alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Bureau of Consumer Protection 

Division of Enforcement 

Julia Solomon Ensor 

Attorney 

Email: jensor@ftc.gov 

Direct Dial: (202) 326-2377 

FEDERAL EXPRESS 

Cameron Weiss, CEO 

Weiss Watch Company, Inc. 

2373 W. 208th Street 

Torrance, CA 90501 

Dear Mr. Weiss: 

UNITED ST ATES OF AMERlCA 

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20580 

December 7, 2015 

We received your submissions on behalf of Weiss Watch Company, Inc. ("Weiss"). 

During our review, we raised concerns that certain marketing materials may have overstated the 

extent to which Weiss's watches are made in the United States. Specifically, although Weiss 

sources many parts in the United States, the key parts used to make the watches' movements are 

imported from Switzerland. 

As discussed, unqualified "Made in USA" or "Built in USA" claims likely suggest to 

consumers that products are "all or virtually all" made in the United States. The Commission 

may analyze a number of different factors to determine whether a product is "all or virtually all" 

made in the United States, including the proportion of the product's total manufacturing costs 

attributable to U.S. parts and processing, how far removed any foreign content is from the 

finished product, and the importance of the foreign content or processing to the overall function 

of the product. 

In this case, though the cost of the Swiss parts may be small relative to Weiss's overall 

U.S. manufacturing costs, the imported parts constitute the key parts of the movement, and are 

essential to the watches' function. Accordingly, to avoid deceiving consumers, Weiss 

implemented a remedial action plan to qualify its representations. This plan included: 

(1) updating the Weiss company logo to remove the phrase "US MADE;" (2) adding qualifying 

statements to marketing materials to explain that watches contain a combination of U.S. and 

Swiss parts; and (3) updating websites and social media. 

Based on your actions and other factors, the staff has decided not to pursue this 

investigation any further. This action should not be construed as a determination that there was 

no violation of Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act, 15 U.S.C. § 45. The 

Commission reserves the right to take such further action as the public interest may require. If 

Page 1of2 
you have any questions, you can reach me at (202) 326-2377. 

Julia Solomon Ensor 

Staff Attorney 

Page 2 of2
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 7876 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 7876

 To amend Public Law 115-97 to prohibit oil and gas activities within 
  one mile of polar bear maternal den habitat, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             July 30, 2020

 Mr. Huffman introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                     Committee on Natural Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend Public Law 115-97 to prohibit oil and gas activities within 
  one mile of polar bear maternal den habitat, 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. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Polar Bear Cub Survival Act of 
2020''.

SEC. 2. PROHIBITION ON OIL AND GAS ACTIVITIES WITHIN ONE MILE OF POLAR 
              BEAR MATERNAL DEN HABITAT.

    Section 20001 of Public Law 115-97 (16 U.S.C. 3143 note) is 
amended--
            (1) in subsection (c)(1)(A), by inserting ``and subsection 
        (d)'' after ``subparagraph (B)''; and
            (2) by adding at the end the following:
    ``(d) Protection of Polar Bear Maternal Den Habitat.--Oil and gas 
activities, including exploration, development, production, and 
transportation activities, and permanent or temporary infrastructure, 
are prohibited within one mile of polar bear maternal den habitat, as 
such habitat is identified on Map 3-37 in the document entitled 
`Coastal Plain Oil and Gas Leasing Program Final Environmental Impact 
Statement', dated September 12, 2019, and issued by the Secretary of 
the Interior.''.
                                 <all>
```
#### James O’NEAL, Petitioner, v. NEW DEAL CAB COMPANY et al., Respondents.

No. 40955.

Supreme Court of Florida.

July 20, 1971.

Petition denied.

ROBERTS, C. J., and CARLTON, ADKINS, BOYD and DEKLE, JJ., concur.
**EXHIBIT 32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO**

**18 U.S.C. §1350,**

**AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Financial Industries Corporation (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Michael P. Hydanus, Interim President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge: 

 

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

 

|   | (2) | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company. |
|--------|-----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

 

|   | Date: October 27, 2006 | By: | /s/ Michael P. Hydanus |
|--------|------------------------|-----|------------------------|

|   | Michael P. Hydanus |
|--------|--------------------|

|   | Interim President and Chief Executive Officer |
|--------|-----------------------------------------------|
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS    
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                   DEC-31-1999 
<PERIOD-START>                      JAN-01-1999 
<PERIOD-END>                        MAR-01-1999 
<CASH>                                2,212,130 
<SECURITIES>                                  0 
<RECEIVABLES>                           221,473 
<ALLOWANCES>                                  0 
<INVENTORY>                           1,659,858 
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                      4,179,990 
<PP&E>                                1,109,819 
<DEPRECIATION>                          647,988 
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                        6,234,301 
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                   713,936 
<BONDS>                                       0 
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                         0 
<PREFERRED>                                   0 
<COMMON>                                 49,603 
<OTHER-SE>                           19,429,931 
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>          6,234,301 
<SALES>                                 586,082 
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                        612,792 
<CGS>                                   186,550 
<TOTAL-COSTS>                           186,550 
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                        880,448 
<LOSS-PROVISION>                              0 
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                            0  
<INCOME-PRETAX>                        (454,206)
<INCOME-TAX>                                  0  
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                    (454,206)
<DISCONTINUED>                                0 
<EXTRAORDINARY>                               0 
<CHANGES>                                     0 
<NET-INCOME>                           (454,206) 
<EPS-PRIMARY>                             (0.09) 
<EPS-DILUTED>                             (0.09)
                                                

</TABLE>
I 

116TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 7705 

To amend the Water Resources Development Act of 2007 with respect to 

the Susquehanna, Delaware, and Potomac River Basin Commissions, 

and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JULY 21, 2020 

Ms. HOULAHAN (for herself and Mr. FITZPATRICK) introduced the following 

bill; which was referred to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

A BILL 

To amend the Water Resources Development Act of 2007 

with respect to the Susquehanna, Delaware, and Potomac 

River Basin Commissions, and for other purposes. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘River Basin Commis5 sion Transfer Act’’. 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 7705 IH

1 SEC. 2. SUSQUEHANNA, DELAWARE, AND POTOMAC RIVER 

2 BASIN COMMISSIONS. 

3 Section 5019 of the Water Resources Development 

4 Act of 2007 (121 Stat. 1201; 128 Stat. 1307) is amend5 ed— 

6 (1) in subsection (a)(3), by inserting ‘‘, who 

7 may be the Administrator of the Environmental Pro8 tection Agency (referred to in this section as the 

9 ‘Administrator’) (or a designee),’’ after ‘‘member’’; 

10 and 

11 (2) in subsection (b)— 

12 (A) in paragraph (1), by striking ‘‘The 

13 Secretary’’ and inserting ‘‘Subject to the avail14 ability of appropriations, the Administrator’’; 

15 (B) in paragraph (2), by striking ‘‘For 

16 each fiscal year, the Secretary’’ and inserting 

17 ‘‘Subject to the availability of appropriations, 

18 for each fiscal year, the Administrator’’; and 

19 (C) in paragraph (3), by striking ‘‘Sec20 retary’’ each place it appears and inserting 

21 ‘‘Administrator’’. 

Æ 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS
#### Willie LANIER, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. T-275.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Jan. 10, 1974.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
Panel rehearing granted and rehearing en banc denied by order filed 1/19/01. Unpublished opinion filed 8/7/00 is vacated.UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-6700

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus JEFFREY TATE, Defendant - Appellant.Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard, District Judge. (CR-97-38-H, CA-99-437-5-H) Submitted: July 27, 2000 Decided: August 7, 2000 Before MURNAGHAN, WILKINS, and KING, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Jeffrey Tate, Appellant Pro Se. Robert Edward Skiver, Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).3 PER CURIAM:Jeffrey Tate seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2000). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. See United States v. Tate , No. CR-97-38-H; CA-99- 437-5-H (E.D.N.C. Apr. 14, 2000). 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
**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 accompanying Annual Report on Command Security Corporation
      (the "Company") on Form 10-K for the period ended March 31, 2007 as filed with
      the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
      Barry I. Regenstein, President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company,
      certify, pursuant to 18 U. S. C. section 1350, as adopted pursuant to section
      906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge:


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


(2)
      The
      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
      the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.





Date:
      June 27, 2007





By: /s/
      Barry I. Regenstein





Barry
      I.
      Regenstein


President
      and Chief Financial Officer


(Principal
      Executive Officer)


29
APPENDIX 1: DEKUPS PRODUCTS AND 3M AGREEMENTS

Confidential Exhibit 1: The 3M Agreements

3M Settlement Agreement

3M Supply and License Agreement

Confidential Exhibit 2: 3M-ITW Settlement-Related Agreements

Mutual Release, dated as of June 6, 2013, by and among Illinois Tool Works Inc., 

Graco Inc., Gema USA Inc., Graco Minnesota Inc. and Finishing Brands Holdings 

Inc.

Assignment and Assumption Agreement and Bill of Sale, dated as of June 6, 2013, by 

and between Finishing Brands Holdings Inc. and Illinois Tool Works

Agreement, dated as of June 6, 2013, by and between Illinois Tool Works Inc. and 

Finishing Brands Holdings Inc. in respect of the assignment of the DeKups trademark

Exhibit 3: DeKups Intellectual Property Transferred Pursuant to 3M-ITW 

Settlement-Related Agreements
APPENDIX 1

Confidential Exhibit 1: The 3M Agreements

3M Settlement Agreement
APPENDIX 1

Confidential Exhibit 1: The 3M Agreements

3M Supply and License Agreement
APPENDIX 1 – EXHIBIT 3:

DeKups Intellectual Property Transferred Pursuant to 3M-ITW Settlement-Related Agreements

“DeKups IP and Tooling” means the DeKups Intellectual Property identified and described 

below, and all tooling, molds, dies, and other equipment relating to the DeKups Products to 

which ITW has or had any rights or interests (including reversionary) pursuant to the 3M 

Agreements or otherwise.

Trademark Country Registration No.

DEKUPS Brazil 830167692

DEKUPS Canada TMA763579

DEKUPS China (People’s Republic) 7165451

DEKUPS European Community 7554785

DEKUPS India 1774271

DEKUPS Mexico 1093903

DEKUPS Russian Federation 400208

DEKUPS United States 3079784
APPENDIX 1

Confidential Exhibit 2: 3M-ITW Settlement-Related Agreements

Mutual Release, dated as of June 6, 2013, by and among Illinois Tool 

Works Inc., Graco Inc., Gema USA Inc., Graco Minnesota Inc. and 

Finishing Brands Holdings Inc.

Assignment and Assumption Agreement and Bill of Sale, dated as of 

June 6, 2013, by and between Finishing Brands Holdings Inc. and 

Illinois Tool Works

Agreement, dated as of June 6, 2013, by and between Illinois Tool 

Works Inc. and Finishing Brands Holdings Inc. in respect of the 

assignment of the DeKups trademark
#### Lawrence Lorenzo MALPHUS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 71-605.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Jan. 26, 1972.

Walter R. Talley, Public Defender, and Edwin T. Mulock, Asst. Public Defender, Bradenton, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Charles Corees, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., Tampa, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed on authority of Steinhauser v. State, Fla.App.2d 1969, 228 So.2d 446.

PIERCE, C. J., and LILES and MANN, JJ-, concur.
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk's Office, Atlanta, January 16, 2015.

I certify that the above is a true extract from the minutes of

the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto

affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

Court of Appeals 

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA, January 16, 2015

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order

A15D0207. ELIZABETH MALLARD v. CHRISTOPHER L. BRAGG.

Upon consideration of the Application for Discretionary Appeal, it is ordered that it be

hereby GRANTED. The Appellant may file a Notice of Appeal within 10 days of the date of this

order. The Clerk of Superior Court is directed to include a copy of this order in the record

transmitted to the Court of Appeals.

LC NUMBERS:

SU14dr048
#### Floyd GRIFFIN, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 72-913.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Dec. 14, 1973.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
#### Michael SWAIN, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 78-1614.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Sept. 26, 1978.

*716Michael Swain, in pro. per.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., for appel-lee.

Before PEARSON, BARKDULL and KEHOE, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Petitioner pursuant to Fla.R.App.P. 9.140(g) having taken this appeal from the summary denial of his motion to post-conviction relief under Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.850, and this court having considered the record presented and having further determined that it conclusively appears therefrom that petitioner is entitled to no relief, the denial of his motion is affirmed.

Affirmed.
OR'G\NA.L 

UNITED STATES OF AMRICA 

FEDERAL TRADE COMMSSION ot¥7¿l7td_:,.~':j 

OFFICE OF ADMISTRATIVE LAW JUDGES 5l- 5"306 

) 

In the Matter of ) 

) 

POL YPORE INERNATIONAL, INC., ) Docket No. 9327 

Respondent. ) 

) 

ORDER ON APPLICATION FOR ISSUANCE OF SUBPOENA 

On October 30,2009, Complaint Counsel, pursuant to Rule 3.34(a)(2) of the 

Commission's Rules of 
 Practice, submitted an application for the issuance of one subpoena 

commanding Douglas Gilespie of Exide Technologies to attend and give testimony at an 

adjudicative hearing. Respondent has not submitted an opposition to Complaint Counsel's 

request. 

According to Complaint Counsel's brief description of the intended testimony of 

Gilespie, the testimony sought appears to be reasonably relevant to Respondent's proffer as set 

fort in the October 15,2009 Order reopening the record and setting hearing schedule. 

Complaint Counsel has represented that Gilespie is located in the United States. 

This Order does not constitute a ruling on admissibilty. Pursuant to Rule 3.43 of the 

Commission's Rules of Practice, "( e )vidence, even if relevant, may be excluded . . . by 

considerations of undue delay, waste of time, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence." 

16 C.F.R. § 3.43(b). 

The application is GRANTED. 

ORDERED: 1) ~ cl 

D. Michael Chappell 

Chief Administrative Law Judge 

Date: November 6, 2009
FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION NOTICE OF APPEARANCE

WASHINGTON, DC 20580

CASE NAME
ECM BioFilms, Inc. et al.

FILE/DOCKET NUMBER
D09358

Pursuant to Section 4.1 of the Commission's Rules of Practice, | (we) am (are) e1

proceeding the appearance of

ORIGINAL

O counsel supporting the complaint (Complete Items 1, 3, 4, and 5 below)

& counsel or representative for the respondent (Complete Items 1, 2, 4, and 5 below)

0 counsel or representative for a third party (Complete Items 1, 2, 4, and 5 below)

1. COUNSEL OR REPRESENTATIVE

2. RESPONDENT(S) OR THIRD PARTY(IES)

Include the name, address, email address, and telephone
number of each counsel or representative entering an
appearance in the above proceeding,

Bethany Kennedy (Ms.)
bkennedy@emord.com

Emord & Associates, P.C.

3210 S. Gilbert Rd., Ste. 4

Chandler, AZ 85286

Phone Number: 602-334-4415

Fax Number: 602-393-4361

Inckide the address and telephone numbers of all persons,
partnerships, corporations, or associations on whose behalf
this Notice of Appearance is being filed.

ECM BioFilms

ECM Biofilms, Inc.

Victoria Place, Ste. 225

100 S. Park Pl.

Painesville, OH 44077

Phone Number: 440-350-1400

3. ASSOCIATE/ASSISTANT DIRECTOR

4. SIGNATURE OF SENIOR COUNSEL
(Jonathan W. Emord)

5. DATE SIGNED
7/24/2014

Return this form to: Federal Trade Commission

Room H-113

600 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20580

FTC Form 232 (rev 7/11)
Exhibit 10.7

 

Power of Attorney

 

THIS POWER OF ATTORNEY (hereinafter, the “Power of Attorney”) is executed by Xudong ZHU (Domicile [*], ID card No.: [*]) as of September 10, 2011 and issued to Xin ZHOU (Domicile [*], ID card No.: [*]) (hereinafter, the “Entrusted Person”).

 

I, Xudong ZHU, hereby entrust the Entrusted Person with full representative power to exercise the following rights owned by me in the capacity of a shareholder of Beijing Yisheng Leju Information Services Co., Ltd. (hereinafter, the “Company”) on my behalf:

 

(1)         As my representative, to propose to convene and attend shareholders’ meetings of the Company according to the articles of association of the Company;

 

(2)         As my representative, to exercise, on my behalf, voting rights on all matters requiring discussion or resolutions of the shareholders’ meetings of the Company, including without limitation, the appointment and election of the Company’s directors and other officers, who should be appointed and removed by the shareholders;

 

(3)         As my representative, to exercise other voting rights of a shareholder as specified in the articles of association of the Company (including any other shareholder voting rights as specified in the amended articles of association).

 

I hereby irrevocably confirm that this Power of Attorney shall continue to be valid until the Shareholder Voting Right Proxy Agreement executed by and between Shanghai SINA Leju Information Technology Co., Ltd. (hereinafter, the “WFOE”), the Company and the shareholders of the Company as of September 10, 2011 expires or is early terminated, unless the WFOE gives me a direction to replace the Entrusted Person.

 

Authorization is hereby made.

 

	
 
    	
Name:  Xudong ZHU
    
	
 
    	
Signature:
    	
/s/ Xudong ZHU
    
	
 
    	
Date:  September 10, 2011
FOOD MARKETED TO CHILDREN 

FORUM ON INTERAGENCY WORKING GROUP PROPOSAL

AGENDA

When: May 24, 2011 Where: HHS, Humphrey Building

 11:00 a.m. to 2:30 p.m. 200 Independence Ave, S.W.

Washington, D.C. 20201

I. Overview: 

11:00 to 11:45 

 Welcoming Remarks and Moderator:

Dr. William H. Dietz

 Director, Division of Nutrition and Physical Activity

Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

 Summary of Proposed Nutrition Principles:

Dr. Barbara Schneeman

Director, Office of Nutrition, Labeling, and Dietary Supplements

Center for Food Safety & Applied Nutrition

Food and Drug Administration

 Summary of Proposed Marketing Definitions:

Michelle Rusk

Attorney, Division of Advertising Practices

Federal Trade Commission

II. Comments on Proposed Nutrition Principles:

11:45 to 1:00

 Moderator:

Dr. Robert C. Post

Deputy Director

Center for Nutrition Policy and Promotion

U.S. Department of Agriculture

Break: 1:00 to 1:15

III. Comments on Proposed Marketing Definitions:

1:15 to 2:30

 Moderator:

Mary Engle 

Associate Director

Division of Advertising Practices

Federal Trade Commission

Adjourn
#### Theodore HARRIS et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. MORTON CHEMICAL COMPANY, INC., et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 13445.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Second Circuit.

Sept. 26, 1977.

Stephen E. Everett, Alexandria, for plaintiffs-appellants.

Onebane, Donohoe, Bernard, Torian, Diaz, McNamara & Abell by Joseph One-bane, Lafayette, Shaw & Shaw, by James R. Hatch, Homer, for defendants-appellees.

Before BOLIN, PRICE, HALL, MARVIN and JONES, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Motions to dismiss plaintiffs’ devolutive appeal have been filed, based on appellants’ failure to pay the filing fee and trial court costs within three days of the return date (August 12, 1977).

The documents attached to the motions support the dismissal. Additionally, this court requested appellants to show cause why the appeal should not be dismissed and no answer to this request has been received.

The appeal is dismissed at appellants’ cost. Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure Article 2126; *Williams v. Weems,*222 So.2d 523 (La.App.2d Cir. 1969).