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

Cantor Clearinghouse

499 Park Avenue 

New York, NY 10022

+1 877-300-4555

info@cantorexchange.com

www.cantorexchange.com

Cantor Exchange is a service mark of Cantor Futures Exchange, L.P.

Page 1 of 1 

December 1, 2017 

By Electronic Submission via CFTC Portal 

Assistant Secretary of the CFTC 

for FOIA Matters 

Three Lafayette Centre 

1155 21st Street, NW 

Washington, DC 20581 

Re: Freedom of Information Act Confidential Treatment Request for: 

Confi-AttachmentB-Final Settle Value Procedure, Confidential-Bitcoin 

Data r1, Confidential-Bitcoin Data r2, and Confidential-Bitcoin Data r3 

(“Bitcoin Contract Filing Supplemental Materials”)

Dear Sir or Madam: 

Cantor Futures Exchange, L.P. (the “Requestor”) hereby requests that the 

attached Bitcoin Contract Filing Supplemental Materials (defined above) be 

afforded confidential treatment in accordance with the Freedom of Information 

Act (“FOIA”), 5 USC 552 and CFTC rules thereunder, 17 C.F.R. 145.9, for an 

indefinite period of time due to the trade secrets contained therein and the 

sensitive commercial and proprietary nature of such information, public 

disclosure of which could be detrimental to the Requestor. As prescribed by 17 

C.F.R. 145.9(d)(4), each page of the documents included in this request bear the 

legend “Confidential Treatment Requested by Cantor Futures Exchange, L.P.”

In accordance with the foregoing regulations, kindly notify me at 

nglantz@cantor.com or 212-610-3645 of any request under FOIA for access to 

the enclosed documents to enable the Requestor to substantiate the grounds for 

confidential treatment, or if you have any questions regarding this document. 

Sincerely, 

Nolan Glantz 

Chief Operations Officer 

Cantor Futures Exchange, L.P. 

Enclosures: Confi-AttachmentB-Final Settle Value Procedure.pdf 

 Confidential-Bitcoin Data r1.pdf 

 Confidential-Bitcoin Data r2.pdf 

 Confidential-Bitcoin Data r3.pdf
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

ROBERT LEE FLOUNOY III,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

No. 4D2022-2042

[November 30, 2023]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm 

Beach County; Caroline C. Shepherd, Judge; L.T. Case No. 

502019CF005409AMB.

Carey Haughwout, Public Defender, and Mara C. Herbert, Assistant 

Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Richard Valuntas, 

Senior Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

KLINGENSMITH, C.J., FORST and KUNTZ, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
IV 

111TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. RES. 1310 

Recognizing the 50th anniversary of the laser. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 29, 2010 

Mr. EHLERS (for himself, Mr. INGLIS, Mr. WU, Mr. HALL of Texas, and Ms. 

GIFFORDS) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the 

Committee on Science and Technology 

RESOLUTION 

Recognizing the 50th anniversary of the laser. 

Whereas the invention of the laser was one of the groundbreaking scientific achievements of the 20th century; 

Whereas in 1953, Charles H. Townes, along with graduate 

students James Gordon and Herbert Zeiger produced the 

first master device, which was a precursor to the laser 

that relied on microwave radiation instead of visible or 

infrared radiation; 

Whereas concurrent to Charles H. Townes’ activities, Nikolay 

Basov and Aleksandr Prokhorov of the Soviet Union 

independently produced a maser with significant technical 

advances which allowed continuous output; 

Whereas Charles H. Townes, Nikolay Basov, and Aleksandr 

Prokhorov shared the 1964 Nobel Prize in Physics for 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with BILLS
2 

HRES 1310 IH 

their ‘‘fundamental work in the field of quantum electronics’’, which led to the construction of masers, and 

subsequently lasers; 

Whereas in 1960, Theodore H. Maiman constructed the first 

functioning laser at Hughes Research Laboratories in 

Malibu, California, and the laser was first operated on 

May 16, 1960; 

Whereas Theodore H. Maiman was the recipient of the 1983/ 

1984 Wolf Prize in Physics for his realization of the first 

operating laser; 

Whereas since being created in 1960, lasers have become an 

integral and essential part of our daily lives. Lasers can 

be found in a wide range of applications including in 

compact disc players, laser printers, barcode scanners, 

digital video devices (DVDs), industrial welders, and surgical apparatus, amongst others; 

Whereas total global sales of lasers in 2010 is expected to top 

5.9 billion dollars; 

Whereas innovations flowing from basic research such as the 

laser have made America into the world leader in technology development; 

Whereas continued support of scientific research programs is 

indispensible to maintaining America’s position as the 

global leader in technology and innovation; and 

Whereas LaserFest is a year-long celebration of the 50th anniversary intended to bring public awareness to the story 

of the laser and scientific achievement generally, and was 

founded by the following partners: the Optical Society of 

America, the American Physical Society, the International Society for Optical Engineering, and IEEE: 

Now, therefore, be it 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with BILLS
3 

HRES 1310 IH 

1 Resolved, That the House of Representatives— 

2 (1) recognizes the 50th anniversary of the laser; 

3 and 

4 (2) recognizes the need for continued support of 

5 scientific research to maintain America’s future com6 petitiveness. 

Æ 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with BILLS
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Energy

###### Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

          - [Docket No. TM00-1-25-007]

Take notice that on June 5, 2001, Mississippi River Transmission Corporation (MRT) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff, Third Revised Volume No. 1, the following tariff sheets to be effective June 1, 2001:

Forty First Revised Sheet No. 5

Forty First Revised Sheet No. 6

Thirty Eighth Revised Sheet No. 7

MRT states that the purpose of this filing is to comply with the Commission's order dated May 31, 2001 in Docket No. TM00-1-25.

Any person desiring to protest said filing should file a protest with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Section 385.211 of the Commission's Rules and Regulations. All such protests must be filed in accordance with Section 154.210 of the Commission's Regulations. 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 proceedings. Copies of this filing are on file with the Commission and are available for public inspection in the Public Reference Room. This filing may be viewed on the web 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. 01-15240  Filed 6-15-01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
#### Abdulraqeb Ahmed Abdo RAGEH, a.k.a. Basheer Abdo Mohammed Ahmed, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 08-74817.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Dec. 19, 2011.*

Filed Jan. 4, 2012.

Roni Rotholz, Esquire, Law Offices of Roni Rotholz, Walnut Creek, CA, for Petitioner.

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 **

Abdulraqeb Ahmed Abdo Rageh, a native and citizen of Yemen, petitions for *604review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings, *Shrestha v. Holder,*590 F.3d 1034, 1039 (9th Cir.2010), and we deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.

Rageh fails to challenge the agency’s dispositive determination that his asylum application was time-barred. *See Martinez-Serrano v. INS,*94 F.3d 1256, 1259-60 (9th Cir.1996) (issues that are not addressed in the argument portion of a brief are deemed waived). Accordingly, his asylum claim fails.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination because Rageh omitted from his asylum application and declaration that he was jailed by local police in cooperation with his persecutors, *see Husyev v. Mukasey,*528 F.3d 1172, 1183 (9th Cir.2008), and the agency reasonably rejected his explanation for the omission, *see Rivera v. Mukasey,*508 F.3d 1271, 1275 (9th Cir.2007). In the absence of credible testimony, Rageh’s withholding of removal claim fails. *See Farah v. Ashcroft,*348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir.2003).

Because Rageh’s CAT claim is based on the same testimony found to be not credible, and he points to no other evidence that shows it is more likely than not he would be tortured if returned to Yemen, his CAT claim also fails. *See id.*at 1156-57.

Finally, we lack jurisdiction to review the agency’s discretionary decision to deny voluntary departure. *See*8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i); *Gil v. Holder,*651 F.3d 1000,1006 (9th Cir.2011).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
#### Yolanda Leon SANCHEZ, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 06-71725.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Dec. 4, 2006.*

Filed Dec. 8, 2006.

*649Yolanda Leon Sanchez, Aliso Viejo, CA, pro se.

District Counsel, Esq., Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, Ronald E. LeFevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Mark C. Walters, Esq., W. Manning Evans, U.S. Department of Justice Civil Division/Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.

Before: GOODWIN, LEAVY, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.

*

 This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Yolanda Leon Sanchez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ decision denying as untimely her motion to reopen proceedings to permit her to apply for protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a), and we review the denial of a motion to reopen for an abuse of discretion. *See Kamalthas v. INS,*251 F.3d 1279, 1281 (9th Cir.2001). We deny the petition for review.

The motion to reopen, filed more than 90 days after the Board’s final decision of May 18, 2005, was untimely under 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2). Leon Sanchez contends that the 90-day time limit does not apply when an alien seeks CAT relief. This contention lacks merit because this exception to the time limit, set forth in 8 C.F.R. § 1208.18(b)(2), applies only to CAT applicants ordered removed before March 22,1999. *See Khourassany v. INS,*208 F.3d 1096, 1099 *&*n. 2 (9th Cir.2000).

Leon Sanchez also contends that the time limit should be excused because she has presented evidence of her prima facie eligibility for CAT relief. This contention lacks merit because her general evidence regarding torture in Mexico does not show that it is more likely than not that she in particular would be tortured if removed to Mexico. *See Kamalthas v. INS,*251 F.3d 1279, 1284 (9th Cir.2001).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Exhibit 10.3


 


KEY
LINK ASSETS CORP.


NOTE
PAYABLE


$2,950


March
31, 2016


Chicago,
Illinois


 


FOR
VALUE RECEIVED, the undersigned, Key Link Assets Corp., a Delaware corporation (“Maker”) promises to pay to the
order of Shawn Clark, together with any successors or assigns (collectively, the "Holder"), the principal sum of Two-Thousand
Nine-Hundred and Fifty Dollars (US $2,950.00). The Note is non-interest bearing and bears no collateral.


 


The
Note will be paid in full on June 30, 2017. The Company may redeem the Notes in part, or in full, prior to the due date of the
Note.


 


Payments
of principal shall be made at the place that Holder from time to time shall direct in writing, or, in the absence of direction,
at 216 South Jefferson Street, Suite LL, Chicago, Illinois 60661.


 


Upon
a default by the undersigned to make any payment due hereunder, and continuing for five (5) calendar days after notice has been
given to the undersigned, and at the option of the Holder, all of the unpaid indebtedness evidenced by this Note shall become
immediately due and payable and shall accrue interest at the highest rate of interest then permitted by law.


 


This
Note is submitted by the undersigned to the Holder in Chicago, Illinois and shall be deemed to have been made thereat. This Note
shall be governed and controlled by the laws of the State of Illinois as to interpretation, enforcement, validity, construction,
effect, choice of law, and in all other respects.


 


To
induce the Holder to accept this Note, the undersigned irrevocably agrees that, subject to the Holder's sole and absolute election,
all actions and proceedings in any way, manner or respect arising out of or from or related to this Note shall be litigated in
courts having situs within the County of Cook, State of Illinois, the undersigned hereby covenants and submits to the jurisdiction
of any local, state or federal court located within said county and state.


 


Any
notice, designation, demand, consent or request required herein to be given or to be served upon the undersigned by the Holder
shall be deemed to have been given or served upon mailing, if addressed to the undersigned at 216 South Jefferson Street, Suite
LL, Chicago, Illinois 60661, or upon actual receipt by the undersigned.


 


In
the event of default hereunder, the undersigned agrees to pay all expenses, including, without limitation, attorney fees, incurred
by the Holder in endeavoring to enforce the rights of Holder hereunder.


 


Key
Link Assets Corp.


 


 


By:
_______________________________


Shawn
Clark, Chief Executive Officer
Page 1 

Commodity Futures Trading Commission 

CEA CASES 

NAME: JAMES E. BAGGOT, JR. 

DOCKET NUMBER: STIPULATION 96 

DATE: OCTOBER 18, 1965 

DOCUMENT TYPE: STIPULATION OF COMPLIANCE 

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

BEFORE THE SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE 

In re: James E. Baggot, Jr. 

Stipulation of Compliance Under the Commodity Exchange Act No. 96 

The Secretary of Agriculture has reason to believe that James E. Baggot, Jr. 

has violated the provisions of the Commodity Exchange Act (7 U.S.C., Chapter 1) 

and the regulations of the Secretary of Agriculture promulgated thereunder (17 

CFR, Chapter 1). No complaint with respect to such violations has been issued 

and the said James E. Baggot, Jr. is desirous of disposing of the matter by 

entering into a stipulation of compliance as authorized by section 0.4(a) of the 

Rules of Practice under the Commodity Exchange Act (17 CFR, Part 0). Therefore, 

the said James E. Baggot, Jr. stipulates the following facts are true: 

(1) James E. Baggot, Jr., an individual whose address is 141 West Jackson 

Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604, is now and was on August 13, 1965, a 

registered floor broker under the Commodity Exchange Act and a member of the 

Board of Trade of the City of Chicago, a duly designated contract market under 

the Commodity Exchange Act. 

(2) On August 13, 1965, James E. Baggot, Jr. executed 121 transactions in 

regulated commodity futures on the Board of Trade of the City of Chicago. 

However, with respect to 114 of such transactions, in each instance he failed to 

prepare a trading card or other record 

clearly identifying the opposite floor broker or other trader with whom such 

transaction was executed. 

The Secretary of Agriculture has advised James E. Baggot, Jr. that his 

failure to keep full and complete records of futures transactions, as described 

above, was in violation of section 4g of the Commodity Exchange Act and section 

1.35 of the regulations under the Commodity Exchange Act. 

The said James E. Baggot, Jr. agrees to desist from such acts and practices 

in the future. He further understands and agrees that this stipulation shall be 

admissible as evidence of such acts and practices in any future proceeding based 

upon acts or practices in addition to those referred to herein which may be 

brought against him by the Secretary of Agriculture under the provisions of the 

said act. He also understands that it is the practice of the Commodity Exchange 

Authority to make stipulations of compliance a matter of public record. 

Done at Chicago, Illinois, this 

18 day of October 1965 

[SEE SIGNATURE IN ORIGINAL] 

Witnessed by: 

[SEE SIGNATURE IN ORIGINAL] 
Page 2 

[SEE SIGNATURE IN ORIGINAL] 

LOAD-DATE: June 16, 2008 
Page 3
# FILED

AUGUST 8, 2007

MICHAEL W. DOBBINS

CLERK, U.S. DISTRICT COURT 

## GY

Case 1:07-cv-03598 Document 84 Filed 08/08/2007 Page 1 of 27Case 1:07-cv-03598 Document 84 Filed 08/08/2007 Page 2 of 27Case 1:07-cv-03598 Document 84 Filed 08/08/2007 Page 3 of 27Case 1:07-cv-03598 Document 84 Filed 08/08/2007 Page 4 of 27Case 1:07-cv-03598 Document 84 Filed 08/08/2007 Page 5 of 27Case 1:07-cv-03598 Document 84 Filed 08/08/2007 Page 6 of 27Case 1:07-cv-03598 Document 84 Filed 08/08/2007 Page 7 of 27Case 1:07-cv-03598 Document 84 Filed 08/08/2007 Page 8 of 27Case 1:07-cv-03598 Document 84 Filed 08/08/2007 Page 9 of 27Case 1:07-cv-03598 Document 84 Filed 08/08/2007 Page 10 of 27Case 1:07-cv-03598 Document 84 Filed 08/08/2007 Page 11 of 27Case 1:07-cv-03598 Document 84 Filed 08/08/2007 Page 12 of 27Case 1:07-cv-03598 Document 84 Filed 08/08/2007 Page 13 of 27Case 1:07-cv-03598 Document 84 Filed 08/08/2007 Page 14 of 27Case 1:07-cv-03598 Document 84 Filed 08/08/2007 Page 15 of 27Case 1:07-cv-03598 Document 84 Filed 08/08/2007 Page 16 of 27Case 1:07-cv-03598 Document 84 Filed 08/08/2007 Page 17 of 27Case 1:07-cv-03598 Document 84 Filed 08/08/2007 Page 18 of 27Case 1:07-cv-03598 Document 84 Filed 08/08/2007 Page 19 of 27Case 1:07-cv-03598 Document 84 Filed 08/08/2007 Page 20 of 27Case 1:07-cv-03598 Document 84 Filed 08/08/2007 Page 21 of 27Case 1:07-cv-03598 Document 84 Filed 08/08/2007 Page 22 of 27Case 1:07-cv-03598 Document 84 Filed 08/08/2007 Page 23 of 27Case 1:07-cv-03598 Document 84 Filed 08/08/2007 Page 24 of 27Case 1:07-cv-03598 Document 84 Filed 08/08/2007 Page 25 of 27Case 1:07-cv-03598 Document 84 Filed 08/08/2007 Page 26 of 27Case 1:07-cv-03598 Document 84 Filed 08/08/2007 Page 27 of 27
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

**COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,**

**Respondent**

**v.**

**ALPHONSO GRIFFIN,**

**Petitioner :** 

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**: No. 181 EAL 2016** 

**Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the Order of the Superior Court** 

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW **, this 12th day of September, 2016, the Petition for Allowance of** 

**Appeal is** DENIED

**.**

**Justice Mundy did not participate in the consideration o r decision of this matter.**
#### Agustinus David MONIAGA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 08-70406.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted May 25, 2010.*

Filed June 10, 2010.

Armin Alexander Skalmowski, Law Office of Armin Skalmowski, Alhambra, CA, for Petitioner.

Channah Farber, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Ronald E. Le-fevre, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.

Before: CANBY, THOMAS, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Agustinus David Moniaga, a native and citizen of Indonesia, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to reopen removal proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the BIA’s denial of a motion to reopen, and review de novo claims of due process violations in removal proceedings, including claims of ineffective assistance of counsel. *Mohammed v. Gonzales,*400 F.3d 785, 791-92 (9th Cir.2005). We grant the petition for review and remand.

The BIA abused its discretion by basing its prejudice inquiry on a heightened standard where it concluded that Moniaga failed to establish a prima facie case of eligibility for the relief sought. *See Iturribarria v. INS,*321 F.3d 889, 899-90 (9th Cir.2003) (alien must demonstrate that counsel’s performance “was so inadequate that it may have affected the outcome of the proceedings”); *Maravilla Maravilla v. Ashcroft,*381 F.3d 855, 858 (9th Cir.2004) (alien “need not show that they would win *615or lose on any claims”) (internal citation and quotation marks omitted). We therefore remand for the BIA to reconsider its prejudice determination.

PETITION FOR REVIEW GRANTED; REMANDED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.