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

20221128(1)

November 28, 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 November 21, 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

20221128(1)

EXHIBIT A

Week of November 21, 2022

Contract Trade Date of Change Strike Width Adjusted 

From

Strike Width Adjusted To

20-Minute Wall Street 30 (Wide) 

Binary

November 21, 2022 8 16

20-Minute Wall Street 30 (Narrow) 

Binary

November 21, 2022 6 12

2-Hour Wall Street 30 Binary November 21, 2022 24 48

20-Minute US 500 (Wide) Binary November 21, 2022 1.5 3

20-Minute US 500 (Narrow) Binary November 21, 2022 1 2

2-Hour US 500 (Wide) Binary November 21, 2022 3 6

20-Minute US Tech 100 (Wide) Binary November 21, 2022 4 8

20-Minute US Tech 100 (Narrow) 

Binary

November 21, 2022 3 6

2-Hour US Tech 100 (Wide) Binary November 21, 2022 12 24

20-Minute US SmallCap 2000 (Wide) 

Binary

November 21, 2022 1.4 2.8

20-Minute US SmallCap 2000 

(Narrow) Binary

November 21, 2022 1.2 2.4

2-Hour US SmallCap 2000 (Wide) 

Binary

November 21, 2022 2.8 5.6

Daily Wall Street 30 Binary November 21, 2022 40 80

Daily US 500 Binary November 21, 2022 6 12

Daily US Tech 100 Binary November 21, 2022 24 48

Daily US SmallCap 2000 Binary November 21, 2022 4 8

Daily Crude Oil Binary November 21, 2022 0.4 0.8

Daily Gold Binary November 21, 2022 3 6
S06Y1079.

#### IN THE MATTER OF JAMES A. ELKINS, JR.

(637 SE2d 399)

Per curiam.

This matter is before the Court on the Notice of Discipline filed by the State Bar against Respondent James A. Elkins, Jr., in which it alleged that Elkins violated Rule 9.3 of the Rules of Professional Conduct found in Bar Rule 4-102 (d). Although Elkins acknowledged service of the Notice of Investigation in this matter and filed a response, the response was not sworn in accordance with Bar Rule 4-204.3 (a). The State Bar advised Elkins that the rules required a sworn response, but Elkins never filed a proper response. The State Bar then filed the Notice of Discipline, which was personally served on Elkins but which he failed to reject. Therefore, under Bar Rule 4-208.1 (b), he is in default, has no right to an evidentiary hearing and is subject to the discipline of this Court. The State Bar recommends that the Court impose a public reprimand, which is the suggested sanction for a violation of Rule 9.3.

After a review of the record, however, this Court disagrees with the State Bar that a public reprimand is appropriate due to the fact that Elkins has had five prior disciplinaries (a formal letter of admonition, three Investigative Panel reprimands and one public reprimand).1 Under Bar Rule 4-103, a finding of a third or subsequent disciplinary infraction “shall, in and of itself, constitute discretionary grounds for suspension or disbarment.” Therefore, it hereby is ordered that James A. Elkins, Jr., be suspended from the practice of law for a period of 90 days from the date of this opinion. He is reminded of his duties under Bar Rule 4-219 (c).

*Ninety-day suspension.*

*All the Justices concur, except Hunstein, R J., who dissents.*

*250Decided November 6, 2006.

*William P. Smith III, General Counsel State Bar, Jenny K. Mittelman, Assistant General Counsel State Bar,*for State Bar of Georgia.

1

 Confidential discipline such as formal admonitions and Investigative Panel reprimands are waived in the event of subsequent discipline and may be used in aggravation and for the purpose of invoking Rule 4-103. Bar Rule 4-208.
#### Kenneth Dean MILLER, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. MOTOR VEHICLE DIVISION; et al., Defendants—Appellees.

No. 10-57004.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Dec. 19, 2011.*

Filed Jan. 9, 2012.

Kenneth Dean Miller, St. Johns, AZ, pro se.

Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. *See.*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Kenneth Dean Miller, an Arizona state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court’s order denying his motion to proceed in forma pauperis in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging constitutional violations. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion, *Tripati v. First Nat’l Bank & Trust,*821 F.2d 1368, 1369 (9th Cir.1987), and we affirm.

The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying leave to proceed in forma pauperis because, on three prior occasions, Miller brought actions that were dismissed for being frivolous, malicious, or failing to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. *See*28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).

Further, the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying leave to proceed in forma pauperis because the complaint is patently frivolous. *See Tripati,*821 F.2d at 1370 (“A district court may deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis at the outset if it appears from the face of the proposed complaint that the action is frivolous or without merit.”).

Millers’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 107 (Monday, June 4, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Page 29927]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-13853]


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

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Forest Service


Newspapers Used for Publication of Legal Notice of Appealable 
Decisions for the Northern Region; Idaho, Montana, North Dakota, and 
Portions of South Dakota and Eastern Washington

AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice lists the newspapers that will be used by all 
Ranger Districts, Forests, and the Regional Office of the Northern 
Region to publish legal notice of all decisions subject to appeal under 
36 CFR 215 and 217 and to publish notices for public comment and notice 
of decision subject to the provisions of 36 CFR 215. The intended 
effect of this action is to inform interested members of the public 
which newspapers will be used to publish legal notices for public 
comment or decisions; thereby allowing them to receive constructive 
notice of a decision, to provide clear evidence of timely notice, and 
to achieve consistency in administering the appeals process.

DATES: Publication of legal notices in the listed newspapers will begin 
with decisions subject to appeal that are made on or after June 1, 
2001. The list of newspapers will remain in effect until another notice 
is published in the Federal Register.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Interregional NEPA, Appeals and 
Litigation Leader; Northern Region; P.O. Box 7669; Missoula, Montana 
59807. Phone: (406) 329-3647.
    The newspapers to be used are as follows:

Northern Regional Office

    Regional Forester decisions in Montana: The Missoulian, Great Falls 
Tribune, and The Billings Gazette.
    Regional Forester decisions in Northern Idaho and Eastern 
Washington: The Spokesman Review.
    Regional Forester decisions in North Dakota: Bismarck Tribune.
    Regional Forester decisions in South Dakota; Rapid City Journal.

Beaverhead/Deerlodge--Montana Standard
Bitterroot--Ravalli Republic
Clearwater--Lewiston Morning Tribune
Custer--Billings Gazette (Montana); Rapid City Journal (South Dakota)
Dakota Prairie National Grasslands--Bismarck Tribune (North Dakota; 
Rapid City Journal (South Dakota)
Flathead--Daily Interlake
Gallatin--Bozeman Chronicle
Helena--Independent Record
Idaho Panhandle--Spokesman Review
Kootenai--Daily Interlake
Lewis & Clark--Great Falls Tribune
Lolo--Missoulian
Nez Perce--Lewiston Morning Tribune

    Supplemental notices may be placed in any newspaper, but time 
frames/deadlines will be calculated based upon notices in newspapers of 
record listed above.

    Dated: May 25, 2001.
Kathleen A. McAllister,
Acting Regional Forester.
[FR Doc. 01-13853 Filed 6-1-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-11-M
crypto.com | Derivatives North America

200 West Jackson Blvd., Suite 1400

Chicago, IL 60606

December 5, 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 Index Composition for its Bitcoin 

and Ether Cryptocurrency Touch Bracket Variable Payout Contracts - 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 composition of the Indicative Index1 used to 

determine the Expiration Value of its Bitcoin and Ether Cryptocurrency Touch Bracket Variable Payout 

Contracts by removing the FTX (Derivatives) effective immediately. Nadex has not yet launched the 

Bitcoin and Ether Cryptocurrency Touch Bracket Variable Payout Contracts, but plans to include data from 

the following underlying cryptocurrency exchanges in its Indicative Index to determine the Contracts’ 

Expiration Value after being listed for trading on the Exchange: Binance (US), Gemini, BitStamp, 

Exmo, Bitso, Bitflyer (only for bitcoin), ItBit, CEX.IO, OKCoin and BTSE (Derivatives).

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

1 Unless otherwise defined herein, capitalized terms shall have the same definition as set forth in Rule 1.1 

of the Nadex Rulebook.

20221205(1)
#### Deborah Etzion, Respondent, v Rafael Etzion, Appellant, et al., Defendants.

Submitted November 14, 2011;

decided December 20, 2011

Reported below, 84 AD3d 1015.

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.
### T E X A S C O U R T O F A P P E A L S , T H I R D D I S T R I C T , A T A U S T I N
NO. 03-12-00256- CV

In re Lonestar Socc er C lub of Au stin, In c.
ORI GINAL P ROCEEDI NG F ROM TRAVIS CO UNTY
M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N
Relator L onestar Soccer Club of Austi n, I nc. an d R ea l Party in I ntere st Sean Bubb have filed a joint motion reque sting that this orig inal proce eding be dismiss ed. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.1(a) (1). We g rant the motion and dismiss the petition for writ of manda mus.

__________________________________________ Diane M. H enson, Jus tice Be fore J ustices Pury ear , Henson a nd Goodwin Filed: May

31, 2012
**Exhibit
      32.1**




**CERTIFICATION
      OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER**


**PURSUANT
      TO**


**18
      U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**


**AS
      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**


**SECTION
      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**





Each
      of
      the undersigned hereby certifies, in accordance with 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted
      pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, in his or her
      capacity as an officer of Osage Exploration and Development, Inc. (the
      "Company"), that, to his or her knowledge, the Quarterly Report of the Company
      on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2008, fully complies with the
      requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act
      of
      1934 and that the information contained in such report fairly presents, in
      all
      material respects, the financial condition and results of operation of the
      Company.





Date:
      August 14, 2008






/s/
        Ran
        Furman
 
 Ran
        Furman
 Chief
        Financial Officer
 (Principal
        Financial Officer)






Date:
      August 14, 2008






/s/
        Kim
        Bradford
 
 Kim
        Bradford,
 President
        and Chief Executive Officer,
 (Principal
        Executive Officer)
#### Maria Del Socorro Garcia ARROYO, et al., Petitioners, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 04-75375.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

June 9, 2006.

Nadeem H. Makada, Esq., Burlingame, CA, for Petitioners.

*626Ronald E. LeFevre, Chief Counsel, San Francisco, CA, and Alison R. Drucker, Esq., Washington, DC, for Respondent.

Agency Nos. [ AXX-XXX-XXX ], [ AXX-XXX-XXX ].

Before: GOODWIN, W. FLETCHER, FISHER, Circuit Judges.

ORDER GRANTING PETITION FOR REHEARING; WITHDRAWING MEMORANDUM DISPOSITION

The petitioners’ petition for panel rehearing is GRANTED. The memorandum disposition filed on December 14, 2005, is WITHDRAWN.
# C_2010359EN.01001701.xml

| 31.12.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 359/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

31.12.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 359/17

---

Summary of European Union decisions on marketing authorisations in respect of medicinal products from 1 July 2010 to 31 August 2010

(Decisions taken pursuant to Article 34 of Directive 2001/83/EC
   (1)
  or Article 38 of Directive 2001/82/EC
   (2)
  )

(Decisions taken pursuant to Article 34 of Directive 2001/83/EC

1

or Article 38 of Directive 2001/82/EC

2

)

2010/C 359/02

—   Issuing, maintenance or modification of a national marketing authorization

Issuing, maintenance or modification of a national marketing authorization

| Date of the decision | Name(s) of the medicinal product | Holder(s) of the marketing authorization | Member State concerned | Date of notification |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 31.8.2010 | PecFent | Archimedes Development Ltd, |
| Nottingham, |
| NGT7 2TN, |
| United Kingdom |

Date of the decision

Name(s) of the medicinal product

Holder(s) of the marketing authorization

Member State concerned

Date of notification

31.8.2010

PecFent

Archimedes Development Ltd,

Nottingham,

NGT7 2TN,

United Kingdom

These Decisions are addressed to the Member States

3.9.2010

—   Refusal of a national marketing authorization

Refusal of a national marketing authorization

| Date of the decision | Name(s) of the medicinal product | Holder(s) of the marketing authorization | Member State concerned | Date of notification |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 6.8.2010 | Myderison | See Annex I | See Annex I | 10.8.2010 |

Date of the decision

Name(s) of the medicinal product

Holder(s) of the marketing authorization

Member State concerned

Date of notification

6.8.2010

Myderison

See Annex I

See Annex I

10.8.2010

—   Suspension of a national marketing authorization

Suspension of a national marketing authorization

| Date of the decision | Name(s) of the medicinal product | Holder(s) of the marketing authorization | Member State concerned | Date of notification |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 10.8.2010 | Pregsure BVD and associated names | See Annex II | See Annex II | 11.8.2010 |

Date of the decision

Name(s) of the medicinal product

Holder(s) of the marketing authorization

Member State concerned

Date of notification

10.8.2010

Pregsure BVD and associated names

See Annex II

See Annex II

11.8.2010

—   Revocation of a national marketing authorization

Revocation of a national marketing authorization

| Date of the decision | Name(s) of the medicinal product | Holder(s) of the marketing authorization | Member State concerned | Date of notification |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 6.8.2010 | Myderison | See Annex I | See Annex I | 10.8.2010 |

Date of the decision

Name(s) of the medicinal product

Holder(s) of the marketing authorization

Member State concerned

Date of notification

6.8.2010

Myderison

See Annex I

See Annex I

10.8.2010

---

(1)  OJ L 311, 28.11.2001, p. 67.

1

(2)  OJ L 311, 28.11.2001, p. 1.

2

---
<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, 333-63550 and 333-97101,
and Form S-3 No. 333-63564) of Applix, Inc. of our report dated January 25,
2002, except for Note 17, as to which the date is February 8, 2002, and Note 2,
as to which the date is March 7, 2003, with respect to the consolidated
financial statements, as restated, and schedule of Applix, Inc. included in this
Annual Report (Form 10-K/A) for the year ended December 31, 2001.



                                             /s/ Ernst & Young LLP



Boston, Massachusetts
March 27, 2003
# C_2018161EN.01004001.xml

| 7.5.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 161/40 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.5.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 161/40

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d'Etat (France) lodged on 23 February 2018 — Regards Photographiques SARL v Ministre de l’Action et des Comptes publics

(Case C-145/18)

(2018/C 161/44)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Referring court

Conseil d'Etat

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Regards Photographiques SARL

Applicant:

Defendant: Ministre de l’Action et des Comptes publics (Minister for the Public Sector and Public Accounts)

Defendant:

Questions referred

Questions referred

| ‘— | Must the provisions of Articles 103 and 311 of Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 (1) and paragraph 7 of part A in Annex IX thereto, be interpreted as meaning that they require only that the photographs are taken by their photographer, printed by him or under his supervision, signed and numbered up to a maximum of 30 copies, all sizes and mounts included, in order to be able to benefit from the reduced rate of VAT? |
| --- | --- |

‘—

Must the provisions of Articles 103 and 311 of Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 (1) and paragraph 7 of part A in Annex IX thereto, be interpreted as meaning that they require only that the photographs are taken by their photographer, printed by him or under his supervision, signed and numbered up to a maximum of 30 copies, all sizes and mounts included, in order to be able to benefit from the reduced rate of VAT?

1

| — | If the answer to the first question is yes, are Member States nevertheless permitted to exclude from the benefit of the reduced rate of VAT photographs that are not, in addition, artistic in character? |
| --- | --- |

—

If the answer to the first question is yes, are Member States nevertheless permitted to exclude from the benefit of the reduced rate of VAT photographs that are not, in addition, artistic in character?

| — | If the answer to the first question is no, what other conditions must the photographs satisfy in order to benefit from the reduced rate of VAT? In particular, must they show an artistic character? |
| --- | --- |

—

If the answer to the first question is no, what other conditions must the photographs satisfy in order to benefit from the reduced rate of VAT? In particular, must they show an artistic character?

| — | Must those conditions be interpreted uniformly within the European Union, or do they refer to the law or each Member state, in particular in the field of intellectual property?’ |
| --- | --- |

—

Must those conditions be interpreted uniformly within the European Union, or do they refer to the law or each Member state, in particular in the field of intellectual property?’

---

(1)  Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1).

1

---