alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 5 (Monday, January 8, 2024)]
[Notices]
[Page 917]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-00252]


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

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION


Sunshine Act Meetings

TIME AND DATE: Thursday, January 11, 2024, at 10:00 a.m.

PLACE: Hybrid Meeting: 1050 First Street, NE Washington, DC (12th 
Floor) and Virtual.

    Note: For those attending the meeting in person, current COVID-
19 safety protocols for visitors, which are based on the CDC COVID-
19 hospital admission level in Washington, DC, will be updated on 
the Commission's contact page by the Monday before the meeting. See 
the contact page at https://www.fec.gov/contact/. If you would like 
to virtually access the meeting, see the instructions below.


STATUS: This meeting will be open to the public, subject to the above-
referenced guidance regarding the COVID-19 hospital admission level and 
corresponding health and safety procedures. To access the meeting 
virtually, go to the Commission's website www.fec.gov and click on the 
banner to be taken to the meeting page.

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: 

Opening Remarks
Draft Advisory Opinion 2023-09: Senator Catherine Cortez Masto
Draft Advisory Opinion 2023-10: Sony Pictures Television, Inc.
Management and Administrative Matters

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: Judith Ingram, Press Officer, 
Telephone: (202) 694-1220.
    Individuals who plan to attend in person and who require special 
assistance, such as sign language interpretation or other reasonable 
accommodations, should contact Laura E. Sinram, Secretary and Clerk, at 
(202) 694-1040 or <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#85f6e0e6f7e0f1e4f7fcc5e3e0e6abe2eaf3"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="b8cbdddbcaddccd9cac1f8dedddb96dfd7ce">[email protected]</span></a>, at least 72 hours prior to the 
meeting date.

(Authority: Government in the Sunshine Act, 5 U.S.C. 552b)

Laura E. Sinram,
Secretary and Clerk of the Commission.
[FR Doc. 2024-00252 Filed 1-4-24; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 6715-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
Table of Contents


Exhibit 4.10

December 12, 2005

Embotelladora Central, S.A.
Republic of Guatemala

Ladies and Gentlemen:

In regards to the Bottler Agreement for Fanta and Sprite (the Agreement) among you and The Coca-Cola Company (the Company), we are writing to inform you that a new bottler agreement is in the final stages of discussion and approval among the parties, which we estimate will be executed towards the end of June 2006, at present the Agreement is temporarily extended from January 1, 2006 until

June 30, 2006

With the exception of said extension, all the terms and conditions of the Agreement will continue to be fully valid and up until the expiration of said additional term, said Agreement will expire and the Company will no longer have the right to claim a tacit renewal of the aforementioned.

| |                               
| | ------------------------------
| | Sincerely,                    
| |                               
| | THE COCA-COLA COMPANY         
| |                               
| |                               
| |                               
| | By: /s/ ______________________
| | Vice President                

|                           
|---------------------------
|Accepted by:               
|EMBOTELLADORA CENTRAL, S.A.
|                           
|By: _/s/ ________________  
|Attorney in fact           



---
#### Ex parte MORRIS.

No. 36016.

Supreme Court of Oklahoma.

Nov. 3, 1953.

Rehearing Denied Nov. 24, 1953.

Willis R. Stark, Oklahoma City, for petitioner.

Mac Q. Williamson, Atty. Gen., for respondents.

HALLEY, Chief Justice.

This cause coming on for decision upon an application for a writ of habeas corpus for Sally Morris, a similar application having been presented in the District Court of Cleveland 'County and there denied, and this Court having considered the application, and the response, and the briefs, and having heard the matter in open court, and considered the exhibits and the evidence;

And it appearing that the application is based upon alleged deficiency or error in the proceedings on which the County Court made the Order of Admission of Sally Morris to the Central State Hospital on account of her mental illness, but that the application and the oral presentation suggest no right of petitioner to be presently discharged from such hospital, and do not urge, the propriety of petitioner’s present release and discharge.

Therefore, upon consideration of all of the -foregoing statements, the Court finds that the application for writ of habeas corpus should be denied for apparent lack of beneficial .merit.

The Court deems it unnecessary to further state or discuss the facts presented, or the law applicable to such Orders of Admission, or the various methods provided by 'law for releasing or obtaining the discharge or dismissal of patients from the State Hospital, when any such patient should be or may be released or discharged with due propriety and safety. S.B. 450, Title 12 § 976, S.L.1953, p. 56.

For the reasons stated, the writ is denied.
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan



### May 30, 2007 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice


### 133015 Michael F. Cavanagh Elizabeth A. Weaver Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan 

### PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman, Justices



### v SC: 133015 COA: 270436 Wayne CC: 01-002342-01 CORNELIUS WEBB, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application fo r leave to appeal the November 28, 2006 order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because the defendant has failed to meet the burden of establishi ng entitlement to relief under MCR 6.508(D).

p0521 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

May 30, 2007

Clerk
T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he pane l una ni m ous l yc onc l ude s thi s c a s e i s s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on ** w ith o u t o r a l ar g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2). NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T UN I T E D S T AT E S OF AME R I C A, P l ai nt i ff

- A pp el l ee , v. J UL I AN VA L DE Z - AR AG ON , D e f

e n d an t - A p p e llan t. N o. 11- 10475 D . C . N o . 2 : 1 0 - c r - 0 0 0 8 9 - G MN ME MOR AN DU M *

A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt

f orthe D i s tr i c tof

N e va da G l or i aM . N a varr o, D i s tr i c tJudge , P r e s i di ng S ubm i tt e d Jul y17, 2012 ** B efo re: S C H R O E D E R , T H O M A S , an dS IL V E R M A N , C i rcu i tJu d g es. Jul i an V al dez- A ra go n app ea l s f rom the 10 8-m on th sent ence i m po se d f o llo w in g h is g u ilty - p le ac o n v ic tio n f o rp o s s e s s io n w ith in te n t to d is tr ib u te m e th a m p h e ta m in e , in v io la tio n o f 2 1 U .S .C . § 8 4 1 ( a ) ( 1 ) a n d( b ) ( 1 ) ( A ) ( v iii) . W e h a v e j u r i s d i c t i o n u n d e r2 8 U . S. C. § 1 2 9 1 , a n dw e a f f i rm. 

# FI LED JU L 27 2012 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS11- 10475 2 V a ld e z - A r a g o n c o n te n d s th a t th e d is tr ic t c o u rt f a ile dto ap p r e c ia te its d i s c r e t i o n t o v aryd o w n w ar df r o m th e G u i d e l i n e s r an g e b a s e do n th e 1 8 U . S. C. § 3 5 5 3 ( a ) s e n te n c in g f

a c to r s . T h is c o n te n tio n is u n p e r s u a s iv e . See U ni ted States v. Ca r ty , 52 0 F . 3d 98 4, 99 6 (9th C i r. 20 08 ) ( en banc) (r ej ec t i ng cl ai m of error w here the di s tr i c tj udge “ ga ve no i ndi c a t i on tha the f e l tbound bythe G ui de l i ne s r ange or bo un d t o tre atthe G ui del i nes s ent ence as pres um pt i vel y r ea sonabl e” ). V a ld e z - A r a g o n a ls o c o n te n d s th a t h is s e n te n c e is s ub s tan tiv e ly un re as on abl e. In l i gh tof the t ot al i ty of the ci rc um st ance s and the se ct i on 35 53 (a ) s e n te n c in g f

a c to r s , th e s e n te n c e is s ub s tan tiv e lyr e a s o n ab le . See G al l v. U ni ted States , 55 2 U . S . 38 , 51 (200 7). AF F I RME D.
**ELLIS
      FOSTER**


CHARTERED
      ACCOUNTANTS





1650
      West
      1 st Avenue


Vancouver,
      BC Canada V6J 1G1


Telephone:
      (604) 734-1112 Facsimile: (604) 714-5916


Website:
      www.ellisfoster.com













**AUDITORS'
      REPORT**











**To
      the Shareholders of**





**CANADIAN
      ZINC CORPORATION**








We
      have
      audited the balance sheets of **Canadian
      Zinc Corporation** as
      at
      December 31, 2004 and 2003 and the statements of operations and deficit and
      cash
      flows for the years then ended. These financial statements are the
      responsibility of the company's management. Our responsibility is to express
      an
      opinion on these financial statements based on our audits.





We
      conducted our audits in accordance with Canadian generally accepted auditing
      standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform an audit to obtain
      reasonable assurance whether the financial statements are free of material
      misstatement. An audit includes examining, on a test basis, evidence supporting
      the amounts and disclosures in the financial statements. An audit also includes
      assessing the accounting principles used and significant estimates made by
      management, as well as evaluating the overall financial statement
      presentation.





In
      our
      opinion, these financial statements present fairly, in all material respects,
      the financial position of the company as at December 31, 2004 and 2003 and
      the
      results of its operations and its cash flows for the years then ended in
      accordance with Canadian generally accepted accounting principles.














"Ellis
      Foster"


Chartered
      Accountants  Vancouver,
      Canada


February
      25, 2005








**E** **F**  *A
      partnership of incorporated professionals*


*n
      independently owned and operated member of Moore Stephens North America Inc.,
      a
      member of Moore Stephens International Limited*


*-
      members in principal cities throughout the world*
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED
FROM THE STATEMENTS FOR THE YEAR ENDED MARCH 31, 1999 AND
AS OF MARCH 31, 1999 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE
TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                    0000910639
<NAME> FARADAY FINANCIAL, INC.
<MULTIPLIER>                    1
<CURRENCY>                      US dollars

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              Mar-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                                 Apr-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                   Mar-31-1999
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                1
<CASH>                                         0
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  0
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               0
<PP&E>                                         0
<DEPRECIATION>                                 0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 0
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          1,656
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       1,246
<OTHER-SE>                                     (2,902)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   0
<SALES>                                        0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               0
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  110
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (110)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (110)
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (110)
<EPS-BASIC>                                  (.00)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (.00)


</TABLE>
**Exhibit 32.1****SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATION**     In connection with the Quarterly Report of Huntington Preferred Capital, Inc. (the “Company”)on Form 10-Q for the quarter ending September 30, 2005, as filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Donald R. Kimble, President of the Company,certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of2002, that:               (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and               (2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and result of operations of the Company.         /s/ Donald R. Kimble           Donald R. Kimble      (chief executive officer)      November 14, 2005
Filed 3/12/02 by Clerk of Supreme Court

IN THE SUPREME COURT

STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA

2002 ND 40

State of North Dakota, Plaintiff and Appellee

v.

Nikki Lyn Aipperspach, a.k.a. 

Nicole Lyn Aipperspach, Defendant and Appellant

No. 20010142

Appeal from the District Court of Cass County, East Central Judicial District, the Honorable Ralph Robert Erickson, Judge.

AFFIRMED.

Per Curiam.

Steven D. Mottinger, Fraase, Johnson, Ramstad & Mottinger, 15 South Ninth Street, Fargo, N.D. 58103-1830, for defendant and appellant.

Wade Lykken Webb, Assistant State’s Attorney, Cass County Courthouse, P.O. Box 2806, Fargo, N.D. 58108-2806, for plaintiff and appellee.

State v. Aipperspach

No. 20010142

Per Curiam.

[¶1]Nikki Lyn Aipperspach appeals from a judgment of conviction for Abuse of Child in violation of section 14-09-22, N.D.C.C., arguing the trial court erred in denying her pre-trial motion to suppress statements she made to law enforcement officers.  We conclude the trial court’s decision is based on findings of fact that are supported by sufficient competent evidence and is not contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence. We summarily affirm under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2).

[¶2]Gerald W. VandeWalle, C.J.

Mary Muehlen Maring

William A. Neumann

Dale V. Sandstrom

Carol Ronning Kapsner
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In
connection with the quarterly report of SIN Holdings, Inc. (the
Company), on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended September 30, 2005, (the
Report), I, Steve S. Sinohui, Chief Executive Officer and Chief
Financial Officer of the Company, certify, based on my knowledge, 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 requirement of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act  of 1934; and
|-- |  | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

|2) |  | the
information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material  respects, the
Companys financial position and results of operations.
|-- |  | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

| | /s/ Steve S. Sinohui
Steve S. Sinohui, Chief Executive Officer
and Chief Financial Officer
| | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: November 9, 2005

---
Exhibit 32.4



Certification of Chief Accounting Officer



Pursuant to



Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350)



In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2004 (the
Report) of MCG Capital Corporation (the Registrant), as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, John C. Wellons, the Chief Accounting Officer of the Registrant, hereby certify,
to the best of my knowledge, that:



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



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



/S/    JOHN C.
WELLONSName: John C. Wellons Date: November 4, 2004
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA

JOHN CARR, No. 60318 Appellant, vs. GUSTAVO PARED ES; AND KAYLA D. PAREDES, 

### Respondents. JOHN CARR, No. 61301 Appellant, vs. GUSTAVO PAREDES; AND KAYLA D. PAREDES, Respondents. JOHN CARR, No. 68518 v"- Appellant, vs. GUSTAVO PARED ES; AND KAYLA D. PAREDES, Respondents. 

# FILED APR 1 3 2016

TRACE K. LINDEMAN COURT n 

### l y :LERI< D IF F IR C On February 10, 2014, this court entered a non

- dispositional order in Docket Nos. 60318 and 61301, remanding the matter to the district court to make specific findings with regard to a motion for a new trial based on attorney misconduct. The order contemplated that the court would consider the other issues raised on appeal, as well as the amended order regarding the denial of the motion for a new trial, once the amended order was entered. Despite the non

- dispositional nature of the order, the remittitur issued on March 7, 2014, due to a clerical error. On July 30, 2015, appellant filed a notice of appeal from the amended order entered upon remand as well as an order challenged in the original appeal. That appeal was docketed separately as Docket No. 68518. 

### ORDER

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA (0) 1947AIt is so ORDERED. 

### 01...artra , C. J.

ost10:43.4r4Thit We direct the clerk to recall the remittitur in Docket Nos.

60318 and 61301 and reinstate those consolidated appeals. The clerk shall also administratively close the appeal in Docket No. 68518 and transfer to Docket Nos. 60318 and 61301 all documents filed in Docket No. 68518. Respondent has filed a motion to strike portions of the opening brief filed in Docket No. 68518. Having considered the motion, opposition, and reply, we grant the motion to the following extent. The clerk shall strike the opening brief filed on December 30, 2015, in Docket No. 68518. Appellant shall have 20 days from the date of this order to file and serve an amended opening brief that is identical to the opening brief filed on November 1, 2012, in Docket Nos. 60318 and 61301 with the following exceptions. Appellant may alter the citations to correspond with the page numbers in the appendix filed on December 30, 2015, in Docket No. 68518, and may include additional factual and procedural history and argument solely insofar as they relate to the amended district court order denying the motion for a new trial. Should appellant wish to present supplemental authorities not included in the original opening brief, he may advise the court of such authorities by filing a notice of supplemental authorities as provided in NRAP 31(e). Respondents may file an amended answering brief within 20 days of service of appellant's amended opening brief. Thereafter, appellant shall have 20 days to file and serve an amended reply brief. The amended answering and reply briefs are subject to the same restrictions discussed above with respect to the amended opening brief.

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 2gi,..alENZEISEVEIEEM ZEMKE

cc: Hon. Kerry Louise Earley, District Judge Phillip Aurbach, Settlement Judge Keating Law Group Pyatt Silvestri Eighth District Court Clerk

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA
(0) 1947A 3
# C_2008247EN.01002202.xml

| 27.9.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 247/22 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.9.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 247/22

---

Action brought on 8 August 2008 — BSH Bosch und Siemens Hausgeräte v OHIM (executive edition)

(Case T-310/08)

(2008/C 247/44)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: BSH Bosch und Siemens Hausgeräte GmbH (Munich, Germany) (represented by: S. Biagosch, Rechtsanwalt)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

Defendant:

Form of order sought

| — | annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 5 June 2008 in Case R-845/2007-1; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 5 June 2008 in Case R-845/2007-1;

| — | order the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) to bear its own costs and to pay those of the applicant. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) to bear its own costs and to pay those of the applicant.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Community trade mark concerned: the word mark ‘executive edition’ for goods in Classes 7, 9 and 11 (application No 4 908 182).

Community trade mark concerned:

Decision of the Examiner: rejection of the application.

Decision of the Examiner:

Decision of the Board of Appeal: dismissal of the appeal.

Decision of the Board of Appeal:

Pleas in law: infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (1), as the mark applied for has the requisite minimum level of distinctiveness.

Pleas in law:

1

---

(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark (OJ 1994 L 11, p. 1).

1

---