alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
O74
NC 2

@ CME Group ne baty

ACME/Chicago Board of Trade Company Director and Associate General Counsel

ed CFIC .
Recelre Section COMMENT

51304
May 13, 2009
VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL

David Stawick

Secretary of the Commission
Commodity Futures Trading Commission
Three Lafayette Centre

1155 21" Street, NW

Washington, DC 20581

secretary@cftc.gov
Re: Whether To Eliminate the Bona Fide Hedge Exemption for Certain Swap Dealers ang
c

reate a New Limited Risk Management Exemption from Speculative Position Limits

74 FR 12282 (Mar. 24, 2009)

Dear Mr. Stawick:

6 Wd ST AU 600
ne

Avuviauoas dHL dbiadiaso

CME Group Inc. hereby requests a 3-week extension of time, until June 16, 2009, to submit
comments on the Commodity Futures Trading Commission's concept release on whether to
eliminate the bona fide hedge exemption for certain swap dealers and create a new limited risk
management exemption from speculative position limits.

If you have any questions or concerns regarding this request, do not hesitate to contact me at

(312) 338-2483 or lisa.dunsky@cmegroup.com.

Sincerely,

Lisa A. Dunsky

cc: Donald Heitman
Richard Shilts

20 South Wacker Drive Chicago, Illinois 60606 1312 338 2483 F312 930 3323 lisa.dunsky@cmegroup.com cmegroup.com
[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 118 (Tuesday, June 19, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Pages 32944-32945]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-15384]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. CP01-382-000]


Zia Natural Gas Company, An Operating Division of Natural Gas 
Processing Company, Complainant, v. Raton Gas Transmission Company, 
Respondent; Notice of Complaint

June 13, 2001.
    Take notice that on June 11, 2001, pursuant to Rule 206 of the 
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.206), Zia 
Natural Gas Company, an Operating Division of Natural Gas Processing 
Company (Zia), filed a section 5 Complaint against Raton Gas 
Transmission Company (RGT), requesting the Commission to find that 
certain actions taken by RGT and its agent, Duke Energy Trading and 
Marketing, L.L.C. (Duke) have denied Zia the part 157 transportation 
service to which it is entitled under RGT's existing certificate of 
public convenience and necessity, thereby violating the Natural Gas Act 
and RGT's certificate. To redress these violations, Zia requests that 
the Commission immediately direct RGT and RGT's agent, Duke, to provide 
Zia its full service entitlement under RGT's existing case-specific, 
section 7(c) certificate. Zia further requests that the Commission 
direct RGT and its agent, Duke, to cease and desist from any and all 
actions that impede or prevent Zia's use of its RGT service 
entitlement, or that extend use of that service entitlement to parties 
not authorized to receive service under RGT's existing, case-specific 
certificate.
    Any person desiring to be heard or to protest this filing should 
file a motion to intervene or protest with the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, in 
accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice 
and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). All such motions or 
protests must be filed on or before June 21, 2001. Protests will be 
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to 
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the 
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a motion to 
intervene. Copies of this filing are on file with the Commission and 
are available for public inspection in the Public Reference Room. This 
filing may also be viewed on the Internet at 
http://www.ferc.fed.us/online/rims.htm (call 202-208-2222) for 
assistance. Answers to the complaint shall also be

[[Page 32945]]

due on or before June 21, 2001. Comments, protests and interventions 
may be filed electronically via the internet in lieu of paper. See, 18 
CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's web 
site at http://www.ferc.fed.us/efi/doorbell.htm.

David P. Boergers,
Secretary
[FR Doc. 01-15384 Filed 6-18-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
In the Matter of DISCIPLINE OF Anthony Paul LOCRICCHIO.

No. D-2943.

Supreme Court of the United States

Nov. 7, 2016.

Anthony Paul Locricchio, of Kailua, Hawaii, is suspended from the practice of law *461in this Court and a rule will issue, returnable within 40 days, requiring him to show cause why he should not be disbarred from the practice of law in this Court.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA WESTERN DISTRICT COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, Respondent

v. RONNIE LEE JOHNSON, Petitioner : : : : : : : : : : : No. 164 WAL 2014 Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER PER CURIAM AND NOW , this 14th day of August, 2014, the Petition for All owance of Appeal is DENIED
.
----

            COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 1484/2004

of 20 August 2004         

amending Regulation (EC) No 917/2004 on detailed rules to implement Council Regulation (EC) No 797/2004 on measures improving general conditions for the production and marketing of apiculture products

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 797/2004 of 26 April 2004 on measures improving general conditions for the production and marketing of apiculture products (1), and in particular Article 6 thereof,

Whereas:

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 917/2004 is replaced by the Annex to this Regulation.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on the third day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.

It shall apply for the first time to the annual programmes covering the 2004/2005 marketing year.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 20 August 2004.

For the Commission

Franz FISCHLER            

Member of the Commission

----

(1)OJ L 125, 28.4.2004, p. 1.

(2)OJ L 163, 30.4.2004, p. 83.

----

ANNEX

                        ‘ANNEX I

----
<PAGE>

                                                                      EXHIBIT 32

     CERTIFICATION BY THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
          RELATING TO A PERIODIC REPORT CONTAINING FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

         I, Eugene V. N. Bissell, Chief Executive Officer, and I, Martha B.
Lindsay, Chief Financial Officer, of each of AmeriGas Propane, Inc., a
Pennsylvania corporation and the General Partner of AmeriGas Partners, L.P., a
Delaware limited partnership (the "Partnership"), AmeriGas Finance Corp.
("Finance Corp."), AmeriGas Eagle Finance Corp. ("Eagle Finance Corp.") and AP
Eagle Finance Corp. ("AP Finance Corp.") and collectively with the Partnership,
Finance Corp. and Eagle Finance Corp., (the "Registrant") hereby certify that:

         (1)      The Registrant's periodic report on Form 10-K for the period
                  ended September 30, 2003 (the "Form 10-K") fully complies with
                  the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange
                  Act of 1934, as amended; and

         (2)      The information contained in the Form 10-K fairly presents, in
                  all material respects, the financial condition and results of
                  operations of the Registrant.

                                      * * *

CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER                         CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

/s/ Eugene V. N. Bissell                        /s/ Martha B.Lindsay
------------------------------------            -------------------------------
Eugene V. N. Bissell                            Martha B.Lindsay

Date: December 16, 2003                         Date: December 16, 2003

         A  signed  original  of  this  written  statement   required  by
         Section  906 has  been  provided  to  AmeriGas  Partners,  L.P.,
         AmeriGas  Finance  Corp.,  AmeriGas  Eagle Finance Corp.  and AP
         Eagle Finance Corp.  and will be retained by AmeriGas  Partners,
         L.P.,  AmeriGas Finance Corp.,  AmeriGas Eagle Finance Corp. and
         AP Eagle  Finance  Corp.  and  furnished to the  Securities  and
         Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
No. 255.

#### Curtis, Trustee, et al. *v.*Humphrey.

October 14, 1935.

*Mr. William H. Watkins*for petitioners.

*Mr. J. A. Tyson*for respondent.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Abriel Dontea DOVE, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 11-7172.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Feb. 9, 2012.

Decided: Feb. 14, 2012.

Abriel Dontea Dove, Appellant Pro Se. Michael Gordon James, Office of the United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Before WILKINSON, AGEE, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Abriel Dontea Dove seeks to appeal the district court’s order sealing certain documents. Although Dove’s informal brief to this court also assigns error to the district court’s ultimate denial of relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp.2011) motion, his premature notice of appeal, filed before the district court ordered the dismissal of his motion, fails to perfect an appeal of that order. *In re Bryson,*406 F.3d 284, 287-89 (4th Cir.2005).

Furthermore, this court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 *257U.S.C. § 1291 (2006), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (2006); Fed.R.Civ.P. 54(b); *Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp.,*837 U.S. 541, 545 — 46, 69 S.Ct. 1221, 93 L.Ed. 1528 (1949). The district court’s order sealing certain documents is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

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.

*DISMISSED.*
354 U.S. 925, 77 S.Ct. 1378

#### UNITED PRESS ASSOCIATIONS, a Corporation, petitioner, v. Sidney Dean CHARLES, Paul S. Charles, Patricia Charles et al.

No. 948.

Supreme Court of the United States.

June 17, 1957.

John Dimond, for petitioner.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

Denied.
[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 113 (Tuesday, June 12, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Page 31627]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-14706]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket Nos. ER01-1515-000 and ER01-1515-001]


Duke Energy Audrain, LLC; Notice of Issuance of Order

June 6, 2001.
    Duke Energy Audrain, LLC (Duke Audrain) submitted for filing a rate 
schedule under which Duke Audrain will engage in wholesale electric 
power and energy transactions at market-based rates. Duke Audrain also 
requested waiver of various Commission regulations. In particular, Duke 
Audrain requested that the Commission grant blanket approval under 18 
CFR part 34 of all future issuance of securities and assumptions of 
liability by Duke Audrain.
    On May 14, 2001, pursuant to delegated authority, the Director, 
Division of Corporate Applications, Office of Markets, Tariffs and 
Rates, granted requests for blanket approval under Part 34, subject to 
the following:
    Within thirty days of the date of the order, any person desiring to 
be heard or to protest the blanket approval of issuances of securities 
or assumptions of liability by Duke Audrain should file a motion to 
intervene or protest with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 
First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 
and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 
385.211 and 385.214).
    Absent a request to be heard in opposition within this period, Duke 
Audrain is authorized to issue securities and assume obligations or 
liabilities as guarantor, indorser, surety, or otherwise in respect of 
any security of another person; provided that such issuance or 
assumption is for some lawful object within the corporate purposes of 
the applicant, and compatible with the public interest, and is 
reasonably necessary or appropriate for such purposes.
    The Commission reserves the right to require a further showing that 
neither public nor private interests will be adversely affected by 
continued approval of Duke Audrain's issuance of securities or 
assumptions of liability.
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing motions to 
intervene or protests, as set forth above, is June 13, 2001.
    Copies of the full text of the Order are available from the 
Commission's Public Reference Branch, 888 First Street, NE., 
Washington, DC 20426. The Order may also be viewed on the Internet at 
http://www.ferc.fed.us/online/rims.htm (call 202-208-2222 for 
assistance). Comments, protests, and interventions may be filed 
electronically via the internet in lieu of paper. See, 18 CFR 
385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's web site 
at http://www.ferc.fed.us/efi/doorbell.htm.

David P. Boergers,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 01-14706 Filed 6-11-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 119 (Wednesday, June 20, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Pages 33085-33086]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-15478]


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

FEDERAL MARITIME COMMISSION


Ocean Transportation Intermediary License Applicants

    Notice is hereby given that the following applicants have filed 
with the Federal Maritime Commission an application for licenses as 
Non-Vessel Operating Common Carrier and Ocean Freight Forwarder--Ocean 
Transportation Intermediary pursuant to section 19 of the Shipping Act 
of 1984 as amended (46 U.S.C. app. 1718 and 46 CFR 515).
    Persons knowing of any reason why the following applicants should 
not receive a license are requested to contact the Office of 
Transportation Intermediaries, Federal Maritime Commission, Washington, 
DC 20573.

Non-Vessel-Operating Common Carrier Ocean Transportation 
Intermediary Applicant

CTX Express, Inc., 6122 Orangethorpe Avenue, Suite 105, Buena Park, CA

[[Page 33086]]

90620. Officers: Nancy Y. Shen, Secretary (Qualifying Individual), Su-
Chung Kuo, President

Non-Vessel Operating Common Carrier and Ocean Freight Forwarder 
Transportation Intermediary Applicants

Central Global Express Inc., 12225 Stephens Road, Warren, MI 48089. 
Officers: Sam W. Frank, President (Qualifying Individual), Hal Briand, 
Vice President
Starwood, Inc., 1352 N.W., 78th Avenue, Miami, FL 33126. Officers: 
Gregory R. Antoni, CEO (Qualifying Individual), Paul Peake, President
Baska Logistics & Trading, Inc., 150 SE 2nd Avenue, Suite 1008, Miami, 
FL 33131. Officers: Jose M. Rivas, Officer (Qualifying Individual), 
Luiz Antonio Silva Ramos, President

Ocean Freight Forwarder--Ocean Transportation Intermediary 
Applicant

Compass Shipping Inc., 325 Empire Blvd., Brooklyn, NY 11225. Officers: 
Hiladrius Borroughs, President (Qualifying Individual), Theresa 
Burroughs, Owner

    Dated: June 15, 2001.
Theodore A. Zook,
Asst. Secretary.
[FR Doc. 01-15478 Filed 6-19-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6730-01-P
Exhibit 10.3 1st Amendment to Consultancy Agreement





FIRST AMENDMENT TO CONSULTANCY AGREEMENT




This First Amendment to Consultancy Agreement (the “Amendment”) is dated this 11th day of May 2016 between VolitionRx Limited, a Delaware corporation (“Volition”), and Borlaug Limited, a Private Limited Company incorporated under the laws of England and Wales (“Borlaug”).




RECITALS




(A)

This Amendment is supplemental to the Consultancy Agreement between Volition and Borlaug dated January 1, 2015 (the “Agreement”);




(B)

The parties hereto desire by this Amendment to increase the fees payable to Borlaug under the terms of the Agreement;




AMENDMENT




NOW, THEREFORE, for good and valuable consideration, the sufficiency and receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, the parties agree to increase the fees payable to Borlaug under the terms of the Agreement as follows:




1.

Clause 4.1 of the Agreement is hereby modified and shall now read as follows:




“Volition shall pay Borlaug a fee of ten thousand pounds sterling (£10,000 GBP) per month exclusive of VAT (the “Fee”) commencing May 1, 2016. This amount will be payable monthly in arrears in Pounds Sterling directly into a nominated bank account.”




2.

Except as expressly amended hereby, all terms of the Agreement shall remain unchanged and in full force and effect.




IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Volition and Borlaug have caused this Amendment to be duly executed and delivered on the date first set forth above.




VOLITIONRX LIMITED

BORLAUG LIMITED










/s/ Cameron Reynolds                     

/s/ Jacob Micallef

                     

Cameron Reynolds

Jacob Micallef

Chief Executive Officer and Director

Director
<PAGE>

                                                                  July 26,  1999

Condev Land Fund III, Ltd.
Second Quarter 1999

The financial statements of the Partnership for the first six months quarter of
1999 are on the reverse side hereof. There was one sale of property and a
distribution to limited partners totaling $547,904 during the quarter. As of
June 30, 1999, the net asset value (book value) per unit of limited partner
interest was $48.34. The decrease in net asset value reflects the April
distribution to limited partners. As of June 30, 1999, the Partnership owned or
had an interest in one remaining properties:

US Highway 27.  On March 8, 1999, the Partnership entered into a contract for
-------------
sale of this parcel with the neighboring property owner. Closing was agreed to
be on June 30, 1999. The Buyer requested a 15-day extension of the Closing date
pursuant to the terms of the contract. This request was granted. The Buyer has
asked for an additional 15 day extension, but to date has not been willing to
accept the Partnership's terms for the extension. Notice has been given to the
Buyer that the contract is no longer in effect. The General Partner is hopeful
that differences with this buyer can be worked out and that we can proceed to a
timely closing, but there can be no assurance that we will be successful.

Please feel free to contact the Investor Relations office if you have any
questions or would like additional information concerning your investment.

Sincerely yours,


CONDEV ASSOCIATES
Raymond ZONG, petitioner, v. MERRILL LYNCH PIERCE FENNER & SMITH, INC.

No. 15-9784.

Supreme Court of the United States

Nov. 7, 2016.

Motion of petitioner for reconsideration of order denying leave to proceed *in forma pauperis* denied.
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 1555 Engrossed in House (EH)]

H. Res. 1555

                In the House of Representatives, U. S.,

                                                         July 26, 2010.
    Resolved, That the Speaker, in consultation with the minority leader, may 
designate individuals to be admitted to the Hall of the House and the rooms 
leading thereto in order to document the improved accessibility of the Hall of 
the House.
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```
#### COLLEGENET, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. MARKETLINX, INC., Defendant-Appellee.

No. 2012-1083.

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

June 19, 2012.

John D. Vandenberg, Klarquist Spark-man, LLP, of Portland, OR, argued for plaintiff-appellant. With him on the brief was Stephen J. Joncus.

Floyd R. Nation, Winston *&*Strawn, LLP, of Houston, TX, argued for the defendant-appellee. With him on the brief was Merritt D. Westcott.

NEWMAN, LOURIE, and PROST, Circuit Judges.

JUDGMENT

PER CURIAM.

This Cause having been heard and considered, it is

Ordered and Adjudged:

AFFIRMED. *See*Fed. Cir. R. 36.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 95-1114
ANTHONY M. AMATO; A. MICHAEL SCOTT, SR., Plaintiffs - Appellants, versus CITY OF RICHMOND; W. R. SHUMAN, Detective, Individually and as a police officer for the City of Richmond; ROBERT HOSICK, Detective Sgt., Individually and as a police officer forthe City of Richmond; TERESA P. GOOCH, Captain, Individually and as a police officer for the City of Richmond; LAUREL MILLER, Major, Individually and as a police officer for the City of Richmond; PHILIP MANGANO, Detective Sgt., Individually and as a police officer for the City of Richmond, MARTY M. TAPSCOTT, Chief, Indi vidually and as Police Chief for the City of Richmond, Defendants - Appellees, versus UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Party in Interest.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert E. Payne, District Judge. (CA-94-193) Argued: January 31, 1996 Decided: March 5, 19962 Before WIDENER, LUTTIG, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
ARGUED: Ronald J. Bacigal, Youth Advocacy Clinic, T. C. Williams School of Law, UNIVERSITY OF RICHMOND, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellants. Scott Charles Oostdyk, MCGUIRE, WOODS, BATTLE & BOOTHE, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees. ON BRIEF: Michael J. Kelly, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellants. Kenneth D. Crowder, MCGUIRE, WOODS, BATTLE & BOOTHE, Richmond, Virginia; William Joe Hoppe, Senior Assistant City Attorney, Richmond, Virginia; Michael HuYoung, Richmond, Virginia; Jane Chittom, SHUFORD, RUBIN & GIBNEY, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).3 PER CURIAM: Appellants, Anthony M. Amato and A. Michael Scott, Sr., appeal from the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the defendants on appellants' c omplaints alleging violations of 42U.S.C. § 1983 and of various state laws. We have reviewed the district court's opinion, the record, the briefs, and the contentions advanced by both parties at oral argument and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the decision of the district court on the reasoning of that court. Amato v. City of Richmond , 875 F. Supp. 1124 (E.D.Va. 1994).

AFFIRMED