alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
3

1177 Avenue of Americas

New York, New York 10036

June 2, 2022

Submitted via CFTC Portal

Mr. Christopher J. Kirkpatrick

Office of the Secretariat

Commodity Futures Trading Commission

Three Lafayette Centre

1155 21st Street, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20581

Re: TW SEF LLC – Amendment of Rule 411 (Block Trades) 

Dear Mr. Kirkpatrick:

Pursuant to Section 5c(c) of the Commodity Exchange Act (the “Act”) and Section 40.6(a) of the 

regulations of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (the “Commission”), TW SEF LLC 

(“TW SEF”) hereby submits amendments to its Rulebook related to the above-captioned Rule. 

Specifically, the Rulebook has been amended as detailed below. 

The Rulebook has been amended to clarify that a block trade executed on the SEF may not be 

executed through an order book or must occur away from the SEF’s trading platform and be 

executed pursuant to the SEF’s Rules, in accordance with CFTC Regulation 43.2. Additionally, 

the amended Rule 411 now allows for block trades that are not intended-to-be-cleared. Lastly, 

references to CFTC No-Action Letter No. 20-35 and other related No-Action Letters have been 

removed. The amendment will become effective on June 16, 2022, no fewer than ten business 

days from the date hereof. Notwithstanding that this filing will be self-certified on June 16, 2022, 

TW SEF notes that the amended definition of block trade went into effect on May 25, 2022 

pursuant to the CFTC Regulations. This filing updates the Rules to reflect this amended definition.

In connection with this submission, TW SEF hereby notifies the Commission that:

1. TW SEF certifies that it has posted a notice of this pending certification with the 

Commission and a copy of this submission on TW SEF’s website, including a redline 

of Rule 411, which is attached hereto as Attachment A, and a copy of Rule 411, which 

is attached hereto as Attachment B;

2. TW SEF certifies that the Rule complies with the Act and the Commission’s regulations 

thereunder; and

3. No substantive opposing views with respect to the Rule were expressed to TW SEF 

by its governing board or committee members, members of TW SEF or market 

participants.

* * *
Mr. Christopher J. Kirkpatrick

Commodity Futures Trading Commission

June 2 2022

2

Should you have questions regarding this submission, please contact the undersigned at (646) 

767-4923 or by email at Devi.Shanmugham@tradeweb.com.

Very truly yours,

Devi Shanmugham

TW SEF CCO
Mr. Christopher J. Kirkpatrick

Commodity Futures Trading Commission

June 2 2022

3

Attachment A

Redline Version of Rule 411 
Mr. Christopher J. Kirkpatrick

Commodity Futures Trading Commission

June 2 2022

4

Attachment B

Amended Rule 411
Exhibit 32
                                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

       In connection with the Annual Report of Micrel, Incorporated (the
"Company") on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2005 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Raymond D. Zinn, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to
18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-
Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:

1.   The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
15(d), of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

2.   That information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

Date:   March 6, 2006           /S/ Raymond D. Zinn
                                ------------------------------
                                Raymond D. Zinn
                                President, Chief Executive Officer and Director
                               (Principal Executive Officer)

       In connection with the Annual Report of Micrel, Incorporated (the
"Company") on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2005 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Richard D. Crowley, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-
Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:

1.   The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
15(d), of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

2.   That information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

Date:   March 6, 2006           /S/ Richard D. Crowley
                                ------------------------------
                                Richard D. Crowley
                                Vice President, Finance and
                                Chief Financial Officer
                                (Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)

                                       75
##### 



Exhibit 8
 Country ofSubsidiary
    
    incorporation
    
    Interest Held
    
    Percentage InterestBSkyB Finance UK plc
    
    England and Wales
    
    British Sky
Broadcasting Group
plc (BSkyB) and
Sky Television
Limited hold 49,999
and 1 Ordinary
Shares of £1 each
respectively.
    
    
    100
    %British Sky Broadcasting
Limited (BSkyB Limited)
    
    England and Wales
    
    BSkyB and BSkyB
Investments Limited
hold 5,000,002 and
5,000,000 Ordinary
Shares of £1 each
respectively
    
    
    100
    %BSkyB Finance Limited
    
    England and Wales
    
    BSkyB holds
556,440,638
Ordinary Shares of
£1 each
    
    
    100
    %British Interactive Broadcasting
Holdings Limited (BIB)
    
    England and Wales
    
    BSkyB holds 651,960
Ordinary Shares of
£1 each
    
    
    100
    %Sky Television Limited
    
    England and Wales
    
    BSkyB holds
13,376,982 Ordinary
Shares of £1 each
    
    
    100
    %Sky Subscribers Services
Limited
    
    England and Wales
    
    BiB holds 3 Ordinary
Shares of £1 each
    
    
    100
    %BSkyB Investments Limited
    
    England and Wales
    
    BSkyB holds 100
Ordinary Shares of
£1 each
    
    
    100
    %Sky Ventures Limited
    
    England and Wales
    
    BSkyB Limited holds
912 Ordinary Shares
of £1 each
    
    
    100
    %Sky New Media Ventures Limited
    
    England and Wales
    
    BSkyB Limited holds
12,500 Ordinary
Shares of £1 each
    
    
    100
    %Marketing Contributions Limited
    
    England and Wales
    
    BiB holds 2
Ordinary Shares of
£1 each
    
    
    100
    %Sky Interactive Limited
    
    England and Wales
    
    BiB and BSkyB
Limited hold 2 and
1 Ordinary Shares
of £1 each
respectively
    
    
    100
    %Sky In-Home Services Limited
    
    England and Wales
    
    Ciel Bleu Limited,
a wholly owned
subsidiary of BSkyB
Limited, holds
1,576,000 Ordinary
Shares of £1 each
    
    
    100
    %Sky Broadband Services Limited
(Sky Broadband)
    
    England and Wales
    
    BSkyB holds 100
Ordinary Shares of
£1 each
    
    
    100
    %Easynet Group Plc
    
    England and Wales
    
    Sky Broadband holds
121,308,490
Ordinary Shares of
4p each
    
    
    100
    %British Sky Broadcasting SA
    
    Luxembourg
    
    BSkyB Limited holds
12,500 Ordinary
Shares of £12 each
    
    
    100
    %Sports Internet Group Limited
    
    England and Wales
    
    BSkyB holds
38,247,184 Ordinary
Shares of 5p each
    
    
    100
    %Hestview Limited
    
    England and Wales
    
    Surrey Group
Limited, a wholly
owned subsidiary of
Sports Internet
Group Limited,
holds 108 Ordinary
Shares of £1 each
    
    
    100
    %
CIRCUIT COURT OF HENRICO COUNTY

#### Commonwealth of Virginia v. Leroy Smith, Jr.

May 18, 1983

Case Nos. 83F31, 83M52, 83M53

By Judge E. Ballard Baker

On May 4,1983, this Court heard evidence in these three cases, all alleging offenses of December 14, 1982.

Case 83F31 charges the defendant with credit card theft, the indictment reciting that the defendant did “take, obtain, or withhold five credit cards . . . .” These cards were alleged to be J. C. Penney, Thalhimers, Miller and Rhoads, Sears, and LaVogue, all belonging to Mrs. Lacy E. Martin, Sr. Section 18.2-192 is cited on the indictment.

Case 83M52 charges the defendant with credit card fraud, the warrant reciting that the defendant “obtained or retained ...” a Thalhimer credit card of Mrs. Lacy E. Martin, Sr., to obtain assorted men’s wear valued at less than $200. The warrant refers to § 18.2-195.

Case 83M53 charges the defendant with credit card fraud, the warrant reciting that the defendant “obtained or retained ...” a Miller and Rhoads credit card of Mrs. Lacy E. Martin, Sr., to obtain a gold chain valued at less than $200. The warrant refers to § 18.2-195.

After hearing the evidence, the Court expressed the view that the evidence was sufficient for a finding of guilty in each case but deferred any finding pending consideration of defendant’s plea of double jeopardy.

The Double Jeopardy Clause of the U. S. Constitution affords protection in three situations: (1) It protects against a second prosecution for the same offense after acquittal; (2) it protects against a *473second prosecution for the same offense after conviction; (3) it protects against multiple punishments for the same offense. *Fitzgerald v. Commonwealth,*223 Va. 615, 634 (1982).

In resolving issues raising double jeopardy claims, the test of *Blockburger v. U.S.,*284 U.S. 299 (1932), has been applied in cases where a defendant has been convicted in a single trial of several offenses arising out of the same transaction. But where the General Assembly has “clearly indicated its intent to impose multiple punishments,” it is not necessary to apply *Blockburger. Turner v. Commonwealth,*221 Va. 513, 530 (1980). This same view was expressed in *Whalen*v. *United States,*445 U.S. 684, 100 S. Ct. 1432, 1437-38 (1980), where the Supreme Court held that Congress had not given clear intent that the offenses involved in *Whalen*should be separately punished.

Applying *Blockburger*to these cases, it must be readily apparent that the credit card theft of the J. C. Penney, Thalhimers, Miller and Rhoads, Sears, and LaVogue cards, in 83F31 is not the same offense as the use of the Thalhimers card in 83M52, or the use of the Miller and Rhoads card in Case 83M53 to obtain merchandise.

If the theft charge involved only the Thalhimers and Miller and Rhoads cards, then perhaps further consideration of the application of *Blockburger*would be necessary, or the question of legislative intent would have to be considered.

As these three charges do not involve the same offense, as each clearly requires proof of at least one fact that the others do not, the defendant’s reliance on double jeopardy collapses.
Exhibit (m)(29)

DISTRIBUTION AND SERVICE PLAN

FIDELITY INVESTMENT TRUST: FIDELITY INTERNATIONAL
```

[Federal Register: May 18, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 95)]
[Notices]
[Page 28514]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr18my05-48]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION


Sunshine Act Meetings

Time and Date: 11 a.m., Friday, June 24, 2005.

Place: 1155 21st St., NW., Washington, DC, 9th Floor Commission
Conference Room.

Status: Closed.

Matters to Be Considered: Surveillance Matters.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jean A. Webb, 202-418-5100.

Jean A. Webb,
Secretary of the Commission.
[FR Doc. 05-10037 Filed 5-16-05; 2:41 pm]

BILLING CODE 6351-01-M
```
EXHIBIT 99.1





SCANNER TECHNOLOGIES ANNOUNCES FINAL JUDGMENT AND

APPEAL IN NEW YORK LITIGATION WITH ICOS VISION SYSTEMS N.V.



MINNEAPOLIS--(BUSINESS WIRE)-- June 4, 2007--Scanner Technologies Corporation (OTCBB:SCNI) announced today that a final judgment has been ordered in its ongoing litigation with ICOS Vision Systems Corporation NV in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.

In July of 2000, Scanner Technologies Corporation instituted an action against ICOS Vision Systems Corporation N.V. in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York for infringement of two patents (U.S. Patent Nos. 6,064,756 and 6,064,757) owned by Scanner. The patents disclose systems and methods of inspecting ball grid array devices in three dimensions. ICOS later instituted actions against Scanner in 2005 and 2007 asking the court to declare those patents, and other related patents invalid and not infringed.

On June 1, 2007, the New York court entered an order that states Scanners 756 and 757 patents are not infringed by ICOS and its customers, and Scanner is barred from enforcingallof its patents related to inspecting ball grid array devices in three dimensions. As a result of the ruling, the court dismissed the 2005 and 2007 ICOS actions and ordered ICOS to apply for attorneys fees and costs by June 18, 2007.

Scanner has filed a notice of appeal in the case.



About Scanner Technologies Corporation:

Scanner is a New Mexico corporation that invents, develops and markets vision inspection products that are used in the semiconductor industry for the inspection of integrated circuits. Scanner's headquarters are located in Minneapolis, Minnesota and has a manufacturing facility in Tempe, Arizona. Scanner's stock is traded on the Over-The-Counter Bulletin Board under the symbol SCNI. For more information please visit www.scannertech.com.



Contact:

Scanner Technologies Corporation

Elwin Beaty

763-476-8271

---
H. Res. 1312 

In the House of Representatives, U. S., 

May 5, 2010. 

Whereas education and knowledge are the foundation of 

America’s current and future strength; 

Whereas teachers and other education staff have earned and 

deserve the respect of their students and communities for 

their selfless dedication to community service and the future of our Nation’s children; 

Whereas the purpose of ‘‘National Teacher Appreciation 

Week’’, held during May 3, 2010, through May 7, 2010, 

is to raise public awareness of the unquantifiable contributions of teachers and to promote greater respect and 

understanding for the teaching profession; and 

Whereas students, schools, communities, and a number of organizations representing educators are hosting teacher 

appreciation events in recognition of ‘‘National Teacher 

Appreciation Week’’: Now, therefore, be it 

Resolved, That the House of Representatives thanks 

teachers and promotes the profession of teaching by encouraging students, parents, school administrators, and public of-
2 

•HRES 1312 EH 

ficials to participate in teacher appreciation events during 

‘‘National Teacher Appreciation Week’’. 

Attest: 

Clerk.
**Exhibit 23.1**

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

          We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on Form S-8 (Reg. Nos. 333-12087, 333-68637, 333-94111, 333-42210, 333-56274, 333-90504 and 333-116740) pertaining to the 1993 Stock Option Plan, the Non-Statutory Stock Option, the 1996 Equity Incentive Plan, the 1996 Non-Employee Directors’ Stock Option Plan, the 1997 Employee Stock Purchase Plan, and the 2000 Equity Incentive Plan, and Registration Statements on Form S-3 (Reg. Nos. 333-68117, 333-72225, 333-79925, 333-92355 and 333-47680) and in the related Prospectuses of Avigen, Inc. of our reports dated March 10, 2005, with respect to the financial statements of Avigen, Inc., Avigen, Inc. management’s assessment of the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting, and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting of Avigen, Inc., included in this Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the yearended December 31, 2004. 

|   | /s/ ERNST & YOUNG LLP |
|--------|---------------------------|

Palo Alto, California March 10, 2005
Exhibit (m)(34)

FORM OF

DISTRIBUTION AND SERVICE PLAN

FIDELITY INVESTMENT TRUST: FIDELITY INTERNATIONAL SMALL CAP
COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02-11-00507-CV

IN THE INTEREST OF E.W.J. AND 

L.J., CHILDREN

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

FROM COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO. 1 OF PARKER COUNTY

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

MEMORANDUM OPINION1 AND JUDGMENT

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

We have considered appellant’s “Motion To Dismiss Appeal.” It is the 

court=s opinion that the motion should be granted; therefore, we dismiss the 

appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.1(a)(1), 43.2(f).

PER CURIAM

PANEL: MCCOY, GARDNER, and WALKER, JJ.

DELIVERED: September 20, 2012

 

1See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.
I 

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2434 

To resume the operation of the page program for the House of 

Representatives. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 1, 2019 

Mr. RUSH introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee 

on House Administration 

A BILL 

To resume the operation of the page program for the House 

of Representatives. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Promoting American 

5 Government Education Act’’ or the ‘‘PAGE Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. RESUMPTION OF OPERATION OF PAGE PROGRAM 

7 FOR HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. 

8 (a) RESUMPTION OF PROGRAM.—Effective beginning 

9 with the first semester of the first academic year which 

10 begins after the appointment of members of the House 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
2 

•HR 2434 IH

1 of Representatives Page Board under subsection (c), the 

2 Speaker of the House of Representatives shall provide for 

3 the resumption of the operation of the page program for 

4 the House of Representatives which was in operation dur5 ing the One Hundred Tenth Congress. 

6 (b) APPOINTMENT OF MEMBER OF HOUSE OF REP7 RESENTATIVES PAGE BOARD TO REPRESENT INTERESTS

8 OF PAGES.— 

9 (1) IN GENERAL.—Section 2(a) of House Reso10 lution 611, Ninety-seventh Congress, agreed to No11 vember 30, 1982, as enacted into permanent law by 

12 section 127 of Public Law 97–377 (2 U.S.C. 

13 4912(a)), is amended— 

14 (A) by striking ‘‘and’’ at the end of para15 graph (3); 

16 (B) by redesignating paragraph (4) as 

17 paragraph (5); and 

18 (C) by inserting after paragraph (3) the 

19 following new paragraph: 

20 ‘‘(4) one individual who has expertise in rep21 resenting the legal interests of minors, such as by 

22 serving as a guardian ad litem; and’’. 

23 (2) CONFORMING AMENDMENT.—Section 2(b) 

24 of such Resolution (2 U.S.C. 4912(b)) is amended 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
3 

•HR 2434 IH

1 by striking ‘‘paragraphs (2) and (3)’’ and inserting 

2 ‘‘paragraphs (2), (3), and (4)’’. 

3 (c) PROCESS FOR APPOINTMENT OF MEMBERS OF

4 PAGE BOARD.— 

5 (1) DEADLINE FOR APPOINTMENT.—Not later 

6 than 90 days after the date of the enactment of this 

7 Act, the Speaker and the Minority Leader of the 

8 House shall appoint members of the House of Rep9 resentatives Page Board under section 2 of House 

10 Resolution 611, Ninety-seventh Congress, agreed to 

11 November 30, 1982, as enacted into permanent law 

12 by section 127 of Public Law 97–377 (2 U.S.C. 

13 4912). 

14 (2) SPECIAL RULE FOR APPOINTMENT OF MEM15 BER WHO WAS PARENT OF A PAGE.—Notwith16 standing paragraph (2) of section 2(a) of the House 

17 Resolution referred to in paragraph (1) (2 U.S.C. 

18 4912(a)), the Speaker and the Minority Leader may 

19 appoint as a member of the House of Representa20 tives Page Board under such paragraph an indi21 vidual who, at any time prior to the individual’s ap22 pointment, was a parent of a page participating in 

23 the page program of the House of Representatives. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
EXHIBIT
32.1
 
 SECTION
906 CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER OF DOT VN, INC.
 
 In
connection with the accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Dot VN, Inc.
for the quarter ended July 31, 2010, the undersigned, Thomas Johnson, Chief
Executive Officer of Dot VN, Inc., does hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that:
 
 (1) such
Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended July 31, 2010 fully complies
with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934, as amended; and
 
 (2) the
information contained in such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter
ended July 31, 2010 fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
condition and results of operations of Dot VN, Inc.
 Date:
      September 14, 2010
                    
                    
                    /s/
      Thomas JohnsonThomas
      JohnsonChief
      Executive Officer and principal executive officer
  74
[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 107 (Monday, June 4, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Page 29992]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-13866]


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

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE


Notice of Lodging of Consent Decree Pursuant to the Comprehensive 
Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act

    In accordance with Departmental policy, 28 CFR 50.7, notice is 
hereby given that on April 30, 2001, a proposed Consent Decree in 
United States v. J. B. Stringfellow, Jr. et al., Civil Action No. 83-
2501 (R), was lodged with the United States District Court for the 
Central District of California. the Complaint in this action was 
brought pursuant to, inter alia, the Comprehensive Environmental 
Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, 42 U.S.C. 9601 et seq., to 
recover costs incurred in connection with remedial activities at the 
Stringfellow Superfund Site in Riverside, California, and to obtain 
injunctive relief requiring the defendants to take further remedial 
actions at the Site.
    The proposed Consent Decree provides for the recovery of response 
costs incurred by the United States in connection with EPA's cleanup of 
the Site through December 31, 2000, through the payment by the State of 
$99,440,000. In addition, this Consent Decree provides a general 
commitment by the State to construct and complete the final remedy at 
the Site and to pay future oversight costs that the United States may 
incur.
    The Department of Justice will receive, for a period of thirty (30) 
days from the date of this publication, comments relating to the 
proposed Consent Decree. Comments should be addressed to the Assistant 
Attorney General of the Environment and Natural Resources Division, 
Department of Justice, P.O Box 7611, Ben Franklin Station, Washington, 
DC 20044. Comments should refer to United States v. J.B. Stringfellow, 
Jr. et al., Civil Action No. 83-2501 (R), D.J. Ref. No. 90-11-2-24.
    The proposed Consent Decree may be examined at either of the 
following locations: (1) The Office of the United States Attorney, 
Central District of California, Federal Building, Room 7516, 300 North 
Los Angeles Street, Los Angeles, California; or (2) Office of Regional 
Counsel, environmental Protection Agency, 75 Hawthorne St., San 
Francisco, California. A copy of the consent decree can be obtained by 
mail from the Department of Justice Consent Decree Library, P.O. Box 
7611, Washington, DC 20044. In requesting a copy of the consent decree, 
please enclose a check in the amount of $4.50 (25 cents per page 
reproduction cost) payable to the Consent Decree Library.

Ellen M. Mahan,
Assistant Section Chief, Enforcement Section.
[FR Doc. 01-13866 Filed 6-1-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-15-M