defendant: FIBO Group Holdings Limited

Operative part of the judgment

Article 17(1) of Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2012 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters must be interpreted as meaning that a natural person who, under a contract such as a CfD concluded with a brokerage company, carries out transactions on the international FOREX (foreign exchange) market through that company, must be classified as a ‘consumer’ within the meaning of that provision if the conclusion of that contract does not fall within the scope of that person’s professional activity, which it is for the national court to ascertain. For the purpose of that classification, on the one hand, factors such as the value of transactions carried out under contracts such as financial contracts for differences, the extent of the risks of financial loss associated with the conclusion of such contracts, any knowledge or expertise that person has in the field of financial instruments or his or her active conduct in the context of such transactions are, as such, in principle irrelevant, and, on the other, the fact that the financial instruments do not fall within the scope of Article 6 of Regulation (EC) No 593/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 June 2008 on the law applicable to contractual obligations (Rome I) or that that person is a ‘retail client’ within the meaning of Article 4(1)(12) of Directive 2004/39/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 April 2004 on markets in financial instruments, amending Council Directives 85/611/EEC and 93/6/EEC and Directive 2000/12/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and repealing Council Directive 93/22/EEC is, as such, in principle irrelevant.

---

(1)  OJ C 200, 11.6.2018.

---
Exhibit 13.2

CERTIFICATION

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, the undersigned officer of Nidec Corporation (the Company) hereby certifies, to such officers knowledge, that the Companys annual report on Form 20-F for the year ended March 31, 2005 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

Dated:  August 12, 2005

/s/  Yasunobu ToriyamaYasunobu Toriyama
Executive Vice President, Chief Financial and Accounting Officer and Director