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



UNITED STATES SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
 Washington, D.C. 20549
 
 FORM 20-F/A No. 2
 
 (Mark One)
 o REGISTRATION STATEMENT PURSUANT TO SECTION 12(b) OR (g) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934
 OR
 x ANNUAL REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934
 For the fiscal year ended March 31, 2007  OR
 o TRANSITION REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934
 OR
 o SHELL COMPANY REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934
 Date of event requiring this shell company report
For the transition period from            to
 Commission file number 1-15240
 JAMES HARDIE INDUSTRIES N.V.
 (Exact name of Registrant as specified in its charter)
 N/A
(Translation of Registrants name into English)
 The Netherlands
(Jurisdiction of incorporation or organization)
 Atrium, 8 th floor
Strawinskylaan 3077
1077 ZX Amsterdam, The Netherlands
(Address of principal executive offices)
 Securities registered or to be registered pursuant to Section 12(b) of the Act:
 Title of each class:
    
    Name of each exchange on which registered:Common stock, represented by CHESS Units of Foreign Securities
    
    New York Stock Exchange*CHESS Units of Foreign Securities
    
    New York Stock Exchange*American Depositary Shares, each representing five units of CHESS Units of Foreign Securities
    
    New York Stock Exchange
 
 
 Securities registered or to be registered pursuant to Section 12(g) of the Act.   Securities for which there is a reporting obligation pursuant to Section 15(d) of the Act.




---



##### 



x o
 o x
  x o
 x o o
 o x
 o x




---



##### 



Explanatory Note




---



##### 



SIGNATURES
  JAMES HARDIE INDUSTRIES N.V.Date: September 18, 2007
    By:
    /s/ Louis GriesLouis GriesChief Executive Officer 4




---



##### 



Exhibit Index
  ExhibitNumber
    
    Description of Exhibits4.28
    
    Agreement for the Extraction and Sale of Silica dated November 1, 2002 between Riverside Cement
Company and Victorville Industrial Minerals, Inc (1)12.1
    
    Certification of the Chief Executive Officer pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 200212.2
    
    Certification of the Chief Financial Officer pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
 
 (1)
    
    Certain portions of this exhibit have been omitted and submitted to the SEC pursuant to a
confidential treatment request filed on September 18, 2007. 5
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATIONS 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, David T. Mitchell, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Fabrinet for the fiscal quarter ended March 25, 2011 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that
information contained in this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and results of operations of Fabrinet.



|                  |  |  |  |        |  |                                                                                             
|----------------- |  |  |  | ------ |  | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                  |  |  |  | By:    |  | /S/ DAVID T. MITCHELL                                                                       
|                  |  |  | 
|Date: May 4, 2011 |  |  |  | Name:  |  | David T. Mitchell                                                                           
|                  |  |  |  | Title: |  | Chief Executive Officer and Chairman of the Board of Directors (Principal Executive Officer)

I, Mark J. Schwartz, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Fabrinet for the
fiscal quarter ended March 25, 2011 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q fairly presents in all material
respects the financial condition and results of operations of Fabrinet.



|                  |  |  |  |        |  |                                                                                              
|----------------- |  |  |  | ------ |  | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                  |  |  |  | By:    |  | /S/ MARK J. SCHWARTZ                                                                         
|                  |  |  | 
|Date: May 4, 2011 |  |  |  | Name:  |  | Mark J. Schwartz                                                                             
|                  |  |  |  | Title: |  | Executive Vice President, Chief Financial Officer and Secretary (Principal Financial Officer)
# C_2017357EN.01001601.xml

| 23.10.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 357/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.10.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 357/16

---

Action brought on 18 July 2017 — Eurosupport — Fineurop support v EIGE

(Case T-450/17)

(2017/C 357/20)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Eurosupport — Fineurop support Srl (Milano, Italy) (represented by: M. Velardo, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Institute for Gender Equality (EIGE)

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | set aside the contested decision of 8 May 2017 rejecting the applicant’s tender in procedure EIGE/2017/OPER/04 ‘Female Genital Mutilation: Estimating Girls at Risk’ and the subsequent decisions which assessed the bid of another tenderer as successful and which awarded the contract to that tenderer; |
| --- | --- |

—

set aside the contested decision of 8 May 2017 rejecting the applicant’s tender in procedure EIGE/2017/OPER/04 ‘Female Genital Mutilation: Estimating Girls at Risk’ and the subsequent decisions which assessed the bid of another tenderer as successful and which awarded the contract to that tenderer;

| — | order the defendant to pay damages suffered by the applicant with interest of 8 % or, in the alternative, compensation with interest of 8 %; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to pay damages suffered by the applicant with interest of 8 % or, in the alternative, compensation with interest of 8 %;

| — | order the defendant to pay the costs of these proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to pay the costs of these proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on three pleas in law.

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of equal treatment, the principle of transparency, the principle to act with a certain care and the duty to respect confidentiality, and further alleging manifest error of appraisal. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of equal treatment, the principle of transparency, the principle to act with a certain care and the duty to respect confidentiality, and further alleging manifest error of appraisal.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging inconsistency in the grounds of the evaluation decisions and infringement of the principle of proportionality in the assessment of the applicant’s tender. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging inconsistency in the grounds of the evaluation decisions and infringement of the principle of proportionality in the assessment of the applicant’s tender.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging infringement of the right to good administration. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging infringement of the right to good administration.

---
# C_2018427EN.01005002.xml

| 26.11.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 427/50 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.11.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 427/50

---

Judgment of the General Court of 27 September 2018 — TenneT Holding v EUIPO — Ngrid Intellectual Property (NorthSeaGrid)

(Case T-70/17) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU figurative mark NorthSeaGrid - Earlier EU word and figurative marks nationalgrid - Relative ground for refusal - No likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))

(2018/C 427/64)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: TenneT Holding BV (Arnhem, Netherlands) (represented by: K. Limperg, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) (represented by: J. Crespo Carrillo, acting as Agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Ngrid Intellectual Property Ltd (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: F. Traub, Solicitor)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 21 November 2016 (Case R 1607/2015-5) relating to opposition proceedings between Ngrid Intellectual Property and TenneT Holding.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls paragraph 1 of the operative part of the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 21 November 2016 (Case R 1607/2015-5) relating to opposition proceedings between Ngrid Intellectual Property Ltd and TenneT Holding BV; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls paragraph 1 of the operative part of the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 21 November 2016 (Case R 1607/2015-5) relating to opposition proceedings between Ngrid Intellectual Property Ltd and TenneT Holding BV;

| 2. | Orders EUIPO to pay, in addition to its own costs, those incurred by TenneT Holding BV; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders EUIPO to pay, in addition to its own costs, those incurred by TenneT Holding BV;

| 3. | Orders Ngrid Intellectual Property to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders Ngrid Intellectual Property to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 104, 3.4.2017.

---
Small Exchange Weekly Notification of

Rule Amendments

June 16, 2023

VIA ELECTRONIC PORTAL

Mr. Christopher J. Kirkpatrick

Office of the Secretari

Commodity Futures Trading Commission

3 Lafayette Center

1155 21st Street NW

Washington, DC 20581

RE: SMFE 2023-003 - Weekly Notification of Rule Amendments – Removal of d/b/a f

Small Exchange, Inc. (SMFE)

Dear Mr. Kirkpatrick:

Pursuant to Commodity Futures Trading Commission (“CFTC” or “Commission”) Regulation 40.6(d),

Small Exchange, Inc. (the “Exchange”) hereby submits this Weekly Notification of the following ru

amendments issued during the week of May 1, 2023:

● Revisions to the Exchange Rulebook to reflect the removal of crypto.com | Derivativ

North America as a doing business as name for the Exchange, and to continue the use of

the acronym SMFE to denote the Exchange’s future rule amendments and related

non-substantive revisions.

Attached to this filing is a redline showing the changes to the Exchange Rulebook. This filing

the revised Exchange Rulebook are available at https://smallexchange.com/.

If you have any questions or require any further information, please contact the undersigned at

peter.santori@thesmallexchange.com.

Sincerely,

/s/ Peter Santori

Chief Regulatory Officer a

Chief Compliance Offic

Attachments: Appendix A Amendments to Exchange Rulebook
Appendix A

Amendments to Exchange Rulebook

Small Exchange, Inc.

Rulebook

d/b/a

crypto.com | Derivatives

* * *

Chapter 1: Definitio

* * *

Exchange means Small Exchange, Inc. d/b/a crypto.com | Derivatives, an intermediated market, or

any successor thereto.

* * *

Joint Audit Committee means a voluntary, cooperative organization comprised of representatives

of U.S. futures exchanges and regulatory organizations, including Small Exchange, Inc.crypto.com |

Derivatives. The Joint Audit Committee’s primary responsibility is to oversee the implementation

and functioning of all terms and conditions of the Joint Audit Agreement and to determine the

practices and procedures to be followed by each Designated Self-Regulatory Organization in the

conduct of audits and financial reviews of FCM

* * *

Chapter 2: Exchange Ownership and Governance

Rule 201. Ownership

Small Exchange, Inc. d/b/a crypto.com | Derivatives, (“Exchange”) is a registered C-Corporation in

the State of Delaware effective October 13, 2017.

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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

December 17, 2004

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 04-50883

Conference Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

BENIGNO GOMEZ-BALLESTEROS, also

known as Pedro Chavez,

Defendant-Appellant.

--------------------

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 3:04-CR-462-ALL-DB

--------------------

Before KING, Chief Judge, and DeMOSS and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Appealing the Judgment in a Criminal Case, Benigno GomezBallesteros raises arguments that are foreclosed by AlmendarezTorres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 235 (1998), which held

that a prior conviction is a sentencing factor under 8 U.S.C.

§ 1326(b)(2) and not a separate criminal offense, and by United

States v. Pineiro, 377 F.3d 464, 465-66 (5th Cir. 2004), petition

for cert. filed (U.S. July 14, 2004) (No. 04-5263), which held

that Blakely v. Washington, 124 S. Ct. 2531 (2004), does not
No. 04-50883

-2-

apply to the United States Sentencing Guidelines. The

Government’s motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, and the

judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 107 (Monday, June 4, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Page 30030]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-13918]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT


Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request for Reinstatement, 
With Change, of a Previously Approved Information Collection for Which 
Approval Has Expired: Forms RI 38-117, 38-118, AND 37-22

AGENCY: Office of Personnel Management.

ACTION: Notice.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Public 
Law 104-13, May 22, 1995), this notice announces that the Office of 
Personnel Management (OPM) has submitted to the Office of Management 
and Budget a request for reinstatement, with change, of a previously 
approved information collection for which approval has expired. RI 38-
117, Rollover Election, is used to collect information from each payee 
affected by a change in the tax code (Public Law 102-318) so that OPM 
can make payment in accordance with the wishes of the payee. RI 38-118, 
Rollover Information, explains the election. RI 37-22, Special Tax 
Notice Regarding Rollovers, provides more detailed information.
    Approximately 1,000 RI 38-117 forms will be completed annually. We 
estimate it takes approximately 30 minutes to complete the form. The 
annual burden is 500 hours.
    For copies of this proposal, contact Mary Beth Smith-Toomey on 
(202) 606-8358, or E-mail to <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#79141b0d1616141c0039160914571e160f"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="90fdf2e4fffffdf5e9d0ffe0fdbef7ffe6">[email protected]</span></a>.

DATES: Comments on this proposal should be received on or before July 
5, 2001.

ADDRESSES: Send or deliver comments to--

Ronald W. Melton, Chief, Operations Support Division, Retirement and 
Insurance Service, U.S. Office of Personnel Management, 1900 E Street, 
NW, Room 3349A, Washington, DC 20415-3450
    and
Joseph Lackey, OPM Desk Officer, Office of Information and Regulatory 
Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, New Executive Office 
Building, NW, Room 10235, Washington, DC 20503.

For Information Regarding Administrative Coordination-- Contact: Donna 
G. Lease, Team Leader, Forms Analysis and Design, Budget and 
Administrative Services Division, (202) 606-0623.

Office of Personnel Management.
Steven R. Cohen,
Acting Director.
[FR Doc. 01-13918 Filed 6-1-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6325-50-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
AEGIS SEF | 2829 Technology Forest Boulevard, Suite 260 | The Woodlands, Texas 77381

Chapter 1014

Natural Gas Basis Swap - Henry Hub - Platts Inside FERC

DESCRIPTION

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

NYMEX Henry Hub Natural Gas futures contract, as defined in Floating Price B, from the monthly 

price published by Platts Inside FERC for the location specified in Floating Price A.

FLOATING PRICE A

The Floating Price for each contract month will be equal to the Platts Inside FERC Henry Hub

published price for the corresponding contract month.

FLOATING PRICE B

The Floating Price for each contract month will be equal to the NYMEX Henry Hub Natural Gas 

futures contract final settlement price for the corresponding contract month on the last trading 

day for that contract month.

CONTRACT UNIT AND VALUE

The contract unit shall be MMBtus (million British thermal units). Each shall be valued as the 

contract quantity 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 MMBtu. The minimum price fluctuation shall 

be $0.001 per MMBtu. The minimum price increment will be $0.0001. There shall be no 

maximum price fluctuation.

TERMINATION OF TRADING

Posting of transactions shall cease on the last business day prior to 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.
**Exhibit 4.5**

 

Suez 

 

EXTRACT OF 

 

THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS MEETING 

 

OF MARCH6, 2002 

 

VI—Report of Compensation and Nomination Committee

 

M. Jean GANDOIS, president of said committee, gave account ofa meeting held that day. 

 

1.    2002 Executive Officers (*Mandataires Sociaux*) Compensation 

 

The Committee proposed that the fixed part of the executive officer compensation for 2002 remain at the same level as for 2001. 

 

For the variable part of this compensation for 2002, the Committee suggestedthat the EPS (earnings per share) measure be abandoned as EPS is too dependent on exceptional factors. It proposed to instead use, equally, EBITDA of the three global businesses and the net current result per share of these businesses. It alsoproposed that the Board reserve the ability to apply, upon proposal of the Committee, in the case of the occurrence of favorable or unfavorable events tied to the management of the Group, an increasing or decreasing coefficient of the measuresmentioned above. 

 

The Board of Directors gave its approval tothese proposals.
#### MIC Property & Casualty Corp., Appellant, v Merqui G. Avila et al., Defendants, and Karen Singleton Beards, Respondent.

Submitted December 7, 2009;

decided February 11, 2010

Motion to dismiss appeal granted and appeal dismissed with $400 costs and $100 costs of motion upon the ground that the order appealed from does not finally determine the action within the meaning of the Constitution.
Exhibit 31.2

RULE 13A-14(A) CERTIFICATION

I, Dale G. Phelps, certify that:



| | 1. | I have reviewed this Annual Report on Form 10-K of Millennium Bankshares Corporation for the year ended December 31, 2006;
| | -- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 2. | Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the
circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                     |  |                                          
|-------------------- |  | -----------------------------------------
|Date: April 30, 2007 |  | /s/ Dale G. Phelps                       
|                     |  | Dale G. Phelps                           
|                     |  | Principal Executive and Financial Officer
#### Ricky D. West et al., Appellants-Respondents, v Mark Hogan et al., Respondents-Appellants. (And a Third-Party Action.)

Submitted December 19, 2011;

decided February 16, 2012

Reported below, 88 AD3d 1247.

On the Court’s own motion, appeal by defendants dismissed, without costs, upon the ground that the Appellate Division order appealed from does not finally determine the action within the meaning of the Constitution. Motion by plaintiffs for leave to appeal dismissed upon the ground that the Appellate Division order sought to be appealed from does not finally determine the action within the meaning of the Constitution. Plaintiffs’ stipulation to a reduction in damages as an alternative to a new trial is invalid under the circumstances of this case and leaves the action pending for a new trial. Plaintiffs stipulated to the reduced amount in lieu of a new trial on punitive damages, purporting to reserve a right to challenge the stipulated amount of damages on appeal. By operation of law, plaintiffs cannot so provide. A stipulation in such circumstances makes the damage award nonappealable by plaintiffs *(see Dudley v Perkins,*235 NY 448, 457 [1923]). Thus, under these circumstances, plaintiffs’ stipulation must be rejected. Either a new unconditional stipulation by plaintiffs accepting the reduced damage award must be filed or the parties must proceed to a new trial on punitive damages.