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

[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 101 (Friday, May 24, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Page 31520]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-12513]

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

COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION

Sunshine Act Meeting

TIME AND DATE: 10:00 a.m., Friday, June 7, 2013.

PLACE: 1155 21st St. NW., Washington, DC, 9th Floor Commission 
Conference Room.

STATUS: Closed.

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: Surveillance, Examinations, and Enforcement 
Matters. In the event that the time, date, or place of this meeting 
changes, an announcement of the change, along with the new time, date, 
or place of the meeting will be posted on the Commission's Web site at 
http://www.cftc.gov.

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: Melissa D. Jurgens, 202-418-5516.

Natise Stowe,
Executive Assistant.
[FR Doc. 2013-12513 Filed 5-22-13; 11:15 am]
BILLING CODE 6351-01-P
```
# C_2016419EN.01003801.xml

| 14.11.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 419/38 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.11.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 419/38

---

Judgment of the General Court of 28 September 2016 — Intesa Sanpaolo v EUIPO (WAVE 2 PAY and WAVE TO PAY)

(Case T-129/15 and T-130/15) (1)

1

((EU trade mark - Application for EU word marks WAVE 2 PAY and WAVE TO PAY - Absolute grounds for refusal - Descriptive character - Lack of distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) and (c) and Article 7(2) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Obligation to state reasons - Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009))

(2016/C 419/48)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Intesa Sanpaolo SpA (Turin, Italy) (represented by: P. Pozzi and F. Cecchi, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: initially P. Bullock and L. Rampini, then L. Rampini, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Action brought against two decisions of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 19 January 2015 (Cases, respectively, R 1857/2014-5 and R 1864/2014-5), concerning two applications for registration of the word signs, respectively, WAVE 2 PAY and WAVE TO PAY as EU trade marks.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the actions; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the actions;

| 2. | Orders Intesa Sanpaolo SpA to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Intesa Sanpaolo SpA to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 155, 2.7.2015.

1

---
An official website of the United States government         Here's how you know         
**Official websites use .mil**
A **.mil** website belongs to an official U.S. Department of Defense organization in the United States.
**Secure .mil websites use HTTPS**
 A **lock (lock )** or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .mil website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

Skip to main content (Press Enter).

Defense Logistics AgencyThe Nation's Combat Logistics Support Agency

Search
Search

Search

-  Home		 
-  What DLA Offers    -  Excess Property Disposal             
  -  Document Services             
  -  Products             
  -  Services             
  -  Programs 
-  Working With DLA    -  Applications             
  -  Small Business             
  -  Federal and International Cataloging             
  -  Defense Data Standards             
  -  Events             
  -  Procurement Policies             
  -  Government Programs             
  -  Forms 
-  Organizations    -  DLA Headquarters             
  -  DLA Aviation             
  -  DLA Disposition Services             
  -  DLA Distribution             
  -  DLA Energy             
  -  DLA Land and Maritime             
  -  DLA Troop Support             
  -  DLA CENTCOM & SOCOM             
  -  DLA Europe & Africa             
  -  DLA Indo-Pacific 
-  Customer Support    -  Self Help Tools             
  -  How to Order             
  -  Find Your Order             
  -  Customer Facing Offices             
  -  Training             
  -  Brochures             
  -  Warfighter Support             
  -  Customer Service Management 
-  Careers		 
-  About DLA    -  Contact Us             
  -  Locations             
  -  Leaders             
  -  News             
  -  History             
  -  Media Gallery             
  -  DLA Campaigns 

HomeAbout DLANewsNews Article View

PHOTO INFORMATION

** Download

** Details

** Share

# Kids learn DLA basics in new video

By DLA Public Affairs

Just what is the Defense Logistics Agency? And what is logistics? A new video aimed at young people answers those very questions. It explains the basics of what the Defense Logistics Agency is, who it serves, and how it operates. View the video on YouTube or take a look below.

 

 

**                    SHARE                

**                    PRINT                

Stragic engagementvideokidschildren
Exhibit 10.9

                                                                         Summary
                                                                         -------



Comprehensive  Credit  Facilities  Agreement by and between Shenzhen BAK Battery
Co., Ltd.and Development Bank dated as of April 7, 2005.

Main contents
>>   Contract number: Shenfa Longgang zongzi NO.20050407001.
>>   Contract term: from April 30th, 2005 to April 30th, 2006, and the amount of
     credit to be extended by Development Bank is RMB 150 million.
>>   Remedies  in the event of breach of  contract:  include  adjustment  of the
     credit amount,  suspension of credit,  imposition of punitive  interest and
     overdue  interest,  an increase of  guarantee  deposit and the call back of
     loan principal and interest before maturity
>>   Additional terms:
     |X|  All unsettled credit  facilities  under the Credit Facility  Agreement
          with the contract number of Shenfa Longgang Zongzi  No.200403055 shall
          be under  the  consolidated  management  of  credit  facilities  under
          Comprehensive Agreement 1.
     |X|  Credit  facilities  under  Comprehensive  Agreement  1 can be used for
          working capital;
>>   The Company should submit its financial  statement to the bank monthly.  If
     the asset  liability ratio of the company exceeds 70%, the sales revenue or
     net asset of the Company declines by 10% when compared with the same period
     of the  previous  year,  Development  Bank is  entitled  to deem the credit
     facilities matured before expiration of their term.

Terms that have been omitted:  mode of the comprehensive  credit; the use of the
comprehensive  credit;  the guarantee of the comprehensive  credit;  expense and
fees for the  comprehensive  credit;  undertakings  and  representations  of the
lender;  special  covenant  in respect  of group  client  credit and  affiliated
transaction; applicable law and dispute settlement; effectiveness; validity; and
miscellaneous.
### ESA C onsu l t a t i on R eques t fo r P i oP i coE ne rgy

C en ter R oge r Kohn to: E r i c

_ P o rter 12 /23 /2011 09 : 47 AM C c: d j en k i n s , SHill, li n c o l n . hu l s e , ACri s p , G e r a rdo Ri os E r i c, He r e i s an e l e c t r on i c c op yof ou r l ette r r eque s t i ng i n i t i at i on of fo r ma l c on s u l tat i on unde r ESA S e c t i on 7 fo r the P i o P i c o E ne r g yCente r , a new powe rp l ant p r opo s ed i n S an D i ego County . In add i t i on, I ha v e atta c hed the B i o l og i c a l Ass e ss ment fo rthe p r oj e c t. P l ea s e l et me k now i f y ou ha v e que s t i on s. T han k y ou. Roge r K ohn U SEPA Reg i on 9 - A i rD i v i s i on ( A IR - 3) 75 Hawtho r ne S t r eet S an Fr an c i sc o, C A

94105 - 3901 415 - 972 - 3973 k ohn. r oge r @ epa

12 - 23 - 11 ESA c on s u lt a ti on reque s t. pd f Pi o Pi c o Dr a ft Bi o l og i c a l Ass e ss m en t. pd f
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

## FILED

November 6, 2003

Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 03-50334 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

ELY FLORES, also known as Pollo, also known

as Ely Flores-Melgar,

Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. A-02-CR-285

--------------------
Before JONES, BENAVIDES, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Ely Flores pleaded guilty to a two-count indictment that

charged him with conspiring to distribute and knowingly possessing

more than five grams of cocaine base (crack cocaine) in violation

of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(C), 846. Flores appeals the

sentence he received after the district court applied U. S.S.G.

§ 2D1.1 to convert cash seized from a safe at Flores’s residence to2

a drug equivalent for purposes of determining Flores’s base offense

level.

Section 2D1.1 provides for the conversion of cash to a

drug equivalent when drugs are not seized or when the amount seized

does not reflect the scale of the offense. § 2D1.1, comment

(n.12). Given that 41.04 grams of cocaine base, which has a street

value of $500 an ounce, does not reflect the amount of cocaine base

Flores would have to sell to earn $16,920, the amount of drugs

seized did not accurately reflect the scale of Flores’s offense.

Thus, the district court did not err when it applied Note 12 to

§ 2D1.1 to convert the cash to a drug equivalent in determining

Flores’s sentence. See United States v. Henderson , 254 F.3d 543,

544 (5th Cir. 2001); United States v. McCaskey , 9 F.3d 368, 375

(5th Cir. 1993).

AFFIRMED.
<PAGE>
 
                                                                    Exhibit 21.1


                   SUBSIDIARIES OF THE INTERCEPT GROUP, INC.

ProVesa Inc., a Georgia corporation ("ProVesa") and wholly-owned subsidiary of 
InterCept, doing business under the name "ProVesa."
 
     ProVesa Services , Inc., a Georgia corporation and wholly owned subsidiary
     of ProVesa, doing business under the name "ProVesa."

     ProImage, Inc., a Georgia corporation two-thirds owned by ProVesa, doing
     business under the name "ProVesa."

     Item Processing of America, Inc., a Florida corporation and wholly owned
     subsidiary of ProVesa, doing business under the name "ProVesa."

InterCept Switch, Inc., a Georgia corporation and wholly-owned subsidiary of
InterCept, doing business under the name "InterCept Switch."

Intercept Communications Technologies, Inc., a Georgia corporation and 
wholly-owned subsidiary of InterCept.
#### James Fike *vs.*The United States.

*Error to Lee.*

The statute of this Territory for preventing writs of error from being brought after the expiration of a year from the rendition of judgment, applies to criminal as well as civil cases.

This was a motion to dismiss the writ of error, because it was not sued out until after the expiration of a year from the rendition of judg. ment and sentence of the plaintiff in error under a criminal prosecution.

Per Curiam,

Mason, Chief Justice.

A motion is made to dismiss the writ of error in this case, because it was not sued out within a year from the rendition of the judgment below. The counsel for the plaintiff in error admits that if the act of the last session of the legislature, limiting the time for bringing writs of error, was intended to apply to criminal cases, the motion to dismiss must prevail. The only *31enquiry, therefore, is to ascertain whether this statute was intended to be limited in its application to proceedings in civil cases.

The act regulating proceedings in criminal cases, commencing at section 76, provides for bringing writs of error in criminal cases, but fixes no limitation as to the time within which they may be brought. We are not aware that any antecedent statute had prescribed such limitation. No slight inconvenience would result to the public from allowing judgments of this kind to be disturbed ailer the lapse of an indefinite period from the time of their rendition.

The act of the last session, to which allusion is made above, appears from its title to be amendatory to an act regulating practice in the District Courts. Still its provisions, to a very great extent, relate to proceedings in the Supreme Court. The legislature did not use that precision which is sometimes observed in preserving a correspondence between the title and the substance of the act. The statute to which it is an amendment, related to proceedings in civil cases. Still there is in the amendatory act, a declaration fixing a limitation so broad, as apparently to embrace criminal as well as civil cases. It is possibly only another example of the inadvertance of the legislature, but to which, nevertheless, we feel bound to give full force and effect, as we cannot found our decisions on mere possibilities. We shall, therefore, sustain the motion to dismiss the writ of error.
[if !vml]>[endif]>

[if !vml]>[endif]>

You have reached the FederalDepository Library Program Electronic Collection (FDLP/EC) Archive. Thisarchive assures ongoing access to publications in the FDLP/EC. Access topublications in the archive is available through GPO's suite of cataloging andlocator services, including the Catalog of U.S. Government Publications(CGP).  Archived copies of publications are retrieved in the event thatpublications are no longer available from the original publishing agency site. 
**Title:****Washington�s forest resources
 
2002-2006 | 2002-2011| 2007-2016
 
SuDoc Number:A 13.88:W 27/
Item Number:0083-B-06 (online)
CGP systemNumber:001065541
 
September 19, 2019**
(Reap. Dec. 9866)

#### American Bravo Company *v.*United States

Entry No. 39643, etc.

(Decided December 7, 1960)

Plaintiff not represented by counsel.

*George Cochran DouT),*Assistant Attorney General *(Richard E. FiteGihbon,*trial attorney), for the defendant.

Johnson, Judge:

These appeals for reappraisement, consolidated at the trial, have been submitted on the following stipulation:

> Mr. FitzGibbon : I move pencil numbers 271, 272, 273, and 274 on the September reappraisement calendar, be consolidated.

> This goods was invoiced at a unit value, less 2 per cent, including case and packing.

> It was entered at the same unit value, less 2 per cent, plus case and packing. It was appraised at the entered unit value, plus 10 per cent, less 2 per cent, plus ease and packing.

> The Government now agrees that the proper dutiable value should be the entered unit value, plus 6 per cent, less 2 per cent, plus case and packing.

> The Government and the plaintiff submit on that stipulation. They are not being represented by Stein & Shostak.

*588On this stipulation, I find that the foreign and export values, as said values are defined in section 402 (c) and (d) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended by the Customs Administrative Act of 1938, are the proper basis for the determination of the value of the merchandise involved herein and that said values are the entered unit values, plus 6 per centum, less 2 per centum, plus case and packing.

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
(Reap. Dec. 9867)

#### The American International Products Corporation *v.*United States

Entry No. 6871, etc.

(Decided December 8, 1960)

*John D. Rode*for the plaintiff.

*George Cochran Douh,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Oliver, Chief Judge:

The appeals for reappraisement, enumerated in schedule “A,” hereto attached and made a part hereof, relate to certain coal-tar products exported from Sweden and entered at the port of Chicago, Ill.

Stipulated facts, upon which the appeals have been submitted, establish that the proper basis for appraisement of the merchandise in question is American selling price, as defined in section 402(g) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, and that such statutory value therefor is as follows:

> Item Export period Price

> Pas Sodium_ 1959 $1.75 per lb. less *1%*net packed

> Pas Calcium_ 1959 $2.75 per lb. less *1%*net packed

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
**Shenzhen      Development Bank**

**Loan      Certificate (2)**

| Applicant                             |   | Shenzhen                BAK Battery Co., Ltd               |
|---------------------------------------|--------|------------------------------------------------------------|
| Currency                              |   | RMB                                                        |   | Amount |   | 50,000,000.00 |
| Loan                Term              |   | From                December 14, 2007 to December 14, 2008 |
| Usage                                 |   | Working                Capital                             |
| Annual                rate            |   | 7.29                %                                      |
| Signature                of Applicant |   | Stamp                of Applicant                          |   | Signature                of Shenzhen Development Bank |   | Stamp                of Longgang Branch,** **Shenzhen                Development Bank |
| /s/                Xiangqian Li       |   |                                                       |   | /s/                Tezheng Chen |   |   |

----
**Exhibit 23.2**

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the RegistrationStatements on Form S-8 (File Nos. 333-77509 and 333-79605) of Navigant International, Inc. of our report dated March 12, 2004, except for the restatement described in Note 2 (not presented herein) to the consolidated financial statementsappearing under Item 8 of the Company’s 2004 Annual Report on Form 10-K, as to which the date is October 7, 2005, relating to the consolidated financial statements which appears in this Form 10-K. 

/s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP 

PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP 

Denver, Colorado 

March 7, 2006
---

Exhibit 99.13

Summary of Guaranty Contract of Maximum Amount ( the Contract) Entered
into by and between Shenzhen BAK Battery Co., Ltd (the Guarantor)and

Tianjin Branch, China Bohai Bank (the Creditor) on January 19,
2010

Main contents:

- Guaranty Contract number: Bojinfen Zuigaobao(2010)4;
- Shenzhen BAK Battery Co., Ltd undertakes to assume joint and several
liabilities for BAK International (Tianjin) Limited (the Obligor)s indebtedness towards China Bohai Bank under the Comprehensive Credit Facility Agreement of Maximum Amount (reference no.: Bojin Fenzong (2010)2) from January 19,
2010 to January 18, 2011, and the maximum amount secured is RMB 100 million.
- Guaranty Responsibility: The guaranty under this Contract shall be guaranty with joint and several liabilities. The guarantor is obligated to pay off the debt in
the event the obligor is unable to pay off the debt (including the creditor declares the debt becomes mature in advance to its original expiry date due to default of the obligor or the guarantor).
- Scope of Guaranty:The guaranty shall cover all of the loan principal, interest, penalty interest, breach of contract compensation, damages, undertaking fee and all the expenses such as litigation cost, lawyers fee, notification cost
and public notice cost etc. which is incurred to the Creditor in realizing its creditors right.
- Guaranty period: The guaranty period is from the effective date of this Contract to two years after the expiry of the term of the Credit Facility Agreement and relevant agreement entered into under the Credit Facility Agreement.

Headlines of the articles omitted:

- Terms and explanation
- Payment on demand
- Declaration and guaranty of Guarantor
- Remedies for breach of contract
- Modification, amendment and termination of the Contract
- Disputation settlement
- Fee
- Other agreements
- Validity

---
An official website of the United States government

Here’s how you know

**The .mil means it’s official.**                                            Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.                                        

**The site is secure.**                                            The **https://** ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.                                        

----

Preserving KnowledgeConnecting PeopleInspiring Innovation

# 

Miscellaneous Citation | Accession Number: 

### Security Markings

Defense Technical Information Center

MissionStrategic PlanUSD(R&E)Legal

Privacy PolicyPrivacy Policy ProgramFOIANo FEAR Act

Open GovernmentInformation QualityUSA.govInformation Analysis Center

(800) 225-3842Email UsSubmit Feedback

NOTICE: The appearance of hyperlinks does not constitute endorsement by the DTIC of non-U.S. Government sites or the information, products, or services contained therein. Although the DTIC may or may not use these sites as additional distribution channels for Department of Defense information, it does not exercise editorial control over all of the information that you may find at these locations. Such hyperlinks are provided consistent with the stated purpose of this website. The DTIC bears no responsibility for the accuracy, legality or content of the external website or for that of subsequent links. Contact the external website for answers to questions regarding its content. Please let us know about existing external links which you believe are inappropriate.
II 

112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1296 

To revise the boundaries of John H. Chafee Coastal Barrier Resources System 

Sachuest Point Unit RI–04P, Easton Beach Unit RI–05P, Almy Pond 

Unit RI–06, and Hazards Beach Unit RI–07 in the State of Rhode 

Island. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JUNE 29, 2011 

Mr. WHITEHOUSE (for himself and Mr. REED) introduced the following bill; 

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and 

Public Works 

A BILL 

To revise the boundaries of John H. Chafee Coastal Barrier 

Resources System Sachuest Point Unit RI–04P, Easton 

Beach Unit RI–05P, Almy Pond Unit RI–06, and Hazards Beach Unit RI–07 in the State of Rhode Island. 

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

3 SECTION 1. REPLACEMENT OF JOHN H. CHAFEE COASTAL 

4 BARRIER RESOURCES SYSTEM MAP. 

5 (a) DEFINITION OF MAP.—In this section, the term 

6 ‘‘Map’’ means the map that— 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 1296 IS

1 (1) is subtitled ‘‘Sachuest Point Unit RI–04P, 

2 Easton Beach Unit RI–05P, Almy Pond Unit RI– 

3 06, Hazards Beach Unit RI–07’’; 

4 (2) is included in the set of maps entitled 

5 ‘‘John H. Chafee Coastal Barrier Resources Sys6 tem’’ (referred to in section 4(a) of the Coastal Bar7 rier Resources Act (16 U.S.C. 3503(a)) as the set 

8 of maps entitled ‘‘Coastal Barrier Resources Sys9 tem’’); and 

10 (3) relates to certain John H. Chafee Coastal 

11 Barrier Resources System units in the State of 

12 Rhode Island. 

13 (b) REPLACEMENT.—The Map is replaced by the 

14 map entitled ‘‘John H. Chafee Coastal Barrier Resources 

15 System Sachuest Point Unit RI–04P, Easton Beach Unit 

16 RI–05P, Almy Pond Unit RI–06, and Hazards Beach 

17 Unit RI–07’’ and dated September 30, 2009. 

18 (c) AVAILABILITY.—The Secretary of the Interior 

19 shall keep the replacement map referred to in subsection 

20 (b) on file and available for inspection in accordance with 

21 section 4(b) of the Coastal Barrier Resources Act (16 

22 U.S.C. 3503(b)). 

Æ 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
No. 48786.

#### Protests 958276-G, etc., of Consolidated Produce et al. (Los Angeles, etc.).

Opinion by

Ekwall, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.