alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
AEGIS SEF | 2829 Technology Forest Boulevard, Suite 260 | The Woodlands, Texas 77381

Chapter 1403

Jet Fuel Basis Swap - Gulf Coast Jet CMA - Platts

DESCRIPTION

A monthly cash settled swap based upon the mathematical result of subtracting the price of the 

NYMEX Heating Oil futures contract, as defined in Floating Price B, from the monthly price 

published by Platts for the contract specified in Floating Price A.

FLOATING PRICE A

The Floating Price for each contract month is equal to the arithmetic average of the mid-point 

between the high and low quotations from Platts Oilgram Price Report for Gulf Coast Jet/Kero 

54 (Pipeline) for each business day that it is determined during the contract month.

FLOATING PRICE B

The Floating Price for each contract month is equal to the arithmetic average of the NYMEX 

Heating Oil futures first nearby contract settlement price for each business day that it is 

determined during the contract month.

CONTRACT UNIT AND VALUE

The contract unit shall be U.S. gallons. Each contract shall be valued as the contract quantity in 

gallons multiplied by the settlement price.

LISTING CYCLE

Up to 120 consecutive monthly contract periods.

PRICES AND FLUCTUATIONS

Prices shall be quoted in U.S. dollars and cents per gallon. The minimum price fluctuation shall 

be $0.0001 per gallon. The minimum price increment will be $0.00001. There shall be no 

maximum price fluctuation.

TERMINATION OF TRADING

Posting of transactions shall cease on the last business day of the contract month.

FINAL SETTLEMENT

Delivery under the contract shall be by cash settlement. Final settlement, following termination 

of posting for a contract month, will be based on the Floating Price. The final settlement price 

will be the Floating Price calculated for each contract month.
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1

                        CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

     We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements
(Form S-8 Nos. 33-87882, 33-87776, 33-89382, 333-02340, 333-06303, 333-16963,
333-20853, 333-52603, 333-80861, 333-39462, 333-57670 and 333-63550, and Form
S-3 No. 333-63564) of Applix, Inc. of our report dated January 25, 2002, (except
for Note 16, as to which the date is February 8, 2002) with respect to the
consolidated financial statements and schedule of Applix, Inc. included in this
Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31, 2001.


                                        /s/ Ernst & Young LLP



Boston, Massachusetts
March 29, 2002
No. 71.

#### Keating, Receiver of Taxes of the City of New York, et al. *v.*Public National Bank.

Argued November 30, 1931.

Decided December 7, 1931.

*Mr. Arthur J. W. Hilly,*with whom *Messrs. William Herbert King,*and *Eugene Fay*were on the brief, for appellants.

*Messrs. Martin Saxe*and *Robert C. Beatty,*with whom *Messrs. Henry L. Moses*and *Herman G. Kopald*were on the brief, for appellee.

*Messrs. Charles L. Feldman*and *Herbert A. Hickman,*by leave of Court, filed a brief on behalf of the- City *588of Buffalo, N. Y., as *amicus curiae.*

*587Per *Curiam:*

Decree affirmed. *Bodkin*v. *Edward,*255 U. S. 221, 223; *Texas & New Orleans R. Co.*v. *Brotherhood of Clerks,*281 U. S. 548, 558; *First National Bank*v. *Hartford,*273 U. S. 548; *Minnesota*v. *First National Bank,*273 U. S. 561; *Georgetown National Bank*v. *McFarland,*273 U. S. 658:
[962 NE2d 252, 938 NYS2d 831]

#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent-Appellant, v Akinlowo Omowale, Appellant-Respondent.

Decided December 13, 2011

*826APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL

*Office of the Appellate Defender,*New York City *(Rosemary Herbert*and *Richard M. Greenberg*of counsel), for appellant-respondent.

*Cyrus R. Vance, Jr., District Attorney,*New York City *(Andrew E. Seewald*of counsel), for respondent-appellant.

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

On defendant’s appeal pertaining to his September 2006 arrest, the order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed. The People’s appeal regarding his May 2007 arrest should be *827dismissed on the ground that the reversal by the Appellate Division was not “on the law alone or upon the law and such facts which, but for the determination of law, would not have led to reversal” (CPL 450.90 [2] [a]).

The Appellate Division’s determination that the police reasonably could have concluded that a weapon was located in defendant’s vehicle during the September 2006 traffic stop and that the situation presented an actual and specific danger to the safety of the officers (see *e.g. People v Mundo,*99 NY2d 55, 59 [2002]; *People v Torres,*74 NY2d 224, 231 n 4 [1989]) was a mixed question of law and fact for which there is support in the record (83 AD3d 614 [2011]). The court’s determination is therefore beyond our further review (see *e.g. People v Williams,*17 NY3d 834, 835 [2011]).

With regard to the May 2007 traffic stop, the Appellate Division reversed and ordered suppression of the seized evidence. It rejected the People’s assertion that there was probable cause to believe that defendant committed attempted criminal impersonation in the second degree. It further concluded that the facts did not provide probable cause to arrest defendant for criminal possession of stolen property because he was taken into custody before the officers learned that the license had been reported missing. It cannot be said that the reversal was “on the law alone or upon the law and such facts which, but for the determination of law, would not have led to reversal” (CPL 450.90 [2] [a]). Consequently, the People’s appeal from that portion of the Appellate Division’s order must be dismissed.

Chief Judge Lippman and Judges Ciparick, Grapfeo, Read, Smith, Pigott and Jones concur.

On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.11 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.11), on defendant’s appeal, order affirmed, and People’s appeal dismissed, in a memorandum.
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 1015 Engrossed in House (EH)]

H. Res. 1015

                In the House of Representatives, U. S.,

                                                      January 19, 2010.
Whereas the Penn State Nittany Lions continued a 102 match winning streak, the 
        longest Division I women's streak, to win the 2009 NCAA Division I 
        women's volleyball championship;
Whereas head coach Russ Rose has 1,001 wins to his name, all of which have come 
        at the helm of the Penn State program;
Whereas the Penn State women's volleyball team has won 65 consecutive Big Ten 
        matches and owns the top 3 winning streaks in league history;
Whereas Megan Hodge, Alisha Glass, and juniors Blair Brown and Arielle Wilson 
        were named AVCA First Team All-Americans and Megan Hodge was the 2009 
        ESPN the Magazine Academic All-American of the Year;
Whereas the Nittany Lions women's volleyball team has won 74 straight home 
        matches and the program also owns the NCAA's longest road winning streak 
        at 50 straight matches;
Whereas the Nittany Lions women's volleyball team has amassed at least 20 wins 
        33 times; and
Whereas the athletic excellence demonstrated by the Penn State women's 
        volleyball team is one example of the athletic, academic, and collegiate 
        excellence of Penn State's students, faculty, administration, and 
        alumni: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved, That the House of Representatives--
            (1) congratulates the Penn State women's volleyball team and the 
        university's athletes, coaches, faculty, students, and alumni on the 
        winning of the 2009 NCAA Division I women's volleyball championship; and
            (2) recognizes Penn State for its recognized excellence as an 
        institution of higher education.
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```
# CE2012136EN.01010601.xml

| 11.5.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 136/106 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.5.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 136/106

---

Tuesday 18 January 2011EC–West African Economic and Monetary Union air services agreement ***

P7_TA(2011)0003

European Parliament legislative resolution of 18 January 2011 on the draft Council decision on the conclusion of the Agreement between the European Community and the West African Economic and Monetary Union on certain aspects of air services (06646/2010 – C7-0103/2010 – 2008/0145(NLE))

2012/C 136 E/22

(Consent)

The European Parliament,

The European Parliament

| — | having regard to the draft Council decision (06646/2010), |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to the draft Council decision (06646/2010),

| — | having regard to the draft Agreement between the European Community and the West African Economic and Monetary Union on certain aspects of air services (06190/2009), |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to the draft Agreement between the European Community and the West African Economic and Monetary Union on certain aspects of air services (06190/2009),

| — | having regard to the request for consent submitted by the Council in accordance with Article 100(2), Article 218(8), first subparagraph, and Article 218(6), second subparagraph, point (a), of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (C7-0103/2010), |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to the request for consent submitted by the Council in accordance with Article 100(2), Article 218(8), first subparagraph, and Article 218(6), second subparagraph, point (a), of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (C7-0103/2010),

| — | having regard to Rules 81 and 90(8) of its Rules of Procedure, |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to Rules 81 and 90(8) of its Rules of Procedure,

| — | having regard to the recommendation of the Committee on Transport and Tourism (A7-0361/2010), |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to the recommendation of the Committee on Transport and Tourism (A7-0361/2010),

| 1. | Consents to conclusion of the Agreement; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Consents to conclusion of the Agreement;

| 2. | Instructs its President to forward its position to the Council, the Commission and the governments and parliaments of the Member States and of the West African Economic and Monetary Union. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Instructs its President to forward its position to the Council, the Commission and the governments and parliaments of the Member States and of the West African Economic and Monetary Union.

---
# C_2019432EN.01000901.xml

| 23.12.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 432/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.12.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 432/9

---

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 31 October 2019– Repower AG v European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO), repowermap.org

(C-281/18 P) (1)

(Appeal - European Union trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - Revocation of the Board of Appeal’s original decision partially refusing the application for a declaration of invalidity of the EU word mark REPOWER)

(2019/C 432/09)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: Repower AG (represented by: R. Kunz-Hallstein, H. P. Kunz-Hallstein, and V. Kling, Rechtsanwälte)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: D. Botis and J.F. Crespo Carrillo, acting as Agents) and repowermap.org (represented by: P. González-Bueno Catalán de Ocón, abogado)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | dismisses the appeal; |
| --- | --- |

1.

dismisses the appeal;

| 2. | orders Repower AG to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

orders Repower AG to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 259, 23.7.2018.

---
October 30, 2014

By Email: submissions@cftc.gov

Secretary of the Commission

Office of the Secretariat

Commodity Futures Trading Commission

Three Lafayette Centre

1155 21st Street, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20581

Re: tpSEF Inc. – Regulation 40.2 Certification of CDS Index Contract – North 

America Investment Grade 5Y Swaps and Swaptions (#14-19P)

Ladies and Gentlemen:

tpSEF Inc. (“tpSEF”) herby notifies the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (the 

“Commission”) of its intent to list CDS Index Contract – North America Investment Grade 5Y 

Swaps and Swaptions (the “Contract”) on tpSEF’s swap execution facility. tpSEF intends to list 

these Contracts on November 3, 2014.

Pursuant to Commission Regulation 40.2, this submission includes:

i. A copy of the submission cover sheet in accordance with the instructions in 

Appendix D to Part 40 of the Commission’s regulations;

ii. The intended listing date – November 3, 2014;

iii. A certification by tpSEF that: (a) the Contract complies with the Commodity 

Exchange Act, as amended, and the Commission regulations thereunder; and (b) 

concurrent with this submission, tpSEF posted on its website: (i) a notice of 

pending certification of the Contract, and (ii) a copy of this submission, attached 

as Exhibit A;

iv. The Contract’s terms and conditions, attached as Exhibit B; and

v. An explanation and analysis of the Contract’s compliance with applicable core 

principles and Commission regulations, attached as Exhibit C.

tpSEF is listing the Contract by virtue of updating the terms and conditions of CDS Index 

Contract – North America Investment Grade 5Y submitted to the Commission for selfcertification pursuant to Commission Regulation 40.2 on September 29, 2013. A copy of the 

terms and conditions marked to show changes from the version submitted on 

September 29, 2013 is attached as Exhibit D.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Sean Anthony ROBINSON, a/k/a Black, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 10-6932.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Oct. 19, 2010.

Decided: Oct. 28, 2010.

Sean Anthony Robinson, Appellant Pro Se. Gurney Wingate Grant, II, Roderick Charles Young, Assistant United States Attorneys, Richmond, Virginia, for Appel-lee.

Before DUNCAN, KEENAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

*819Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Sean Anthony Robinson seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2010) 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) (2006). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. *Slack v. McDaniel,*529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); *see Miller-El v. Cockrell,*537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. *Slack,*529 U.S. at 484-85, 120 S.Ct. 1595. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Robinson has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. 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.

*DISMISSED.*
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2418 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2418

          To add Ireland to the E-3 nonimmigrant visa program.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 30, 2019

   Mr. Neal introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                       Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
          To add Ireland to the E-3 nonimmigrant visa program.

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

SECTION 1. E-3 VISAS FOR IRISH NATIONALS.

    (a) In General.--Section 101(a)(15)(E)(iii) of the Immigration and 
Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(15)(E)(iii)) is amended by inserting 
``or, on a basis of reciprocity as determined by the Secretary of 
State, a national of Ireland,'' after ``Australia''.
    (b) Employer Requirements.--Section 212 of the Immigration and 
Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1182) is amended--
            (1) by redesignating the second subsection (t) (as added by 
        section 1(b)(2)(B) of Public Law 108-449 (118 Stat. 3470)) as 
        subsection (u); and
            (2) by adding at the end of subsection (t)(1) (as added by 
        section 402(b)(2) of Public Law 108-77 (117 Stat. 941)) the 
        following:
            ``(E) In the case of an attestation filed with respect to a 
        national of Ireland described in section 101(a)(15)(E)(iii), 
        the employer is, and will remain during the period of 
        authorized employment of such Irish national, a participant in 
        good standing in the E-Verify program described in section 
        403(a) of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant 
        Responsibility Act of 1996 (8 U.S.C. 1324a note).''.
                                 <all>
```
**Form SEF: Exhibit D**

Exhibit D-Page 1

101650202
# C_2010318EN.01000201.xml

| 23.11.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 318/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.11.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 318/2

---

Commission communication on the body authorised to issue certificates of authenticity under Regulation (EC) No 620/2009

2010/C 318/02

By Council Regulation (EC) No 617/2009 of 13 July 2009, published in
  Official Journal of the European Union L 182 of 15 July 2009, an import tariff quota for high quality beef has been opened.

Official Journal of the European Union

Under Article 7 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 620/2009 of 13 July 2009, the release for free circulation of the goods imported under that quota is conditional upon presentation of a certificate of authenticity.

The following authority is authorised to issue certificates of authenticity under this Regulation.

| Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) |
| --- |
| 1400 Merivale Road |
| Ottawa, Ontario |
| K1A 0Y9 |
| CANADA |
| E-mail: Bertrand.st-arnaud@inspection.gc.ca |
| Internet: http//www.inspection.gc.ca |

Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA)

1400 Merivale Road

Ottawa, Ontario

K1A 0Y9

CANADA

E-mail: Bertrand.st-arnaud@inspection.gc.ca

Internet: http//www.inspection.gc.ca

---
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 2.20

To: Wells Fargo HSBC Trade Bank N.A.

                      JAMES HARDIE INTERNATIONAL FINANCE BV
                364 DAY STANDBY LOAN AGREEMENT - EXTENSION LETTER

We refer to the Loan Agreement (the "Agreement") dated 20 July 2000, as novated
and amended on 27 August 2001 and 12 December 2002, made between ourselves,
James Hardie International Finance BV as borrower, and James Hardie Industries
NV as Guarantor, and yourselves as Lender.

Pursuant to clause 6 of the Agreement, we kindly request that the Final Maturity
Date in respect of the Agreement be extended to a date 364 days after the
current Review Date under the Agreement. The extended Final Maturity Date would
be 30 April 2005.

The current Review Date is 30 April 2004. The next Review Date is 30 October
2004.

Signed for and on behalf of JAMES HARDIE INTERNATIONAL FINANCE BV

By /s/ Folkert H Zwinkels   (Responsible Officer)           Dated: 20 April 2004
   ----------------------

Signed for JAMES HARDIE INDUSTRIES NV

By /s/ Peter Macdonald      (Responsible Officer)           Dated: 20 April 2004
   -------------------

We agree to extend our Final Maturity Date in respect of the Facility to 30
April 2005.

Signed for Lender by:

/s/ Kollyn D. Kanz          (Responsible Officer)           Dated: 29 April 2004
-----------------------
ex10-4.htm










Exhibit 10.4




 


Sunshine Savings Bank


Severance Policy


August 24, 2010


 


 


 


The following severance package is provided to employees whose employment is terminated for purposes other than cause.


 


It is the policy of Sunshine Savings Bank to provide Two (2) weeks pay for each year of service an employee has with SSB based on the current rate of pay at the time of terminations.  This will be with a minimum of six (6) months pay for SSB Officers and COBRA coverage for ninety (90) days on the current insurance benefit selected at the time of termination.
#### CAROLINA BEVERAGE CORP. v. COCA-COLA BOTTLING CO.

No. 335P98

Case below: 130 N.C.App. 149

Petition by plaintiff for discretionary review pursuant to G.S. 7A-31 denied 3 December 1998. Conditional petition by defendant for discretionary review pursuant to G.S. 7A-31 dismissed as moot 3 December 1998.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Marilyn Kelly

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

 _________________________________________ 

 Clerk

September 6, 2011 

y0829 

Order 

 

September 6, 2011 

143131 

In re ALEX JOEL GARCIA 

_________________________________________ 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, 

Petitioner-Appellee, 

v SC: 143131 

 COA: 300199 

ALEX JOEL GARCIA, Wayne CC Family Division: 

Respondent-Appellant. No. 01-404473-DL 

_________________________________________/ 

 On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the April 14, 2011 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the question presented should be reviewed by this Court.