alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### UNITED STATES of America, v. Joseph L. ZERBONI, Administrator With the Will Annexed of the Estate of Marie Rough Zerboni, Deceased.

No. 9332.

Circuit Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Oct. 9, 1939.

Ben Plarrison, U. S. Atty., E. H. Mitchell, Asst. U. S. Atty., and Eugene Harpole, Sp. Atty., Bureau of Internal Revenue, all of Los Angeles, Cal.

Dempsey & Mackay, of Los Angeles, Cal., for appellee.

Before WILBUR and STEPHENS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Upon stipulation of counsel for respective parties, ordered appeal dismissed, that a judgment of dismissal be filed and entered accordingly, and the mandate of this court in this cause issue forthwith.
#### The TOWN OF CENTRAHOMA, a Municipal Corporation, Plaintiff in Error, v. The CARTER OIL COMPANY, a Corporation, Defendant in Error.

No. 36534.

Supreme Court of Oklahoma.

April 26, 1955.

*200. T. K. Klinglesmith, Coalgate, for plaintiff in error.

Forrest M. Darrough, Tulsa, Paul H. Long, Oklahoma City, Stevenson, Huser & Huser, Holdenville, T. Murray Robinson, Oklahoma City, for defendant in error.

WELCH, Justice.

Action was commenced by the Town of Centrahoma, a municipal corporation, against The Carter Oil Company, a corporation, to enjoin and restrain the defendant from pursuing its application to-the State Corporation Commission for an order for the pooling of the lessees’ interest in a certain 40 acre tract, and the establishing of a well spacing and drilling unit of said 40 acre tract; the said 40 acres being within the corporate limits of the Town of Centrahoma.

Injunction was denied, and the plaintiff appeals.

It is argued that the Corporation Commission is without jurisdiction to establish a spacing unit for the drilling of oil and gas wells within the corporate limits of the town, and contrary to an ordinance of the town establishing spacing units within its corporate limits.

The questions presented in argument, and as directed to an order of the Commission establishing a well spacing or drilling unit, are not properly determinable in the instant proceeding in appeal from a judgment of the trial court. Such questions are determinable only in the case of an appeal from such an order of the Commission to this court, or in the exercise of the jurisdiction of this court to issue writs of mandamus or prohibition to the Commission. 52 O.S.1951 § 111.

The record discloses that after a temporary restraining order was vacated the defendant’s application for a pooling order was presented to the Commission. The Commission had issued its order on said application and its order establishing a well spacing or drilling unit embracing the acreage involved before the instant action came to trial.

It appears that the act of the defendant sought to be enjoined had been performed. Accordingly, the relief as sought against the defendant could not be *201afforded in the action; the case had become moot.

The judgment denying the injunction, and of the effect of a dismissal of the action, is affirmed.

' JOHNSON, C. J., WILLIAMS, V. C. J., and CORN, DAVISON, HALLEY, BLACKBIRD, and JACKSON, JJ., concur.
# C_2008285EN.01004402.xml

| 8.11.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 285/44 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.11.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 285/44

---

Action brought on 26 August 2008 — Aragonesas Industrias y Energía v Commission

(Case T-348/08)

(2008/C 285/82)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Aragonesas Industrias y Energía, SA (Barcelona, Spain) (represented by: I. Forrester, K. Struckmann, P. Lindfelt, J. Garcia-Nieto Esteva, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Commission

Defendant:

Form of order sought

| — | Annul Commission decision of 11 June 2008 — Case COMP/F/38.695 — Sodium Chlorate as far as it relates to Aragonesas; or |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul Commission decision of 11 June 2008 — Case COMP/F/38.695 — Sodium Chlorate as far as it relates to Aragonesas; or

| — | Amend Articles 1 and 2 of the decision to annul or substantially to reduce the fine imposed on Aragonesas; and |
| --- | --- |

—

Amend Articles 1 and 2 of the decision to annul or substantially to reduce the fine imposed on Aragonesas; and

| — | Order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

By means of this application the applicant seeks partial annulment pursuant to Article 230 EC of Commission Decision C(2008) 2626 final of 11 June 2008 (Case COMP/38.695 — Sodium Chlorate) relating to a proceeding under Article 81(1) EC and Article 53(1) EEA in so far as it relates to the applicant. Alternatively, it seeks the amendment of the Articles 1 and 2 of the decision in so far as it imposes a fine on the applicant.

The applicant puts forward two pleas in law in support of its claims:

First, the applicant submits that the Commission committed a manifest error of appraisal in finding that the applicant had participated in a cartel between late 1994 and 2000, allocating sales volumes and fixing prices for sodium chlorate. It claims that the level of evidence put forward by the Commission in the decision is insufficient to establish to the requisite legal standard the applicant's participation in a single continuous infringement.

Second, the applicant argues that there has been an infringement of the principles of proportionality and equal treatment by reason of the fact that the Commission, in its calculation of the basic amount of the fine:

| — | wrongly assessed the gravity of the infringement with regard to the applicant; |
| --- | --- |

—

wrongly assessed the gravity of the infringement with regard to the applicant;

| — | wrongly applied the entry fee to the applicant; |
| --- | --- |

—

wrongly applied the entry fee to the applicant;

| — | failed to properly assess the duration of the infringement; and |
| --- | --- |

—

failed to properly assess the duration of the infringement; and

| — | failed to take account of the mitigating circumstances specific to the applicant. |
| --- | --- |

—

failed to take account of the mitigating circumstances specific to the applicant.

---
Exhibit 21





Subsidiaries of the Registrant





|1. |  | SYCOM ONSITE Corporation (SO Corporation) is a Delaware corporation and is a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Company.
|-- |  | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------




|2. |  | Energy Nexus Group, Inc. (ENG) is a California corporation and is a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Company.
|-- |  | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------




|3. |  | Western Energy Management, Inc. (WEM) is a Delaware corporation and is a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Company.*
|-- |  | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------




|4. |  | Onsite Energy Services, Inc. (OES) is a Kansas corporation and is a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Company.*
|-- |  | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------




|5. |  | Onsite/Mid-States, Inc. (OMS) is a Kansas corporation and is a wholly-owned subsidiary of OES, which is a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Company.*
|-- |  | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------




|6. |  | Onsite Energy de Panama, S.A. is a Panamanian corporation and is wholly-owned subsidiary of the Company.*
|-- |  | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------




|7. |  | REEP Onsite, Inc. (REEP) is a Delaware corporation and is a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Company.*
|-- |  | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------




|8. |  | ERSI Onsite, Inc. (ERSI) is a Delaware corporation and is a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Company.*
|-- |  | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

---

|* |  | Represents subsidiary where operations have been terminated. These subsidiaries were dissolved by their respective Boards of Directors in June of 2002.
|- |  | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
# C_2011226EN.01002402.xml

| 30.7.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 226/24 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.7.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 226/24

---

Judgment of the General Court of 16 June 2011 — Team Relocations and Others v Commission

(Joined Cases T-204/08 and T-212/08) (1)

1

(Competition - Cartels - International removal services market in Belgium - Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC - Price-fixing - Market-sharing - Bid rigging - Single and continuous infringement - Imputability of the infringement - Fines - 2006 Guidelines on the method of setting fines)

2011/C 226/48

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicants: Team Relocations NV (Zaventem, Belgium) (represented by: H. Gilliams and J. Bocken, lawyers) (Case T-204/08); Amertranseuro International Holdings Ltd (London, United Kingdom); Trans Euro Ltd (London); and Team Relocations Ltd (London) (represented by: L. Gyselen, lawyer) (Case T-212/08)

Applicants:

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: A. Bouquet, A. Antoniadis and N. von Lingen, Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Application for the partial annulment of Commission Decision C(2008) 926 final of 11 March 2008 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 [EC] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/38.543 — International Removal Services), and, in the alternative, the annulment or reduction of the fine imposed on the applicants.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the actions;

| 2. | Orders Team Relocations NV, Amertranseuro International Holdings Ltd, Trans Euro Ltd and Team Relocations Ltd to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Team Relocations NV, Amertranseuro International Holdings Ltd, Trans Euro Ltd and Team Relocations Ltd to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 197, 2.8.2008.

1

---
SERVED: JULY 9, 2010 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASHINGTON, DC 

IN THE MATTER OF 

DIAMOND AIR CHARTER, INC. 

FAA DOCKET NO. CP10EA0004 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

DMS NO. FAA-2010-0620 

NOTICE OF ASSIGNMENT OF PROCEEDING 

This proceeding (heretofore designated as Case No. 20 lOEAl 10008) has been assigned 

to the undersigned. All future pleadings and other communications regarding this proceeding 

shall be served on the Judge, the FAA Hearing Docket, and the other persons on the attached 

Service List. 

[ormie A. Yode; 

Chief Aaministrativi 

Attachment - Service List 
FAA Docket No. CP10EA0004 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

SERVICE LIST 

ORIGINAL & ONE COPY 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Washington, DC 20591 

Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

Wilbur Wright Building - Suite 2W1000'* 

ONE COPY 

Gregory S. Winton, Respondent's Counsel 

The Aviation Law Firm 

One Research Court, Suite 450 

Rockville, MD 20850 

TEL: 301-294-8550 

FAX: 301-294-2525 

Zachary M. Herman, Complainant's Counsel 

Attorney, Office of the Regional Counsel, EAL-7 

Federal Aviation Administration 

1 Aviation Plaza 

Jamaica, NY 11434 

TEL: 718-553-3258 

FAX: 718-995-5699 

The Honorable Ronnie A. Yoder, Chief Administrative Law Judge 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

Office of Hearings, M-20, Room El2-320 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. 

Washington, DC 20590 

TEL: 202-366-2142 

FAX: 202-366-7536 

* Service was by U.S. Mail. For service in person or by expedited courier, use the following address: 

Federal Aviation Administration, 600 Independence Avenue, S.W., Wilbur Wright Building - Suite 2W1000, 

Washington, DC 20591, Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430.
# C_2020313EN.01002101.xml

| 21.9.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 313/21 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.9.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 313/21

---

Order of the President of the Court of 23 January 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Hamburg — Germany) — YX v Eurowings GmbH

(Case C-542/19) (1)

(2020/C 313/30)

Language of the case: German

The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 353, 11.11.2019.

---
# Fourth Court of Appeals
**San Antonio , Texas** 

October 29, 2014

N o. 04

- 14

- 00659

- CV

IN THE INTEREST OF O.K. IV , a Child,

From the 438th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas Trial Court No. 2014

- PA

- 00140 Honorable Charles E. Montemayor, Judge Presiding



### ORDER

In this accelerated appeal of an order terminating Appellant’s parental rights, Appellant’s

court

- appointed attorney filed an Anders brief in which counsel asserts there are no meritorious issues to raise on appeal. See Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967); In re R.R. , No. 04

- 03

- 00096

- CV, 2003 WL 21157944, at *4 (Tex. App.

— San Antonio May 21, 2003, no pet.) (applying Anders procedure in a parental rights termination appeal). Counsel informed Appellant of her right to file a pro se brief. Counsel also provided Appellant with a pro se motion for access to the appellate record, addressed to the Fourth Court of Appeals

, that la ck s only Appellant’s dated signature. See Kelly v. State , 436 S.W.3d 313, 318

– 20 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014).

The State has filed a letter waiving its right to file an appellee’s brief unless Appellant
files a pro se brief.

If Appellant desires to file a pro se brief, we ORDER Appellant to do so within
TWENTY DAYS of the date of this order. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 38.6(a). If Appellant files a pro

se brief, the State may file a responsive brief not later than TWENTY DAYS after the date Appellant’s pro se brief is filed in this court. See id. R. 38.6(b).

Counsel’s motion to withdraw is HELD IN ABEYANCE pending further order of this

court.

_________________________________ Patricia O. Alvarez, JusticeIN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said court on thi s 29th day of October, 2014

.

___________________________________ Keith E. Hottle Clerk of Court
Greetings, 

This e-mail is a confirmation that your extension request for the steam electric effluent 

guidelines questionnaire was received. Extension requests will be evaluated on a case-by-case 

basis. Please be aware that submittal of an extension request to EPA does not alter the due date

of your questionnaire unless and until EPA agrees to the extension and establishes a new date.

Sincerely, 

Page 1 of 1

file://C:\Documents and Settings\TMedley\Local Settings\Temp\XPgrpwise\4C3C0854DO... 8/26/2011
## !"#$%&'()#*+#,-./#

• 0/)1&2-13&4#$-"'1-5&4#

– 6%-((+47847#84#6-13&4-"+.#

– 918:&(8"+#8.#-#(&;#1+.8.5<8"/#:-/#=&1>-5&4#

## !"#$%&'()#*+#,-./#

• ?+2&<+1/#@-2"&1#

– 6%-((+47847#84#6-13&4-"+.#

– 087%#0+"+1&7+4+8"/#

## A8..8..8::8-4#@-'("#

## A8..8..8::8-4#@-'("#

## A8..8..8::8-4#@-'("#

## A8..8..8::8-4#@-'("#

### $2+4-18&#B#

### $2+4-18&#B#

### $2+4-18&#C#

### $2+4-18&#C#

### $2+4-18&#C#

### A8..8..8::8-4#@-'("#

### A8..8..8::8-4#@-'("#

### A8..8..8::8-4#@-'("#

### A8..8..8::8-4#@-'("#

## 9%+#D-('+#&=#EF#$+8.>82#

• G<+1-((#H<+1-7+# CIB#A*G,#,J?#

## 9%+#D-('+#&=#EF#$+8.>82#
• G<+1-((#H<+1-7+# CIB#A*G,#,J?# • K8"%#EF#$+8.>82# ELM#A*G,#,J?# • K8"%&'"# # BNM#A*G,#,J?#

### 9%+#O-2P:&"##$8Q+#&=#"%+#A8..8..8::8-4#A$@#0&18Q&4"-(#R(-/# • R(-/#."-1"+)#O-4'-1/#CSSN# T#6%+.-:+-P+#$+1+48"/#.+((.#BUVICB#*-11+(.W# • K+((.#)18((+)#"&#)-"+X#BNMS# • 6-:8"-(#.:+4"#YZE#*8((8&4#F&((-1.# • ,451+#:(-/#:&"+45-(#&=#BSSVSSS#;+((.# • 6-:8"-(#?+['81+)#ECS#*8((8&4#F&((-1.#

• !4<+.">+4"#R&"+45-(########\BSSVSSSVSSSVSSS#

### 9%+#O-2P:&"##$8Q+#&=#"%+#A8..8..8::8-4#0&18Q&4"-(#R(-/#]#G.-7+# • R(-/#."-1"+)#F+2+>3+1#CSSE#### T6+^-#*+4^->84#.+((.#BSVMYM#*-11+(.W# • K+((.#)18((+)#"&#)-"+X#LS#T.842+#CSSCW# • 6-:8"-(#.:+4"X#IU#A8((8&4#F&((-1.# • R(-/#:&"+45-(X#YVNSS#;+((.# • 6-:8"-(#?+['81+)X#CB#*8((8&4#F&((-1.#

• !4<+.">+4"#R&"+45-(########\BSSVSSSVSSSVSSS#

### *18_(+4+..#

### @1-2"'1+#F+"+25&4#

## G.-7+#F8.2&<+1/#K+((#

### 9&"-(#0&18Q&4"-(#@&&"-7+#$842+#CSSM#A8..8..8::8-4#]#@&1>-5&4#A821&#!>-7+#

### A8..8..8::8-4#6&471+..#CSBE# `&1"%+-."#GP(-%&>-# !"#$%&'()*+!,'&+'*-!,(.* /01/*2345634748*!39$%:;<=*+64;:>;*-64<?*'6* "@<47AB*'C<*D38C<=*!39*+E;F*#6G<=*%:;<=*.:;E=:764* &=<:?*"4*'C<*H3??3??3553*#3I<*&4@*+C:;
In The Matter Of: 

NORTHEASTERN 

SERVED: April 12, 2016 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASHINGTON, DC 

Docket No. FAA-2014-0812 

A VIA TI ON CORPORATION 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Case No. 2012EA110028 

Respondent 

ORDER DISMISSING PROCEEDING 

•·. . ~ . 

ft () b 

On March 23, 2016, an Order Setting Filing Deadline was filed. Among other things, this 

Order set an April 8, 2016 deadline for the parties to file settlement documents, and instructed 

the parties to informally contact the Office of Hearings attorney staff, if the parties needed an 

extension of time. 

Later on March 23, 2016, a Notice of Hearing Location was filed, which provided the full 

address and other details of the hearing location. 

On April 7, 2016, the FAA contacted the Office of Hearings attorney staff by telephone 

to request an extension of time to file settlement documents. Later that same day, the OH 

attorney staff notified the parties by e-mail that the deadline to file settlement documents was 

extended to the parties' agreed upon date of April 14, 2016. 

On April 12, 2016, the FAA filed the Agency's Withdrawal of Complaint, stating 

"pursuant to a settlement agreement, [the FAA] withdraws its Complaint in this matter." 

After having reviewed the case file, all pleadings and motions, all relevant caselaw, 

statutes, regulations, rules, and authority, and being fully advised; 
~ IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 

1. The Hearing set for May 4- 5, 2016, at the Jacob K Javits Federal Building in New 

York, New York, is cancelled. 

2. Pursuant to 14 C.F.R. § 13.215, the FAA has withdrawn its Complaint, and this 

proceeding is dismissed with prejudice. 

Attachment: Service List 

Page 2of2 
Docket No. FAA-2014-0812 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

SERVICE LIST - BY U.S. MAIL 

ORIGINAL & ONE COPY 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Washington, DC 20591 

Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2Wl 0001 

Mr. Zachary M. Berman 

Complainant's Counsel 

ONE COPY 

Office of Regional Counsel, Eastern Region 

Federal Aviation Administration 

1 Aviation Plaza 

Jamaica, NY 11434 

TEL: 718-553-3258 

FAX: 718-995-5699 

Mr. Edward J. Longosz II 

Respondent's Counsel . 

Eckert Seamans Cherin & Mellott, LLC 

1717 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Suite 1200 

Washington, DC 20006 

TEL: 202-659-6619 

FAX: 202-659-6699 

Judge J.E. Sullivan 

U.S. Administrative Law Judge 

Office of Hearings, M-20 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. (El 1-310) 

Washington, DC 20590 

TEL: 202-366-6941 

FAX: 202-366-7536 

1 Service was by U.S. Mail. For service in person or by expedited courier, use the following address: Federal 

Aviation Administration, 600 Independence Avenue, S.W., Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2Wl000, Washington, 

DC 20591; Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430.
[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 249 (Friday, December 29, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Page 90219]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-28740]


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

POSTAL SERVICE


Product Change--Priority Mail and USPS Ground Advantage[supreg] 
Negotiated Service Agreement

AGENCY: Postal Service<SUP>TM</SUP>.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the 
Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services 
contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail 
Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.

DATES: Date of required notice: December 29, 2023.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sean Robinson, 202-268-8405.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The United States Postal Service[supreg] 
hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on 
December 22, 2023, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a 
USPS Request to Add Priority Mail & USPS Ground Advantage[supreg] 
Contract 153 to Competitive Product List. Documents are available at 
www.prc.gov, Docket Nos. MC2024-138, CP2024-144.

Sean Robinson,
Attorney, Corporate and Postal Business Law.
[FR Doc. 2023-28740 Filed 12-28-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
**Exhibit
        10.12**
 
 **GRAND
        HAVANA ENTERPRISES, INC.**
 **1990
        Westwood Boulevard, Penthouse**
 **Los
        Angeles, CA 90025**









September
      26, 2004











United
      Film Distributors, Inc.


1990
      Westwood Boulevard, Third Floor


Los
      Angeles, California 90025


Attention:
      Brian Shuster








Dear
      Mr.
      Shuster:





When
      countersigned by you below, this letter will set forth our understanding and
      constitute our agreement as to the following:





As
      of
      September 26, 2004, Grand Havana Enterprises, Inc. (the “ Company ”)
      is
      indebted to United Film Distributors, Inc., a Delaware corporation
      (“ United
      Film ”),
      in
      the total amount of $798,785.98, which represents $463,635.16 in principal
      and
      $335,150.82 in unpaid interest accrued as of the date hereof, as a result of
      that certain Promissory Note, dated March 1, 2004, in the principal amount
      of
      $782,916.88 (the “ Outstanding
      Promissory Note ”).
      United Film hereby acknowledges and agrees that the Outstanding Promissory
      Note
      is hereby cancelled and terminated effective as of the date hereof, without
      any
      further liability or obligations by the Company thereunder and, in consideration
      for such cancellation and termination, the Company will issue to United Film
      a
      new, unsecured promissory note in the amount of $798,785.98.





This
      letter agreement may be executed in two or more counterparts by original or
      facsimile signature, each of which when so executed will be deemed to be an
      original, and all of which together will be deemed to constitute one and the
      same agreement.











If
      the
      foregoing is in accordance with your understanding, please so indicate by
      signing where provided below and returning one fully-signed copy hereof to
      us,
      whereupon this letter will constitute an agreement fully binding on the parties
      hereto in accordance with its terms under the laws of the State of
      California.








Very truly yours,GRAND
                HAVANA ENTERPRISES, INC.,
              a
                Delaware corporationBy:
            /s/
              Stanley ShusterName: Stanley ShusterTitle:
              President




AGREED
      AND ACCEPTED:





UNITED
      FILM DISTRIBUTORS, INC.


a
      Delaware corporation











By: /s/
      Brian Shuster


Name:  Brian
      Shuster


Title:  President






2