alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>   1


                                                                  Exhibit 23.1

                       CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statements of
Applix, Inc. on Form S-8 (File Nos. 33-89382, 33-87882, 33-87776, 333-2340,
333-06303, 333-16963 and 333-20853) of our report dated January 30, 1998, on our
audits of the consolidated financial statements of Applix, Inc. as of December
31, 1997 and 1996, and for each of the years in the three year period ending
December 31, 1997, which report is included in this Annual Report on Form 10-K.


                                            /s/ Coopers & Lybrand L.L.P.

                                            COOPERS & LYBRAND L.L.P.

Boston, Massachusetts
March 30, 1998
# C_2010012EN.01000301.xml

| 19.1.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 12/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.1.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 12/3

---

List of appointments made by the Council

November/December 2009 (social field)

2010/C 12/03

| Committee | End of term of office | Publication in Official Journal | Person replaced | Resignation/appointment | Member/alternate | Category | Country | Person appointed | Affiliation | Date of Council Decision |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Advisory Committee on Safety and Health at Work | 28.2.2010 | L 64, 2.3.2007 | Mr Robert KANZ | Resignation | Member | Employers | Luxembourg | Mr Pierre BLAISE | Médecin-Directeur
  Service de Santé au Travail de l'Industrie | 22.12.2009 |
| Advisory Committee on Safety and Health at Work | 28.2.2010 | L 64, 2.3.2007 | Mr Mario ALVINO | Resignation | Alternate | Government | Italy | Mr Mauro FRANCIOSI | Ministero del Lavoro | 22.12.2009 |
| Advisory Committee on Social Security for Migrant Workers | 29.3.2011 | C 83, 7.4.2009 | Mr Heinrich BRAUNER | Resignation | Member | Employers | Austria | Ms Ruth LIST | Industriellenvereinigung | 22.12.2009 |

Committee

End of term of office

Publication in Official Journal

Person replaced

Resignation/appointment

Member/alternate

Category

Country

Person appointed

Affiliation

Date of Council Decision

Advisory Committee on Safety and Health at Work

28.2.2010

L 64, 2.3.2007

Mr Robert KANZ

Resignation

Member

Employers

Luxembourg

Mr Pierre BLAISE

Médecin-Directeur

Service de Santé au Travail de l'Industrie

22.12.2009

Advisory Committee on Safety and Health at Work

28.2.2010

L 64, 2.3.2007

Mr Mario ALVINO

Resignation

Alternate

Government

Italy

Mr Mauro FRANCIOSI

Ministero del Lavoro

22.12.2009

Advisory Committee on Social Security for Migrant Workers

29.3.2011

C 83, 7.4.2009

Mr Heinrich BRAUNER

Resignation

Member

Employers

Austria

Ms Ruth LIST

Industriellenvereinigung

22.12.2009

---
Exhibit 32.1

 

 

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT CF 2002

 

The following statement is provided by the undersigned to accompany the Form 10-Q forRFMC Global Directional Fund, LP pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

 

The undersigned certifies in his capacity as an officer of RuvaneFund Management Corporation, the general partner of RFMC Global Directional Fund,  LP, that the foregoing Report on Form 10-Q fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m) and that the information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations ofRFMC Global Directional Fund, LP, for the period in question.

| Date:  May 16, 2008 |   | By:    /s/   Robert L. Lerner                                                       

President,Principal Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer

Ruvane Fund Management Corporationthe general partner of RFMC Global Directional Fund, LP |
|--------------------------|--------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-7048

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

ALBERT BETEMIT, a/k/a Juan Lopez, a/k/a Jose Ivan Torres, 

a/k/a Jose Frias,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert E. Payne, Senior

District Judge. (3:95-cr-00064-REP-1)

Submitted: November 18, 2010 Decided: December 1, 2010

Before SHEDD and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Albert Betemit, Appellant Pro Se. Norval George Metcalf, 

Assistant United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for 

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Albert Betemit appeals the district court’s order 

denying his motion for reduction of sentence under 18 U.S.C. 

§ 3582(c)(2) (2006). We have reviewed the record and find no 

reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated 

by the district court. United States v. Betemit, No. 

3:95-cr-00064-REP-1 (E.D. Va. July 14, 2010). 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.

AFFIRMED
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 13**  **- 6047** 

WILLIAM ROOSEVELT CLOUD , Petitioner

– Appellant ,
v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; KURT W. MEYERS; MICHAEL SAVAGE; KENNETH RANDALL; FRANK D. WHITNEY , Respondents

- Appellees
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina , at Charlotte
. Robert J. Conrad, Jr., Chief District Judge. ( 3:12

- cv - 00775

- RJC )

Submitted : March 26, 2013 Decided: March 29, 2013

Before DUNCAN, FLOYD, and THACKER , Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion
. William Roosevelt Cloud, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: William Roosevelt Cloud appeals the district court ’ s order denying relief on his complaint filed pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics , 403 U.S. 388 (1971). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Ac cordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Cloud v. United States , No. 3:12

- cv - 00775

- RJC (W.D.N.C. Dec. 28, 2012) . We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials be fore the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Henrique Luis GOMES, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 09-16377

Non-Argument Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.

Oct. 1, 2010.

Maria Guzman, Donna Lee Elm, Tampa, FL, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Peter J. Sholl, United States Attorney’s Office, Tampa, FL, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before EDMONDSON, BLACK and MARTIN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Henrique Luis Gomes received a bottom-of the-Guidelines 70-month sentence after pleading guilty to reentry of a deported alien, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) & (b)(2), and unlawful entry by an alien, in violation of 8 U.S.C. §§ 1325(a)(1) & 1329. Gomes argues that his sentence was both procedurally and substantively unreasonable because the district court placed undue weight on the need to avoid sentencing disparities among defendants, one of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors. After review of the record and careful consideration of the parties’ briefs, we affirm.

*479The district court did not abuse its discretion by imposing a 70-month sentence and by denying Gomes’s request for a downward variance.1 Although the district court emphasized the need to avoid unwarranted sentencing disparities, it did not do so “single-mindedly” to the detriment of the other § 3553(a) factors. *See United States v. Crisp,*454 F.3d 1285, 1292 (11th Cir.2006) (holding that a district court’s “single-minded[ ]” focus on one sentencing factor to the exclusion of the others resulted in an unreasonable sentence). Instead, the district court imposed a sentence that was supported by the record and that met the goals set forth by 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). That the district court emphasized one particular sentencing factor does not indicate that it failed to consider the others. *See United States v. Williams,*526 F.3d 1312, 1322 (11th Cir.2008) (“The weight to be accorded any given § 3553(a) factor is a matter committed to the sound discretion of the district court.” (quotations and alteration omitted).); *United States v. Talley,*431 F.3d 784, 788 (11th Cir.2005) (“[W]hen the district court considers the factors of section 3553(a), it need not discuss each of them.”).

Gomes has not carried his burden of demonstrating that his sentence was either proeedurally or substantively unreasonable.2 Accordingly, we affirm.

AFFIRMED.

1

. We review the reasonableness of a district court's sentence under a deferential abuse-of-discretion standard of review. *Gall v. United States,*552 U.S. 38, 41, 128 S.Ct. 586, 591, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007).

2

. "[T]he party who challenges the sentence bears the burden of establishing that the sentence is unreasonable.” *United States v. Talley,*431 F.3d 784, 788 (11th Cir.2005).
crypto.com | Derivatives North America

crypto.com | Derivatives North America

200 West Jackson Blvd., Suite 1400

Chicago, IL 60606

Jaime M. Walsh

+1 (312) 884-0927

Jaime.walsh@nadex.com

20221230(2)

December 30, 2022

Via CFTC Portal Submissions

Mr. Christopher Kirkpatrick

Secretary of the Commission

Office of the Secretariat

Commodity Futures Trading Commission

3 Lafayette Centre 

1155 21st Street, N.W. 

Washington D.C. 20581

RE: Weekly Notification of Rule Amendments: Nadex Amends Strike Widths - Submission Pursuant to 

Commission Reg. §40.6(d)

Dear Mr. Kirkpatrick:

Pursuant to Section 5c(c)(1) of the Commodity Exchange Act, as amended (“Act”), and Section 40.6(d) of 

the regulations promulgated by the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (the “Commission”) under the Act 

(the “Regulations”), North American Derivatives Exchange, Inc. (“Nadex”, the “Exchange”) hereby provides notice 

that it amended the strike widths of various contracts during the week of December 26, 2022 due to increased or 

decreased volatility, as the case may be, in the underlying markets upon which the Nadex contracts are based. 

Amended strike widths are reflected in Exhibit A.

Nadex hereby certifies that the additions and amendments contained herein comply with the Act, as 

amended, and the Commission Regulations adopted thereunder. No substantive opposing views were expressed to 

Nadex with respect to these additions. Nadex hereby certifies that notice of these events was posted on its website 

at the time of this filing.

Should you have any questions regarding the above, please do not hesitate to contact me by telephone at 

(312) 884-0927 or by email at jaime.walsh@nadex.com.

 Sincerely, 

Jaime M. Walsh

Head of Legal
crypto.com | Derivatives North America

200 West Jackson Blvd., Suite 1400

Chicago, IL 60606

20221230(2)

EXHIBIT A

Week of December 26, 2022

Contract Trade Date of Change Strike Width Adjusted 

From

Strike Width Adjusted To

20-Minute Wall Street 30 (Wide) 

Binary

December 26, 2022 8 16

20-Minute Wall Street 30 (Narrow) 

Binary

December 26, 2022 6 12

2-Hour Wall Street 30 Binary December 26, 2022 24 48

20-Minute US 500 (Wide) Binary December 26, 2022 1.5 3

20-Minute US 500 (Narrow) Binary December 26, 2022 1 2

2-Hour US 500 (Wide) Binary December 26, 2022 3 6

20-Minute US Tech 100 (Wide) Binary December 26, 2022 4 8

20-Minute US Tech 100 (Narrow) 

Binary

December 26, 2022 3 6

2-Hour US Tech 100 (Wide) Binary December 26, 2022 12 24

20-Minute US SmallCap 2000 (Wide) 

Binary

December 26, 2022 1.4 2.8

20-Minute US SmallCap 2000 

(Narrow) Binary

December 26, 2022 1.2 2.4

2-Hour US SmallCap 2000 (Wide) 

Binary

December 26, 2022 2.8 5.6

Daily Wall Street 30 Binary December 26, 2022 40 80

Daily US 500 Binary December 26, 2022 6 12

Daily US Tech 100 Binary December 26, 2022 24 48

Daily US SmallCap 2000 Binary December 26, 2022 4 8

Daily Crude Oil Binary December 26, 2022 0.4 0.8

Daily Gold Binary December 26, 2022 3 6
I 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 94 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to repeal the cap on the 

cover over of tax on distilled spirits to Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 6, 2009 

Mrs. CHRISTENSEN introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to repeal 

the cap on the cover over of tax on distilled spirits 

to Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. REPEAL OF CAP ON COVER OVER OF TAX ON 

4 DISTILLED SPIRITS TO PUERTO RICO AND 

5 VIRGIN ISLANDS. 

6 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 7652 of the Internal Rev7 enue Code of 1986 (relating to limitation on cover over 

8 of tax on distilled spirits) is amended by striking sub9 section (f) and by redesignating subsections (g) and (h) 

10 as subsections (f) and (g), respectively. 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with BILLS
2 

•HR 94 IH

1 (b) CONFORMING AMENDMENT.—Section 7652(f) of 

2 such Code (as so redesignated) is amended by striking 

3 ‘‘subsection (f) of this section’’ in paragraph (1)(B) and 

4 inserting ‘‘section 5001(a)(1)’’. 

5 (c) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by 

6 this section shall take effect on January 1, 2009. 

Æ 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with BILLS
**Exhibit 31.1**
**CERTIFICATION**
I, **Francis R. McAllister,**certify that;
1.  I have reviewed this Amendment No. 1 to Annual Report on Form10-K of Stillwater Mining Company (Stillwater); 2.  Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain anyuntrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a materialfact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, notmisleading with respect to the period covered by this report; 3.  Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and otherfinancial information included in this report, fairly present inall material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of Stillwater as of, and for, theperiods presented in this report; 4.  Stillwater’s other certifying officer and I are responsiblefor establishing and maintaining disclosure controls andprocedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e) and internal control over financial reporting (asdefined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) forStillwater and have:
 a)  Designed such disclosure controls and procedures,or caused such disclosure controls and proceduresto be designed under our supervision, to ensurethat material information relating to Stillwater,including its consolidated subsidiaries, is madeknown to us by others within those entities,particularly during the period in which thisannual report is being prepared;  b)  Designed such internal control over financialreporting, or caused such internal control overfinancial reporting to be designed under oursupervision, to provide reasonable assuranceregarding the reliability of financial reportingand the preparation of financial statements forexternal purposes in accordance with generallyaccepted accounting principles;  c)  Evaluated the effectiveness of Stillwater’sdisclosure controls and procedures and presentedin this report our conclusions about theeffectiveness of the disclosure controls andprocedures, as of the end of the period covered bythis report based on such evaluation; and  d)  Disclosed in the report any change in Stillwater’sinternal control over financial reporting thatoccurred during Stillwater’s most recent fiscalyear that has materially affected, or isreasonably likely to materially affect,Stillwater’s internal control over financialreporting; and
5.  Stillwater’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed,based on our most recent evaluation of internal control overfinancial reporting, to Stillwater’s auditors and the auditcommittee of Stillwater’s Board of Directors:
 a)  All significant deficiencies and materialweaknesses in the design or operation of internalcontrols over financial reporting which couldadversely affect Stillwater’s ability to record,process, summarize and report financial data andhave identified for Stillwater’s auditors anymaterial weaknesses in internal controls; and  b)  Any fraud, whether or not material, that involvesmanagement or other employees who have asignificant role in Stillwater’s internalcontrols.   Dated: March 31, 2005/s/ FRANCIS R. McALLISTER  Francis R. McAllisterChairman and Chief Executive Officer
88
#### Kelvin D. Anderson, Appellant, v Young & Rubicam, Respondent.

Submitted January 11, 2010;

decided June 8, 2010

Motion for leave to appeal dismissed upon the ground that the order sought to be appealed from does not finally determine the action within the meaning of the Constitution. The order affirming the denial of the CPLR 4404 motion to set aside the verdict does not finally determine the action *(see Cuadrado v New York City Tr. Auth.,*14 NY3d 748 [2010]).
#### JIN MING SUN, a.k.a. Jinming Sun, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., United States Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 09-4380-ag.

United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.

Nov. 2, 2010.

*618Joan Xie, New York, NY, for Petitioner.

Tony West, Assistant Attorney General; Luis E. Perez, Senior Litigation Counsel; Elizabeth D. Kurlan, Trial Attorney, Office of Immigration Litigation, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.

PRESENT: DENNIS JACOBS, Chief Judge, ROBERT D. SACK, RICHARD C. WESLEY, Circuit Judges.

*SUMMARY ORDER*

Petitioner Jin Ming Sun, a native and citizen of the People’s Republic of China, seeks review of the September 22, 2009, order of the BIA denying his motion to reopen. *In re Jin Ming Sun,*No. [ AXXX XXX XXX ] (B.I.A. Sept. 22, 2009). We review the BIA’s denial of a motion to reopen for abuse of discretion. *See Ali v. Gonzales,*448 F.3d 515, 517 (2d Cir.2006). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history of the case.

The BIA denied Sun’s timely motion to reopen based on his failure to establish his *prima facie*eligibility for relief. The BIA did not abuse its discretion. *See I.N.S. v. Abudu,*485 U.S. 94, 104-05, 108 S.Ct. 904, 99 L.Ed.2d 90 (1988). In denying Sun’s motion, the BIA reasonably accorded the documents he submitted low probative value. *Shunfu Li v. Mukasey,*529 F.3d 141, 149 (2d Cir.2008); See also *Qin Wen Zheng v. Gonzales,*500 F.3d 143, 148-49 & n. 6 (2d Cir.2007). Moreover, contrary to Sun’s argument, the BIA did not err in considering that Sun’s wife, as a similarly-situated family member remaining in China, had suffered no further persecution. *See Melgar de Torres v. Reno,*191 F.3d 307, 313 (2d Cir.1999).

In addition, Sun failed to submit an application for relief together with his motion, as required under the regulations. 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(1). The BIA’s denial of the motion to reopen on this ground was not an abuse of discretion.*

For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is DENIED. As we have completed our review, any stay of removal that the Court previously granted in this petition is VACATED, and any pending motion for a stay of removal in this petition is DISMISSED as moot. Any pending request for oral argument in this petition is DENIED in accordance *619with Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 34(a)(2), and Second Circuit Local Rule 34.1(b).

*

 Sun’s reliance on *In re Matter of Yewondwosen,*21 I. & N. Dec. 1025, 1027 (BIA 1997), is misplaced because, here, the government did not affirmatively join in the motion to reopen.
Exhibit 99.7

Grant Thornton LLP

500 US Bank Plaza North

200 South 6thSt.

Minneapolis, MN 55402-1459



May 12, 2006



Attention: Joshua Bushard



|Gentlemen:
|----------



This letter is in response to the letter dated May 11, 2005 that Grant Thornton sent to the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC).



As the Companys accountant for nearly twenty years, Grant Thornton is familiar with the Companys business hours. Those hours were in fact referenced most recently in the letter to Grant Thornton dated April 26, 2006, which was filed as Exhibit 99.4 to the Companys Form 8-K filed on April 28, 2006. After hours is the time after the Companys offices close, which is anytime after 4:30 p.m.



The internal control opinion which was disclaimed was indeed for the single year ended 12-31-05, rather than the three year period.



The Company is perplexed how Grant Thornton could be unclear as to what was meant by the situation referenced in 2, above which read as follows:



As disclosed in the 8-K filed on April 19 and 25, 2006, Grant Thornton did send the Company a letter stating that its opinions on the financial statements and internal audit controls for the three years ended December 31, 2005 could no longer be relied upon.



The Company would call attention to its letter of April 25, 2006 responding to Grant Thorntons letter of April 21, 2006,
which was filed as Exhibit 99.13 to the Form 8-K/A filed on April 25, 2006. It would also would call attention to the letter filed
as Exhibit 99.4 referenced above, which indicated that the only time Grant Thornton raised a concern about the timeliness of
remedial action (preparation and audit of a 40 Act pro forma footnote) was in its 10A report sent at the time of its resignation.
The Company and Grant Thornton first received a clear and official statement as to the SEC staffs requirements on Friday
April 14, 2006 via a fax to Company counsel (filed as Exhibit 99.10 to the Form 8-K/A filed on April 25). Grant Thornton met with
the Companys Board of Directors on the following Monday, April 17, to discuss, among other things, the preparation and audit
of the 40 Act footnote. In fact during that meeting, Grant Thornton agreed to provide guidance as to the credentials of the
outside preparer and the requisite form of the financials, which in turn would be the basis for it to decide whether to accept a
new engagement to audit the footnote. After being told by the Board that time was of the essence and in response to a request that
it expedite matters, Grant Thornton offered to furnish guidance either late the week of April 17 or early the following week.
Rather than providing the promised guidance, however, it instead sent a letter of resignation and a 10A report. Grant Thornton was
well aware that its guidance was the first step in the remedial action process.

| | Sincerely,National Presto Industries, Inc.Maryjo CohenPresident and Chief Executive Operating Officer
| | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

---