alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996             DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-1997             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997             JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                           4,874                       0
<SECURITIES>                                         0                       0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   40,660                       0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0                       0
<INVENTORY>                                      2,824                       0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                51,195                       0
<PP&E>                                       1,251,324                       0
<DEPRECIATION>                                 434,620                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 884,020                       0
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           36,490                       0
<BONDS>                                              0                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          115,000                       0
<PREFERRED>                                          0                       0
<COMMON>                                           202                       0
<OTHER-SE>                                     383,166                       0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   884,020                       0
<SALES>                                         83,219                 184,653
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                86,609                 188,634
<CGS>                                           54,554                 116,754
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   54,554                 116,754
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 9,681                  19,780
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               7,263                  14,008
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 15,111                  38,092
<INCOME-TAX>                                     6,083                  15,332
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              9,019                  22,765
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                  3,024                   3,024
<CHANGES>                                            0                       0
<NET-INCOME>                                     5,995                  19,741
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .30                     .96
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0                       0
        

</TABLE>
#### UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Patrick Lee MURPHY, Appellant.

No. 74-2432.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Nov. 21, 1974.

Rehearing Denied Dec. 11, 1974.

Certiorari Denied March 24, 1975.

See 95 S.Ct. 1433.

*530Donald B. Marks, Beverly Hills, Cal., for appellant.

William D. Keller, U. S. Atty., Los Angeles, Cal., for appellee.

Before LUMBARD,* ELY, and WRIGHT, Circuit Judges.

*

 Honorable J. Edward Lumbard, Senior United States Circuit Judge of the Second Circuit, sitting by designation.

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Murphy was convicted of possession of goods stolen in interstate commerce, a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 659. The evidence established that large amounts of stolen goods were discovered in a trailer located in a warehouse in Orange, California. The warehouse was under lease to Murphy. Murphy contends that the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress evidence discovered by officers in their search of the warehouse.

Murphy concedes that his employee, one Tucker, consented to the search of the warehouse but claims that this consent was not voluntary. Applying the “totality of all the circumstances” test of Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U.S. 218, 93 S.Ct. 2041, 36 L.Ed.2d 854 (1973), we hold that Tucker’s consent to the search was freely and voluntarily given. Prior cases in which our court has found that consent to search was involuntary have involved circumstances much more coercive than those found to exist in this case. *See*United States vs. Rothman, 492 F.2d 1260 (9th Cir. 1973); Channel vs. United States, 285 F.2d 217 (9th Cir. 1960).

Alternatively, Murphy argues that Tucker lacked the authority to consent to the search. It is pointed out that Tucker had no status as a lessee of the warehouse and was given the key to the warehouse by Murphy only on occasions when Tucker was to perform work on the premises. In considering all of the circumstances surrounding the search, we attribute special significance to the fact that Murphy delivered the key to Tucker. We conclude that Tucker’s custody of the key gave him sufficient dominion over the premises to enable him to grant the necessary consent. Since Murphy himself put the premises under the immediate and complete control of Tucker, who voluntarily consented to the search, we hold that the search was not unreasonable. *See*Gurleski vs. United States, 405 F.2d 253, 260-263 (5th Cir. 1968), cert. denied, 395 U.S. 981, 89 S.Ct. 2140, 23 L.Ed.2d 769 (1969); United States vs. Eldridge, 302 F.2d 463 (4th Cir. 1962).

Affirmed.
# C_2021182EN.01006201.xml

| 10.5.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 182/62 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.5.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 182/62

---

Action brought on 18 March 2021 — UGA Nutraceuticals v EUIPO — Vitae Health Innovation (VITADHA)

(Case T-149/21)

(2021/C 182/84)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: UGA Nutraceuticals Srl (Gubbio, Italy) (represented by: M. Riva, J. Graffer and A. Ottolini, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Vitae Health Innovation SL (Montmeló, Spain)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant before the General Court

Trade mark at issue: International registration designating the European Union in respect of the mark VITADHA — International registration designating the European Union No 1 352 764

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 15 January 2021 in Case R 2719/2019-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision by declaring the signs dissimilar and admitting the opposed application to registration; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision by declaring the signs dissimilar and admitting the opposed application to registration;

| — | order the adverse parties to bear the costs of the present proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the adverse parties to bear the costs of the present proceedings.

Plea in law

| — | Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.

---
August 10, 2011 

Summary of calls with National Association of Clean Air Agencies (NACAA) 

We have had 2 calls with NACAA (State permitting agencies) explaining the goals and 

provisions of the SIP CALL and FIP proposals and also responding to questions. We have 

another call scheduled for August 11, 2010 to provide a status update on these proposals and 

respond to further questions from State permit writers.
# C_2023112EN.01001601.xml

| 27.3.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 112/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 112/16

---

Appeal brought on 16 November 2022 by the European Investment Bank against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 7 September 2022 in Case T-651/20, KL v EIB

(Case C-704/22 P)

(2023/C 112/21)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: European Investment Bank (represented by: G. Faedo and I. Zanin, acting as Agents, and A. Duron, avocate)

Other party to the proceedings: KL

By order of 30 January 2023, the President of the Court removed Case C-704/22 P from the Court register and ordered the appellant to bear its own costs.

---
# C_2022303EN.01001003.xml

| 8.8.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 303/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.8.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 303/10

---

Appeal brought on 2 March 2022 by Legero Schuhfabrik GmbH against the order of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) delivered on 15 December 2021 in Case T-682/20, Legero Schuhfabrik GmbH v European Union Intellectual Property Office

(Case C-154/22 P)

(2022/C 303/14)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Appellant: Legero Schuhfabrik GmbH (represented by: M. Gail, lawyer)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office, Rieker Schuh AG

By order of 22 June 2022, the Court of Justice of the European Union (Chamber determining whether appeals may proceed) did not allow the appeal to proceed and ordered the appellant to bear its own costs.

---
<PAGE>

                                                                  Exhibit 10(21)



The following describes the compensation arrangement between Fountain Oil
Incorporated (the "Company") and Robert A. Halpin as of December 10, 1996:

Fee of $45,000 based upon 30% of normal working days per year of 220 days, of
which Mr. Halpin will allocate 66 working days per year.  In addition,
additional services provided by request of the Company will be compensated based
on a day-rate of $1,000 per day.
|    |                                                                                                                   |
|----|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| 1. | The Report fully complies with the requirements 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 financial condition and results of operations of the Company. |

|                                             |
|---------------------------------------------|
|                                             |  |  |  |
| /S/    MALON WILKUS     |   |
| Name:                                       |    | Malon Wilkus |   |
| Title:                                      |    | Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer (Principal Executive Officer) |   |
| Date:                                       |    | November 9, 2015 |   |
|                                        |   |
| /S/    JOHN R. ERICKSON |   |
| Name:                                       |    | John R. Erickson |   |
| Title:                                      |    | Chief Financial Officer (Principal Financial Officer) |   |
| Date:                                       |    | November 9, 2015 |   |
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 7 (Friday, January 10, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 1450]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-552]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
[Docket No. RP97-71-003]


Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Corporation; Notice of Compliance 
Filing

January 6, 1997.
    Take notice that on December 20, 1996, in compliance with the 
Commission's order issued on November 29, 1996 \1\ Transcontinental Gas 
Pipe Line Corporation (Transco) tendered for filing illustrative rates 
and workpapers reflecting the change in its filed rates in Docket No. 
RP97-71-000 due to the Phase II Settlement in Docket No. RP95-197-000.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 77 FERC para. 61,2325 (1996).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Transco states that the November 29 order directed Transco to file, 
within 30 days of the issuance of such order, illustrative rates and 
workpapers reflecting the effect of the Phase II Settlement in Docket 
No. RP95-197-000 on the rates proposed in the November 1 filing. 
Transco states that the filing is in compliance with the Commission's 
directive.
    Transco states that it is serving copies of the instant filing on 
the parties to Docket No. RP97-71-000.
    Any person desiring to protest said filing should file a protest 
said filing should file a protest with the Federal Energy Regulatory 
Commission, 888 First Street, N.E., Washington, D.C., 20426, in 
accordance with Section 385.211 of the Commission's Regulations. All 
such protests must be filed on or before January 13, 1997. Protests 
will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate 
action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to 
the proceeding. Copies of this filing are on file with the Commission 
and are available for public inspection in the Public Reference Room.
Linwood A. Watson, Jr.,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. 97-552 Filed 1-9-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
#### John A. GERACE, Claimant-Appellant v. David J. SHULKIN, Secretary of Veterans Affairs, Respondent-Appellee

2017-1562

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

February 7, 2018

Joshua Sibble, Baker Botts, LLP,'New York, NY, argued for claimant-appellant.

Renee Burbank, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC, argued for respondent-appellee. Also represented by Chad A. Readler, Robert E. Kirschman, Jr., Claudia Burke; Brian D. Griffin, Amanda Blackmon, Office of General Counsel, United States Department of Veterans Affairs, Washington, DC.

Per Curiam

JUDGMENT

■ (Lourie, O’Malley, and Reyna, Circuit Judges).

This Cause having been heard and considered, it is Ordered and Adjudged:

AFFIRMED. *See*Fed. Cir. R. 36.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Luis Felipe CASTELLON, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 16-41312 Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed March 14, 2018

John A. Reed, Carmen Castillo Mitchell, Assistant U.S. Attorneys, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Marjorie A. Meyers, Federal Public Defender, Kathryn Shephard, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, Timothy William Crooks, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, JONES, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Luis Castellón pleaded guilty of being found unlawfully in the United States after *457deportation in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and (b) and was sentenced to imprisonment but no supervised release. Castellón was released from custody on December 14,2017, then submitted a letter stating that his appeal was moot in light of his release and deportation.

“The question of whether an appeal is moot is jurisdictional.” *United States v. Villanueva-Diaz,*634 F.3d 844, 848 (5th Cir. 2011). “In criminal cases ... a defendant wishing to continue his appeals after the expiration of his sentence must suffer some ‘continuing injury1 or ‘collateral consequence’ sufficient to satisfy Article III.” *United States v. Juvenile Male,*564 U.S. 932, 936, 131 S.Ct. 2860, 180 L.Ed.2d 811 (2011). Where the defendant has challenged only his expired sentence, he-has “the burden of identifying some ongoing collateral consequence that is traceable to the challenged portion of the sentence and likely to be redressed by a favorable judicial decision.” *Id.*(internal quotation marks, modification, and citation omitted).

Because Castellón has been released from prison, was not sentenced to supervised release, challenges only his sentence on appeal, and fails to identify any ongoing collateral consequence, the appeal is DISMISSED as moot.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be *457published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
Exhibit 4.32


 


[Note: Translation from the original agreement
written in Chinese]


 


 


Amendment to the Equity Interests Pledge
Agreement 


 


This Amendment was executed on August 15,
2013 in Beijing by the following parties:


 


Pledgee: eLongNet Information Technology
(Beijing) Co., Ltd.


Address: 10 Jiuxianqiao Middle Road, Chaoyang
District, Beijing


Legal Representative: Guangfu Cui


 


Pledgor: Guangfu Cui


Address: No.1, XiangHongqi Street, Haidian
District, Beijing


ID No.: []


 


Each party hereto shall be referred to as
a “Party” and together the “Parties”. 


 


WHEREAS,


 


Whereas: 


 


		1.	On December 26, 2012, Pledgor and Pledgee entered into the Equity Interests Pledge Agreement (the
“Pledge Agreement”), and pursuant to the Pledge Agreement, Pledgor has pledged all his equity interest to Pledgee.



 


		2.	Due to the development of the business, on July 31, 2013, eLong Information Technology Co., Ltd. increased
the registered capital of Beijing Media from RMB1,000,000 to RMB30,000,000.



 


NOW THEREFORE, Party A and Party B
hereby agree to amend certain terms of the Pledge Agreement as set forth below:


 


		1.	As Pledgor Guangfu Cui’s equity interest in Beijing Media has changed from 50% to 1.67%, therefore
the corresponding descriptions of the shareholding of Pledgor in the Pledge Agreement are hereby changed to 1.67%.



 


		2.	Other than the amendment noted above, no other changes are made to the Pledge Agreement.



 


		3.	This Amendment shall be effective as of the date first set forth above, and shall constitute an integral
part of the Pledge Agreement. In the event of any conflict between the terms of this Amendment and the Pledge Agreement, the terms
of this Amendment shall prevail. Matters not explicitly set forth in this Amendment shall be governed by the Pledge Agreement.



 


		4.	This Amendment is in duplicate and each Party holds one copy. Each original has the same legal effect.



 


[No text hereunder]


 


 


 


 


 


 


 




    	 



    	 



    

 


Exhibit 4.32


 


[Signature page of Amendment
to Equity Interests Pledge Agreement]


 


 


Pledgee: eLongNet Information Technology (Beijing)
Co., Ltd.


	 	 
	Signature of Authorized Representative:	/s/ Guangfu Cu	








	Official Seal:	/s/ [seal of eLongNet Information Technology (Beijing) Co., Ltd.]	


 


 


 


	Pledgor:	Guangfu Cui	 
	Signature:	/s/ Guangfu Cui
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-7301

MICHAEL S. GORBEY,

Plaintiff – Appellant,

v.

STATE OF VIRGINIA; FAIRFAX COUNTY; CLERK’S OFFICE, CIRCUIT COURT FAIRFAX COUNTY JUDICIAL CENTER,

Defendants – Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Raymond A. Jackson, District Judge. (2:09-cv-00173-RAJ-JEB)

Submitted: December 17, 2009 Decided: January 5, 2010

Before MICHAEL, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Michael S. Gorbey, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM:

Michael S. Gorbey appeals the district court’s order

dismissing this action without prejudice because Gorbey failed

to comply with a court order. * We have reviewed the record and

find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm substantially

on the reasoning of the district court. Gorbey v. Virginia
,
No. 2:09-cv-00173-RAJ-JEB (E.D. Va. June 15, 2009). 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.

AFFIRMED

* The district court ordered Gorbey to complete and submit a questionnaire particularizing the factual allegations of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim or risk dismissal of the action.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                                        <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                              9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                           1,155
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 3,128
<PP&E>                                          78,135
<DEPRECIATION>                                  20,388
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  70,331
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            3,484
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                     (2,808)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    70,331
<SALES>                                          9,208
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 9,511
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   11,447
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               2,576
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (4,594)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (4,594)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (4,594)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (4.53)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (4.53)
        



</TABLE>