alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Created with Sketch.Menu Transparency
	Contact Us Search
Search
 Main navigation

      
      About the CFTC
                          The Commission
                        Chairman & Commissioners
                        CFTC Organization
                        Advisory Committees
                        Budget & Performance
                        Privacy at the CFTC
                        Careers
                        Diversity and Inclusion at the CFTC
                        Industry Oversight
                          Industry Filings
                        Trading Organizations
                        Clearing Organizations
                        Data Repositories
                        Intermediaries
                        Market Surveillance
                        Contracts & Products
                        Rules & Rule Amendments
                        Anti-Money Laundering
                        Law & Regulation
                          Commodity Exchange Act & Regulations
                        How Rules Are Made
                        Holding Wrongdoers Accountable
                        Federal Register
                        Public Comments
                        CFTC Staff Letters
                        Office of Technology Innovation
                        Market Data & Economic Analysis
                          Data at CFTC
                        Commitments of Traders
                        Bank Participation Reports
                        Cotton On-Call
                        Financial Data for FCMS
                        Net Position Changes Data
                        Staff Reports
                        Weekly Swaps Report
                        Cleared Margin Reports
                        Office of the Chief Economist
                        Forms & Submissions
                        Learn & Protect
                          Check Registration & Disciplinary History
                        Submit a Tip
                        Reparations Program
                        RED List
                        Advisories & Articles
                        Videos
                        Publications
                        News & Events
                          Press Releases
                        Public Statements & Remarks
                        Events Carousel Rotation On
              On


External Meetings: Meeting with Goldman Sachs
  
    



  When
              12/07/2010

  Rulemaking(s)
              XIII. SEF RegistrationXXVI. Position Limits

  CFTC Staff
              Bart ChiltonElizabeth RitterClay Pederson

  Visitor(s)
              Ken Connolly

  Organization(s)
              Goldman Sachs


Resources

CFTC Regulations
	Commodity Exchange Act
	Privacy Policy
	Web Policy
	FOIA
	EEO Statement
	No Fear Act
	Accessibility Statement
	Procurement
	USA.gov
	Glossary

Actions

Search Public Comments
	Submit Tips & Complaints
	Search Industry FilingsWhistleblower.gov
	Office of Technology InnovationInspector GeneralSitemap

HomeCFTC Headquarters
Three Lafayette Centre
1155 21st Street, NW
Washington, DC 20581
202.418.5000
<PAGE>
                                                                   EXHIBIT 10.27
                            FIRST AMENDMENT TO LEASE
                             DATED: NOVEMBER 8, 2001

N2H2, INC., a Washington corporation (as "Sublessor"), and WIDEVINE
TECHNOLOGIES, INC., a Delaware corporation (as "Sublessee"), being parties to
that certain "Sublease" dated October 22, 2001, for Premises located on the 34th
floor in Union Bank of California Center.

        NOW, THEREFORE, for the parties hereto agree as follow:

1.  EFFECTIVE DATE. The effective date of this First Amendment shall be November
    1, 2001 (the "Effective Date").

2.  PREMISES. Effective on the Effective Date, the Premises shall be an agreed
    area of 7,530 rsf.

3.  CONTINUATION. Except as modified by this First Amendment, the Sublease shall
    continue in full force and effect as written.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this First Amendment as of the day
and year first above written.

SUBLESSOR: N2H2, Inc.                       SUBLESSEE: WIDEVINE TECHNOLOGIES

By      /s/ J. Paul Quinn                   By     /s/ John A. Beyer
  ---------------------------------           -----------------------------

Title   CFO                                 Title  Chairman & CEO
     ------------------------------              --------------------------

                                       1
Manuel Ramiro MARTINEZ-RIVERA, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES;

Jose Guadalupe Tello-Segundo, petitioner, v. United States.

No. 17-6338.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 30, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied.
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

FRANK ANTONIO SIMONETTI

,

Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS

,

State

. '

'

'

'

'

' No. 08

- 1 3

- 00 330

- CR

Appeal from the

34 th District Court

of El Paso County, Texas

(TC# 20110D02096 )

O R D E R

The Court GRANTS the Appellant ’ s third motion for extension of time to file the brief

u ntil May 3, 2014

. NO FURTHER MOTIONS FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE

THE APPELLANT ’ S BRIEF WILL BE CONSIDERED BY THIS COURT.

It is further ORDERED that the Hon. Brock Benjamin

, the Appellant ’ s Attorney

,

prepare the Appellant ’ s brief and forward the same to this Court on or before May 3 , 201 4

.

IT IS SO ORDERED t his 9th day of April , 2014

.

PER CURIAM

Before McClure, C.J., Rivera and Rodriguez, JJ.
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 406 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 406

 To amend title 1, United States Code, to provide for a definition of 
 the term ``State'' and to include territories therein, and for other 
                               purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 9, 2019

 Ms. Plaskett introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                       Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend title 1, United States Code, to provide for a definition of 
 the term ``State'' and to include territories therein, and for other 
                               purposes.

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

SECTION 1. THE TERM ``STATE'' TO INCLUDE TERRITORIES FOR PURPOSES OF 
              FEDERAL LAW.

    (a) The Term ``State'' to Include Territories.--Chapter 1 of title 
1, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:
``Sec. 9. Rule of construction regarding the term `State'
    ``In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any 
ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative 
bureaus and agencies of the United States, the term `State' shall 
include any territory of the United States, unless the statute, rule, 
regulation, or interpretation explicitly excludes the territories from 
the definition of the term or otherwise precludes their inclusion.''.
    (b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections for such chapter is 
amended by adding at the end the following:

``9. Rule of construction regarding the term `State'.''.
                                 <all>
```
Clarification of Credit Facility Agreement



 EXHIBIT 10.10 

CLARIFICATION OF CREDIT FACILITYAGREEMENT 

This CLARIFICATION OF CREDIT FACILITY AGREEMENT (this “Agreement”) is by and between Privateer Holdings, Inc., a Delaware
corporation (the “Lender”), and Tilray Canada, Ltd. (f/k/a “Lafitte Ventures, Ltd.”), a British Columbia corporation (the “Borrower”). 

WHEREAS: 
 Lender agreed to extend to
Borrower a revolving line of credit in an aggregate principal amount up to but not exceeding $25,000,000 U.S. Dollars in a Credit Facility Agreement (the “Facility”) dated January 1st,
2016. 
 The Facility included a specified interest amount to be charged on outstanding balances. Lender had advanced funds to borrower
prior to January 1st, 2016. 
 Lender and Borrower wish to clarify the nature of the initial balances due under the line of credit.

 Accordingly the parties hereto agree as follows: 

Lender and borrower clarify their intent to formalize the interest charges beginning January 1, 2016 (going forward) on advances both
before and after January 1st, 2016. 
 As such, both Lender and Borrower began to
accrue the interest income/expense on the advance (loan) balance, as evidenced by their respective financial reporting beginning as of January 1, 2016. 

The parties hereto have entered into this Agreement as of March 5, 2018. 

 

			
	BORROWER:
	
	LAFITTE VENTURES, LTD


 
			
		
	By:	 	/s/ Brendan Kennedy


 
			
	Name:	 	Brendan Kennedy
	Title:	 	Director
	
	LENDER:
	
	PRIVATEER HOLDINGS, INC.


 
			
		
	By:	 	/s/ Brendan Kennedy


 
			
	Name:	 	Brendan Kennedy
	Title:	 	Director
---

---

EXHIBIT 10.1

# CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT
REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

We consent to the incorporation by
reference in the Registration Statements (Form S-8 File No. 333-10840; Form S-8 File No.
333-12814; Form S-8 File No. 333-13186; Form S-8 File No. 333-91650; Form S-8 File No.
333-122128) of Optibase Ltd. of our report, dated January 31, 2005, with respect to the
consolidated financial statements and schedule of Optibase Ltd., included in the Annual
Report (Form 20-F) for the year ended December 31, 2004.

|Tel-Aviv, Israel 
June 10, 2005 |  | KOST FORER GABBAY & KASIERER
A Member of Ernst & Young Global
|------------------------------- |  | -------------------------------------------------------------



---

---
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

____________

No. 11-1398

_____________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v.

QUINTRELL REYNOS,

Appellant

PRESENT: McKEE, Chief Judge, SLOVITER, SCIRICA, RENDELL, AMBRO, 

FUENTES, SMITH, FISHER, CHAGARES, JORDAN, HARDIMAN, 

GREENAWAY, JR., VANASKIE, and NYGAARD*, Circuit Judges

AMENDED ORDER

A majority of the active judges having voted for rehearing en banc in the above

captioned case, it is ordered that the petition for rehearing is GRANTED. The Clerk of 

this Court shall list the case for rehearing en banc at the convenience of the Court. The 

opinion and judgment entered May 22, 2012 are hereby vacated.

By the Court,

/s/ Theodore A. McKee

Chief Judge

Dated: June 22, 2012

DWB/cc:

Joseph T. Labrum, III, Esq. 

Robert A. Zauzmer, Esq. 

Megan S. Scheib, Esq. 

William J. Winning, Esq.

____________________________ 

*Judge Nygaard’s vote is limited to panel rehearing only.
Javier Garibay MENDOZA-ROMERO, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 17-7679.

Supreme Court of the United States

March 19, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.
Anthony SOWELL, petitioner, v. OHIO.

No. 16-9242.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 2, 2017.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Ohio denied.
Samuel Ricardo ANAYA, Jr., petitioner, v. TEXAS.

No. 17-8277.

Supreme Court of the United States

May 29, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals of Texas, Twelfth District denied.
Jorge Roberto MORALES, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 17-8759.

Supreme Court of the United States

June 4, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied.
Darryl Laron GILLIAM-FRENCH, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 16-9627.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 2, 2017.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit 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 Quarterly Report of Landstar System, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for
the period ending March 26, 2005, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
hereof (the Report), I, Henry H. Gerkens, President and 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:  (1)
    The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
and Exchange Act of 1934; and(2)
    The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the Company. /s/ Henry H. GerkensHenry H. GerkensPresident and Chief Executive Officer April 29, 2005
NOTICE: NOT FOR OFFICIAL PUBLICATION. UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE.

IN THE 

## A RIZONA 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEALS

D IVISION O NE

STATE OF ARIZONA , Appellee ,

v.

EMERY GILBERT HUME, Appellant

.
No. 1 CA-CR 15-0521

Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County

No. CR2014-103497-001 The Ho norable Daniel J. Kiley, Judge

AFF IRMED

COUNSEL
Arizona Attorney General’s Office , Phoenix By Joseph T. Maziarz Counsel for Appellee

Maricopa County Public Defender’s Office
, Phoenix By Terry J. Adams Counsel for AppellantSTATE v. HUME Decision of the Court

2 MEMORANDUM DECISION
Presiding Judge Jon W. Thompson delivered the decision of the Court, in which Judge Maurice Portley and Judge Patricia K. Norris joined.

T H O M P S O N , Judge:

¶1 This case comes to us as an appeal under Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and State v. Leon, 104 Ariz. 297, 451 P.2d 878 (1969). Co unsel for Emery Gilbert Hume (defendant) has advised us that, after searching the entire record, he has been unable to discover any arguable questions of law and has filed a brief requesting this court conduct an Anders review of the record. Defendant has been afforded an opportunity to file a supplemental brief in propria persona , but he has not done so.
¶2 At approximately 10:30 p.m. on January 21, 2014, police officers responded to a trespass call at a convenience store. Police officers found defendant outside of the store behaving in a paranoid manner. An officer conducted a search of defendant and found a folded piece of paper containing methamphetamine in his back pocket.
¶3 A jury convicted defendant of one count of knowingly pos sessing or using methamphetamine, a dangerous drug, a class 4 felony. Prior to sentencing, defendant admitted that he had one historical prior felony conviction for second degree murder. The court sentenced defendan t to four and half years incarceration and imposed $1,898 in fines. Defen dant received 520 days of presentence incarceration credit.
¶4 We have read and considered defendant’s Anders brief, and we have searched the entire record for reversible error. See Leon , 104 Ariz. at 300, 451 P.2d at 881. We find none. All of the proceedings were conducted in compliance with the Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure, and the sentence imposed was within the statutory limits. Pursuant to State v. Shattuck , 140 Ariz. 582, 584-85, 684 P.2d 154, 156- 57 (1984), defendant’s counsel ’s obligations in this appeal are at an end. Defendant has thirty days from the date of this decision in which to proceed, if he so desires, with an in propria persona motion for reconsideration or petition for review.STATE v. HUME Decision of the Court

3 ¶5 We affirm the conviction and senten ce

.
Anthony WILLIAMS, petitioner, v. J.E. KRUEGER, Warden.

No. 17-8833.

Supreme Court of the United States

June 11, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit denied.
In Re Alejandro RODRIGUEZ, petitioner.

No. 17-1412.

Supreme Court of the United States

May 14, 2018.

Petition for writ of habeas corpus denied.
Ishmael Baith FORD-BEY, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 17-8317.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 30, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 06-7689

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus KEVIN EUGENE TEAGUE, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Richard L. Voorhees, District Judge. (3:01-cr-152-2; 3:04-cv-00631) Submitted: March 29, 2007 Decided: April 4, 2007 Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Kevin Eugene Teague, Appellant Pro Se. Amy Elizabeth Ray, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.- 2 - PER CURIAM: Kevin Eugene Teague seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that any assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district court is likewise debatable. Miller-El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee , 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Teague has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and di smiss the appeal. 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
1 The Honorable Linda R. Reade, United States District Judge for the Northern District of Iowa. 

## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 04-1734

___________ United States of America, *
* Appellee, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * Northern District of Iowa. Misael Ortiz, * * [UNPUBLISHED] Appellant. *

___________ Submitted: May 25, 2005 Filed: June 2, 2005

___________ Before MELLOY, McMILLIAN, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. Misael Ortiz appeals the sentence the district court 1 imposed after a jury found him guilty of conspiring to distribute and possess with intent to distribute 100 kilograms or more of marijuana, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846; and possessing with intent to distribute, and aiding and abetting the possession with intent to distribute, about 115 pounds of marijuana, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(C) and 18 U.S.C. § 2. For the reasons that follow, we affirm.-2- In a brief under Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), Ortiz’s counsel challenges the denial of a minor-role adjustment, because Ortiz’s role was merely to provide a temporary storage facility for the marijuana after it arrived by truck from Chicago. Upon careful review, we conclude the district court’s finding was not clearly erroneous. See United States v. Bustos-Torres , 396 F.3d 935, 947-48 (8th Cir. 2005) (standard of review; defendant has burden to prove role reduction is warranted), petition for cert. filed , (Apr. 29, 2005) (No. 04-9968); United States v. Belitz , 141 F.3d 815, 818-19 (8th Cir. 1998) (upholding finding that defendant’s voluntary and knowing storage of substantial amount of drugs was sufficient to preclude minor-role decrease).

We also grant Ortiz’s motion to file an amended counseled brief, and we have considered his subsequent filing under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 28(j). The district court imposed Ortiz’s sentence prior to the Supreme Court’s decision in United States v. Booker , 125 S. Ct. 738 (2005). The sentence included an obstruction-of-justice enhancement based on the court’s finding that Ortiz committed perjury at trial, and Ortiz asserted no objection under the Sixth Amendment or otherwise. While we now know it was error to apply the federal Sentencing Guidelines in a mandatory fashion, Ortiz has not demonstrated “a ‘reasonable probability,’ based on the appellate record as a whole, that but for the error he would have received a more favorable sentence.” SeeUnited States v. Pirani , No. 03-2871, 2005 WL 1039976, at *4 (8th Cir. Apr. 29, 2005) (en banc) (plain-error review). Ortiz does not contend his trial testimony does not support an obstruction-of-justice adjustment, and Ortiz’s 97-month sentence is not illegal under the advisory Guidelines regime mandated by Booker . See United States v. Finck , No. 03-3876, 2005 WL 1109474, at *3, *6 (8th Cir. May 11, 2005).

Having reviewed the record independently under Penson v. Ohio , 488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988), we have found no other nonfrivolous issues. Accordingly, we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw, and we affirm.

______________________________
# C_2009055EN.01005302.xml

| 7.3.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 55/53 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.3.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 55/53

---

Action brought on 19 January 2009 — Menghi v ENISA

(Case F-2/09)

(2009/C 55/97)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Achille Menghi (Cagliari, Italy) (represented by: L. Defalque, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Network and Information Security Agency

Defendant:

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

The annulment of the decision not to confirm the applicant's contract after the probationary period and an application for compensation for the material and non-material harm suffered.

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Tribunal should:

| — | Annul the decision of 3 October 2008 rejecting the applicant's complaint relating to the decision of the authority authorised to conclude contracts of employment of 14 March 2008 not to confirm the applicant's contract; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of 3 October 2008 rejecting the applicant's complaint relating to the decision of the authority authorised to conclude contracts of employment of 14 March 2008 not to confirm the applicant's contract;

| — | Consequently, annul the decision of the authority authorised to conclude contracts of employment of 14 March 2008 not to confirm the applicant's contract; |
| --- | --- |

—

Consequently, annul the decision of the authority authorised to conclude contracts of employment of 14 March 2008 not to confirm the applicant's contract;

| — | Order the authority authorised to conclude contracts of employment to pay compensation to the applicant for the financial harm caused by the failure to confirm his three year contract of employment, the financial harm caused as a result of the medical expenses which he had to incur and the non-material harm suffered on account of psychological harassment; |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the authority authorised to conclude contracts of employment to pay compensation to the applicant for the financial harm caused by the failure to confirm his three year contract of employment, the financial harm caused as a result of the medical expenses which he had to incur and the non-material harm suffered on account of psychological harassment;

| — | Order the European Network and Information Security Agency to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the European Network and Information Security Agency to pay the costs.

---