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

November 3, 2022

Submitted via Portal

Mr. Christopher J. Kirkpatrick

Office of the Secretariat

U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission

Three Lafayette Centre

1155 21st Street, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20581

Re: Confidential Treatment Request –AEGIS SEF Exhibit N-1 Participant

Agreement

Dear Sir:

AEGIS SEF, LLC (“AEGIS SEF”) hereby requests that the U.S. Commodity Futures Trading

Commission (the “Commission”) accord confidential treatment to Exhibit N-1 Participant 

Agreement (“Exhibit”), which was submitted to the Commission as 40.6(d) Weekly Notification 

of Amended Terms and Conditions on this date. This request pertains to all material in the 

Exhibit. The Exhibit bears the designation “Confidential Treatment Requested by AEGIS SEF, 

LLC.”

This request for confidential treatment is made pursuant to Commission

Regulations 40.8, as Exhibit contains information that would reveal the

trade secrets or confidential commercial or financial information of AEGIS SEF and its

affiliates. 

Please contact the undersigned at 832-413-5973 or afurman@aegis-hedging.com with any 

questions regarding this matter.

Andrew Furman

Chief Compliance Officer

AEGIS SEF, LLC

2829 Technology Forest Blvd

Suite 260

The Woodlands, TX 77381
[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 107 (Monday, June 4, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Page 29980]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-13936]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service


Meeting of the Alaska Migratory Bird Co-management Council

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Notice of meeting.

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

SUMMARY: The Alaska Migratory Bird Co-management Council has scheduled 
a public meeting to discuss financial needs and sources for funding the 
operation of the Council and the regional management bodies.

DATES: The Co-management Council will meet June 26, 2001.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be conducted at the Hawthorn Suites Hotel 
at 1110 W. 8th Avenue in Anchorage, Alaska.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For additional information call Bob 
Stevens at 907/786-3499. Individuals with a disability who may need 
special accommodations in order to participate in the public comment 
portion of the meeting should call the above number.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service formed 
the Alaska Migratory Bird Co-Management Council, which includes Native, 
State, and Federal representatives as equals, by means of a Notice of 
Decision published in the Federal Register, 65 FR 16405-16409, March 
28, 2000. The amended Migratory Bird Treaty with Canada required the 
formation of such a management body. The Co-management Council will 
make recommendations for regulations for spring/summer subsistence 
harvesting of migratory birds in Alaska. In addition the Co-management 
Council will make recommendations regarding population and harvest 
monitoring, law enforcement policies, habitat protection, research and 
use of traditional knowledge, and education programs.
    The meeting of the Co-management Council will begin at 8:30 a.m. on 
Tuesday, June 26, 2001. The session will end no later than 5 p.m. that 
day. The primary agenda item will be a discussion of funding 
alternatives for the operation of the Co-management Council and the 
regional management bodies that provide recommendations to the Co-
management Council. The public is invited to attend. The Co-management 
Council will provide opportunities for public comment on agenda items 
at the end of the morning session and at the end of the afternoon 
session. Additional opportunities may be provided at the discretion of 
the Co-management Council. Agendas will be available at the door.

    Dated: May 23, 2001.
David B. Allen,
Regional Director, Anchorage, Alaska.
[FR Doc. 01-13936 Filed 6-1-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P
Section 1350 Certifications
                     CERTIFICATE 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

         I, William  Marshall,  Chief Executive  Officer and Director of Fidelis
Energy Inc.,  certify that the Annual  Report on Form 10-KSB (the  "Report") for
the period  ended  December  31, 2005,  filed with the  Securities  and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof:

         (i)      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 Fidelis Energy Inc.


                              By:    /S/ WILLIAM MARSHALL
                                     CEO  and a member of the Board of Directors



A signed  original of this  written  statement  required by Section 906 has been
provided to Fidelis  Energy Inc.,  and will be retained by Fidelis  Energy Inc.,
and  furnished  to the  Securities  and  Exchange  Commission  or its staff upon
request.
[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 12 (Thursday, January 18, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Page 4856]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-1395]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Bureau of Land Management

[ID-957-1430-BJ]


Idaho: Filing of Plats of Survey

AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, Interior.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The plats of the following described lands were officially 
filed in the Idaho State Office, Bureau of Land Management, Boise, 
Idaho, effective 9 a.m., on the dates specified:
    The plat representing the entire survey record of the dependent 
resurvey of a portion of the subdivisional lines, T. 5 N., R. 1 E., 
Boise Meridian, Idaho, Group Number 1092, was accepted October 2, 2000. 
The plat was prepared to meet certain administrative needs of the 
Bureau of Land Management.
    The plat representing the dependent resurvey of a portion of the 
east boundary and of the subdivisional lines, and the subdivision of 
section 36, T. 2 S., R. 36 E., Boise Meridian, Idaho, and the plat 
representing the dependent resurvey of portions of the east and north 
boundaries, and the subdivisional lines, and the subdivision of 
sections 13, 14, and 24, T. 3 S., R. 36 E., Boise Meridian, Idaho, 
Group Number 999, were accepted November 6, 2000. The plats were 
prepared to meet certain administrative needs of the Bureau of Indian 
Affairs, Fort Hall Agency.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Duane Olsen, Chief, Cadastral Survey, 
Idaho State Office, Bureau of Land Management, 1387 South Vinnell Way, 
Boise, Idaho 83709-1657, 208-373-3980.

    Dated: January 3, 2001.
Harry K. Smith,
Acting Chief, Cadastral Surveyor for Idaho.
[FR Doc. 01-1395 Filed 1-17-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-GG-P
#### COX v. CUDMORE

No. 288P98

Case below: 129 N.C.App. 843

Petition by plaintiff for discretionary review pursuant to G.S. 7A-31 denied 5 November 1998.
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

JUDGMENT

No. 04-22-00381-CR

Jose Andres ROMERO,

Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 216th Judicial District Court, Gillespie County, Texas

Trial Court No. 7790

Honorable Albert D. Pattillo, III, Judge Presiding

BEFORE JUSTICE WATKINS, JUSTICE RODRIGUEZ, AND JUSTICE VALENZUELA

In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, this appeal is DISMISSED.

SIGNED October 19, 2022.

_________________________________

Beth Watkins, Justice
<PAGE>

                                                                   Exhibit 23.2

                       CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS
We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration
Statement on Form S-4 (No. 333-55831) and in the Registration Statements on
Form S-8 (Nos. 333-10429 and 333-48143) of Westaff, Inc. of our report dated
January 22, 1999, relating to the consolidated financial statements and
financial statement schedule, which appears in this Form 10-K.
/s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP

San Francisco, California
January 28, 2000

<PAGE>

                   REPORT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS

To the Board of Directors and Stockholders of Westaff, Inc.

In our opinion, the consolidated financial statements listed in the index
appearing under Item 14(a)1 on page 32 present fairly, in all material
respects, the financial position of Westaff, Inc. and its subsidiaries at
October 31, 1998 and the results of their operations and their cash flows for
each of the two years in the period ended October 31, 1998, in conformity
with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of
America. In addition, in our opinion, the financial statement schedule listed
in the index appearing under Item 14(a)2 on page 33 presents fairly, in all
material respects, the information set forth therein when read in conjunction
with the related consolidated financial statements. These financial
statements and financial statement schedule are the responsibility of the
Company's management; our responsibility is to express an opinion on these
financial statements and financial statement schedule based on our audits. We
conducted our audits of these statements in accordance with auditing
standards generally accepted in the United States of America, which require
that we plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about
whether the financial statements are free of material misstatement. An audit
includes examining, on a test basis, evidence supporting the amounts and
disclosures in the financial statements, assessing the accounting principles
used and significant estimates made by management, and evaluating the overall
financial statement presentation. We believe that our audits provide a
reasonable basis for the opinion expressed above.

/s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP

San Francisco, California
January 22, 1999
**Form SEF: Exhibit H**

Exhibit H-Page 1

101650994
#### In the Matter of Ignacio Reynoso, Appellant, v Brian Fischer, as Commissioner of Correctional Services, Respondent.

Decided February 23, 2010

Appeal dismissed, without costs, by the Court of Appeals, sua sponte, upon the ground that no appeal lies as of right from the unanimous order of the Appellate Division absent the direct involvement of a substantial constitutional question (CPLR 5601).
Opinion issued June 8, 2023

In The

Court of Appeals 

For The 

First District of Texas 

————————————

NO. 01-23-00400-CV

———————————

IN RE DUCHUY TUANKIET NGUYEN, Relator

Original Proceeding on Petition for Writ of Mandamus

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Relator, DucHuy TuanKiet Nguyen, filed a petition for a writ of mandamus 

asserting that the trial court erred in connection with claims asserted by real party in 

interest, Thi Khanh Linh Nguyen, against the estate of relator’s father, Tinh Duc 

Nguyen.1 Relator requests that the Court grant mandamus relief based on the trial 

1 The underlying case is In the Estate of Tinh Duc Nguyen, Deceased, Cause No. 

491848, in Probate Court No. 1 of Harris County, Texas, the Honorable Jerry 

Simoneaux presiding.
2

court’s “failure to rule on [real party in interest’s] claims without examining the 

claimant and dependent administrator under oath and without hearing other evidence 

necessary to determine the issue” and based on the trial court’s “approval of barred 

claims.”

With his mandamus petition, relator also filed an “Emergency Motion for 

Temporary Relief,” in which relator requested a “stay of the trial court’s entry of an 

order approving claims against the estate asserted by” real party in interest. Relator 

asserts that this relief is necessary “to preserve the status quo pending this Court’s 

consideration” of his mandamus petition.

Our review of relator’s mandamus petition reflects that relator has failed to 

establish that he is entitled to mandamus relief. Accordingly, we deny relator’s 

petition for writ of mandamus. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(a). All pending motions, 

including relator’s “Emergency Motion for Temporary Relief,” are dismissed as 

moot.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Chief Justice Adams and Justices Guerra and Farris.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

CHARLES RINGGOLD,

Defendant Below,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF DELAWARE,

Plaintiff Below,

Appellee.

§

§ 

§ No. 265, 2015

§

§

§ Court Below—Superior Court

§ of the State of Delaware,

§ in and for New Castle County

§ Cr. ID No. 0907029340

§ 

§

Submitted: August 27, 2015

Decided: September 2, 2015

Before STRINE, Chief Justice; HOLLAND, and SEITZ, Justices.

ORDER

This 2nd day of September 2015, it appears to the Court that:

(1) On May 27, 2015, the Court received the appellant’s notice of appeal 

from a Superior Court order, dated March 16, 2015 and docketed on March 17, 

2015, denying the appellant’s motion for correction of sentence. Under Supreme 

Court Rule 6(a)(iii), a timely notice of appeal should have been filed on or before 

April 16, 2015.

(2) On June 24, 2015, the Chief Deputy Clerk issued a notice directing 

the appellant to show cause why this appeal should not be dismissed as untimely 

filed under Supreme Court Rule 6. The appellant requested, and received, an 

extension to file a response to the notice to show cause. The appellant did not 
2

respond to the notice to show cause until after the time for the extension had

expired, making his appeal subject to dismissal.1In his untimely response to the 

notice to show cause, the appellant argues that he has established good cause for 

the untimely notice of appeal because he was ill and did not have access to legal 

resources or legal assistance. 

(3) Even if the appellant’s response to the notice to show cause was 

timely, this appeal must be dismissed. Time is a jurisdictional requirement.2 A 

notice of appeal must be received by the Office of the Clerk of this Court within 

the applicable time period in order to be effective.3 An appellant’s pro se status 

does not excuse a failure to comply strictly with the jurisdictional requirements of 

Supreme Court Rule 6.4 Unless an appellant can demonstrate that the failure to file 

a timely notice of appeal is attributable to court-related personnel, an untimely 

appeal cannot be considered.5

(4) The appellant does not claim, and the record does not reflect, that his 

failure to file a timely notice of appeal is attributable to court-related personnel. 

Consequently, this case does not fall within the exception to the general rule that 

mandates the timely filing of a notice of appeal. Thus, the Court concludes that 

this appeal must be dismissed.

 

1 Supr. Ct. R. 3(a)(2); Supr. Ct. R. 29(b). 

2 Carr v. State, 554 A.2d 778, 779 (Del. 1989).

3

Supr. Ct. R. 10(a).

4

Smith v. State, 47 A.3d 481, 485-87 (Del. 2012).

5

Bey v. State, 402 A.2d 362, 363 (Del. 1979).
3

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED, under Supreme Court Rule 29(b),

that this appeal is DISMISSED.

BY THE COURT:

/s/ Leo E. Strine, Jr.

Chief Justice
March 19, 2013

JUDGMENT

The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

GEORGE HOWARD GIBBS, Appellant

NO. 14-12-00813-CV V.

SONYA HONG GIBBS, Appellee

________________________________

Today the Court heard the parties joint motion to reverse the order signed 

by the court below on August 1, 2012. Having considered the motion and found it 

meritorious, we order the judgment REVERSED AND REMAND the cause to 

the trial court for proceedings in accordance with this Court's opinion. 

We further order that all costs incurred by reason of this appeal be paid by 

Appellant, George Howard Gibbs.

We further order that mandate be issued immediately.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.
SUBMISSION COVER SHEET

IMPORTANT: Check box if Confidential Treatment is requested

Registered Entity Identifier Code (optional): ___________________________ 

Organization: ICE Swap Trade, LLC

 

Filing as a: DCM X SEF DCO SDR Please note - only ONE choice allowed.

 

Filing Date (mm/dd/yy): 2/16/2018 Filing Description: ICE Swap Trade, LLC’s weekly notification of rule 

changes. 

SPECIFY FILING TYPE Please note only ONE choice allowed per Submission.

 

Organization Rules and Rule Amendments

Certification § 40.6(a)

Approval § 40.5(a)

Notification § 40.6(d)

Advance Notice of SIDCO Rule Change § 40.10(a)

SIDCO Emergency Rule Change § 40.10(h)

 Rule Numbers: IST Compliance Manual

New Product Please note only ONE product per Submission.

Certification § 40.2(a) 

Certification Security Futures § 41.23(a)

Certification Swap Class § 40.2(d)

Approval § 40.3(a)

Approval Security Futures § 41.23(b)

Novel Derivative Product Notification § 40.12(a)

Swap Submission § 39.5

 Official Product Name: 

 

Product Terms and Conditions (product related Rules and Rule Amendments)

Certification § 40.6(a) 

Certification Made Available to Trade Determination § 40.6(a)

Certification Security Futures § 41.24(a)

Delisting (No Open Interest) § 40.6(a) 

Approval § 40.5(a)

Approval Made Available to Trade Determination § 40.5(a)

Approval Security Futures § 41.24(c)

Approval Amendments to enumerated agricultural products § 40.4(a), § 40.5(a)

“Non-Material Agricultural Rule Change” § 40.4(b)(5)

Notification § 40.6(d)

 Official Name(s) of Product(s) Affected:

Rule Numbers: 

X
1... This proceeding arises out of Cause No. 2009-CR-8136, styled State of Texas v. Justin Bosquez, in the 379th

Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas, the Honorable Ron Rangel presiding.

2... The record indicates that up until August 28, 2009, Alfredo Trevino represented relator. At a hearing on

August 28, 2009, relator was appointed new counsel, Eddie Adams.

i i i i i i

MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04-09-00575-CR

IN RE Justin BOSQUEZ

Original Mandamus Proceeding1

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Catherine Stone, Chief Justice

Karen Angelini, Justice

Marialyn Barnard, Justice

Delivered and Filed: September 23, 2009

PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS DENIED

On September 11, 2009, relator Justin Bosquez filed a petition for writ of mandamus,

complaining of the trial court’s failure to rule on his motion for discovery. 

However, counsel has been appointed to represent relator in the criminal proceeding pending

in the trial court for which he is currently confined.2 A criminal defendant is not entitled to hybrid

representation. See Robinson v. State, 240 S.W.3d 919, 922 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007); Patrick v.

State, 906 S.W.2d 481, 498 (Tex. Crim. App. 1995). A trial court has no legal duty to rule on a pro
04-09-00575-CR

-2-

se motion filed with regard to a criminal proceeding in which the defendant is represented by

counsel. See Robinson, 240 S.W.3d at 922. Consequently, the trial court did not abuse its discretion

by declining to rule on relator’s pro se motion that relates directly to his confinement based on the

criminal proceeding pending in the trial court. Accordingly, relator’s petition for writ of mandamus

is denied. TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(a). 

Additionally, relator filed an Application for Leave to File Petition for Writ of Mandamus.

No leave is required to file a petition for a writ of mandamus in this court. TEX. R. APP. P. 52.

Therefore, relator’s motion for leave to file is DENIED as moot. 

PER CURIAM

DO NOT PUBLISH
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Tyray Gilliam, Appellant.

Submitted March 19, 2012;

decided April 3, 2012

Reported below, 86 AD3d 923.

Motion by appellant pro se for removal of assigned counsel and assignment of new counsel denied.
Exhibit 32.1

                            CERTIFICATION 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 Amendment to the Annual Report of Critical Care, Inc.
(the "Company") on Form 10-KSB for the year ended July 31, 2005 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Ernest B. Remo, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer (Principal Executive
Officer and Principal Accounting and Financial Officer) of the Company, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 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 Exchange Act of 1934; and

     (2)  The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
          material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of
          the Company.


/s/  Ernest B. Remo
-----------------------------
     Ernest B. Remo
     Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
     (Principal Executive Officer and
     Principal Accounting and Financial Officer)


March 30, 2006
EXHIBIT 13.2



Certification of Chief Financial 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 Annual Report of Alpha Gold Corporation, company organized under the British Columbia Business Corporations Act(the Company) on Form 20-F as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the undersigned, Richard Whatley, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. (S) 1350, as adopted pursuant to (S) 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 Exchange Act of 1934; and



(2)  The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all

material respects, the financial condition and result of operations

of the Company.





/s/ Richard Whately________________________________________

Richard Whatley, Chief Financial Officer/Secretary/Director





Date: July 30, 2008





#