alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<Page>

                                                                  Exhibit 10.416

Fox Creek Shopping Center

                                   ASSIGNMENT

     This Assignment is made as of the 21st day of November 2004 by INLAND
REAL ESTATE ACQUISITIONS, INC., an Illinois corporation ("Assignor") to and for
the benefit of INLAND WESTERN LONGMONT FOX CREEK, L.L.C., a Delaware limited
liability company ("Assignee").

     Assignor does hereby sell, assign, transfer, set over and convey unto
Assignee all of its right, title and interest as Buyer under the terms of a
certain Agreement dated as of August 25, 2004 as revised by letter dated August
25, 2004, and entered into by Fox Creek Village, LLC, a Colorado limited
liability company, as Seller, and Assignor, as Buyer (collectively, the
"Agreement") for the sale and purchase of Fox Creek Village shopping center,
located in Longmont, Colorado, as legally described within the Agreement (the
"Property").

     Assignor represents and warrants that it is the Buyer under the Agreement,
and that it has not sold, assigned, transferred, or encumbered such interest in
any way to any other person or entity. By acceptance hereof, Assignee accepts
the foregoing assignment and agrees, from and after the date hereof, to (i)
perform all of the obligations of Buyer under the Agreement, and (ii) indemnify,
defend, protect and hold Assignor harmless from and against all claims and
liabilities arising under the Agreement.

     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Assignor and Assignee have executed this instrument as
of the date first written above.

                              ASSIGNOR:

                              INLAND REAL ESTATE ACQUISITIONS, INC.
                              an Illinois corporation


                              By:    /s/ G. Joseph Cosenza
                                  ----------------------------------
                              Name:      G. JOSEPH COSENZA
                                   ---------------------------------
                              As Its:      PRESIDENT
                                     -------------------------------

                              ASSIGNEE:

                              INLAND WESTERN LONGMONT FOX CREEK,
                              L.L.C., a Delaware limited liability company

                              By: Inland Western Retail Real Estate Trust, Inc.,
                              a Maryland corporation

                              By:    /s/[ILLEGIBLE]
                                  -----------------------------------
                              Name:      [ILLEGIBLE]
                                   ----------------------------------
                              As Its:    [ILLEGIBLE]
                                     --------------------------------
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 16 (Monday, January 26, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Pages 3785-3786]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-1727]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

Bureau of the Public Debt


Proposed Collection: Comment Request

ACTION: Notice and request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: The Department of the Treasury, as part of its continuing 
effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general 
public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment 
on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by 
the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Pub. L. 104-13 (44 U.S.C. 
3506(c)(2)(A). Currently the Bureau of the Public Debt within the 
Department of the Treasury is soliciting comments concerning the 
Regulations Governing United States Savings Bonds Series E/EE and H/HH.

DATES: Written comments should be received on or before March 30, 1998, 
to be assured of consideration.

ADDRESSES: Direct all written comments to Bureau of the Public Debt, 
Vicki S. Thorpe, 200 Third Street, Parkersburg, WV 26106-1328.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Requests for additional information 
should be directed to Vicki S. Thorpe, Bureau of the Public Debt, 200 
Third Street, Parkersburg, WV 26106-1328, (304) 480-6553.


[[Page 3786]]


SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    Title: Regulations Governing United States Savings Bonds Series E/
EE and H/HH.
    OMB Number: 1535-0095.
    Abstract: The regulations mandate the payment of H/HH interest by 
Direct Deposit (ACH Method).
    Current Actions: None.
    Type of Review: Extension.
    Affected Public: Individuals, Businesses or other for-profit, and 
state or local governments.
    Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 1.

Request for Comments

    Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized 
and/or included in the request for OMB approval. All comments will 
become a matter of public record. Comments are invited on: (a) Whether 
the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance 
of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall 
have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of 
the burden of the collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the 
quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; (d) 
ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on 
respondents, including through the use of automated collection 
techniques or other forms of information technology; and (e) estimates 
of capital or start-up costs and costs of operation, maintenance, and 
purchase of services to provide information.

    Dated: January 20, 1998.
Vicki S. Thorpe,
Manager, Graphics, Printing and Records Branch.
[FR Doc. 98-1727 Filed 1-23-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4810-39-P
No. 10-560.

#### Robert L. Schulz, Petitioner v. Federal Reserve System, et al.

562 U.S. 1083, 131 S. Ct. 676,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 9343.

178 L. Ed. 2d 513,

November 29, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit denied.

*514Justice Sotomayor took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.

Same case below, 370 Fed. Appx. 201.
# Land and Maritime promotes unity at Captains of Industry meeting

/ Published Sept. 6, 2016
Columbus, Ohio, Cybersecurity, future requirements of land and sea forces as well as cost pricing were topics of discussion between senior leadership and industry heavyweights Aug. 30 inside the Columbus Convention Center.Executives from industry titans such as Michelin, Rockwell Collins, SAIC, and Lockheed Martin were among 75 guests of DLA Land and Maritime’s acting commander, James McClaugherty, and Milton Lewis, acquisition executive. The purpose of the session was to address current topics and set the stage for healthy dialogue between Land and Maritime leaders and suppliers. While all of the more than 450 attendees at the Land and Maritime Supplier Conference are counted on to safeguard the readiness of the military, the companies represented inside the room are critical to the organization’s overall success.“Everybody’s here because they’re part of the fabric of ensuring warfighter support,” Lewis said.  “We have topics and issues we wanted our experts to share with our industry partners. The key to this meeting is participation.”At the forefront was cybersecurity. Linus Baker, cybersecurity chief for DLA, talked about getting the agency and industry on the same sheet of music when it comes to cybersecurity. Baker said while DLA has a robust capability within the agency of keeping people out of their systems and seeking out insider threats, he wants to encourage the private sector efforts to promote general awareness, education and training.“Our adversaries are moving at a much faster pace than the government,” Baker said. “We’re not talking about creating a government mandate but rather protecting the supply chain. We’re only as good as you are.”Baker discussed ways for collaboration, such as DLA including industry on specific cyber threats to the supply chain while in return industry gives DLA a better understanding of their individual company’s resiliency in dealing with cyber threats.Soldiers and Sailors provided an overview of the Army and Navy’s current postures and where they see the forces heading into the next decade. After two long wars, a constant state of uncertainty around the globe and leaders looking for innovative strategies to keep trucks and boats operating, it’s imperative that Land and Maritime has parts on the shelf at all times ready when the phone rings.Industry attendees suggested better ways to figure out the difficult process of forecasting needs. Using algorithms, past charts, and bringing in independent expert analysis were all ideas introduced for discussion.“This dialogue is what this session is all about,” McClaugherty told the gathering. “We couldn’t do anything that we do without you. You are all part of our wingspan and making sure the warfighters sustain readiness at all times.”McClaugherty said plans are in place to host another Captains of Industry conference next summer.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff - Appellee,

 v.

ESGAR VASQUEZ-LOPEZ, a.k.a. Esgar

Vasquez, a.k.a. Esger Vasquez,

 Defendant - Appellant.

No. 13-10646

D.C. No. 4:13-cr-01139-CKJ

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Arizona

Cindy K. Jorgenson, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted November 18, 2014** 

Before: LEAVY, FISHER, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges. 

Esgar Vasquez-Lopez appeals from the district court’s judgment and

challenges the 24-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for

reentry after deportation, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. Pursuant to Anders v.

FILED

DEC 1 2014

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

 * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

 ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), Vasquez-Lopez’s counsel has filed a brief stating

that there are no grounds for relief, along with a motion to withdraw as counsel of

record. We have provided Vasquez-Lopez the opportunity to file a pro se

supplemental brief. No pro se supplemental brief or answering brief has been

filed. 

Our independent review of the record pursuant to Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S.

75, 80 (1988), discloses no arguable grounds for relief on direct appeal. 

Counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED.

AFFIRMED.

2 13-10646
# C_2014315EN.01006202.xml

| 15.9.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 315/62 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.9.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 315/62

---

Order of the Court of 24 June 2014 — Léon Van Parys v Commission

(Case T-603/13) (1)

1

((Action for annulment - Customs Union - Request by the Commission for supplementary information from the Belgian authorities - Letter seeking information from the applicant as regards the request - Challengeable act - Inadmissibility))

2014/C 315/104

Language of the case: Dutch

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Firma Léon Van Parys (Antwerp, Belgium) (represented by: P. Vlaemminck, B. Van Vooren and R. Verbeke, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: A. Caeiros, B.-R. Killmann and M. van Beek, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

First, application for annulment of the Commission’s letter of 16 September 2013, requesting supplementary information from the Belgian Administration of Customs and Excise, and the Commission’s letter of the same day informing the applicant of that request and the suspension of the treatment period pursuant to Article 907 of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 of 2 July 1993 laying down provisions for the implementation of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 establishing the Community Customs Code (OJ 1993 L 253, p. 1) and, second; application for declaration that Article 909 of Regulation No 2454/93 has taken effect to the benefit of the applicant as a result of the judgment of 19 March 2013, Van Parys Firma v Commission (T-324/10, not yet published in the ECR).

Van Parys Firma

Commission

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

| 1) | The action is dismissed as inadmissible. |
| --- | --- |

1)

The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

| 2) | The applicant Firma Leon Van Parys is ordered to bear its own costs and to pay those of the European Commission. |
| --- | --- |

2)

The applicant Firma Leon Van Parys is ordered to bear its own costs and to pay those of the European Commission.

---

(1)  OJ C 24, 25.1.2014.

1

---
# C_2015089EN.01001901.xml

| 16.3.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 89/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.3.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 89/19

---

Judgment of the General Court of 30 January 2015 — Now Wireless v OHIM — STARBUCKS (HK) (now)

(Case T-278/13) (1)

1

((Community trade mark - Revocation proceedings - Community figurative mark now - Genuine use of the mark - Article 51(1)(a) and Article 51(2) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

(2015/C 089/20)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Now Wireless Ltd (Guildford, United Kingdom) (represented by: T. Alkin, Barrister)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: D. Walicka, Agent)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: Starbucks (HK) Ltd (Hong Kong, China) (represented by: P. Kavanagh, Solicitor)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court:

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 7 March 2013 (Case R 234/2012-2), concerning revocation proceedings between Now Wireless Ltd and Starbucks (HK) Ltd.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Now Wireless Ltd to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Now Wireless Ltd to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 207, 20.7.2013.

1

---
No. 10-6094.

#### Ronald D. Dingle, Petitioner v. Robert M. Stevenson, Warden.

562 U.S. 1009, 131 S. Ct. 516,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 8516,

178 L. Ed. 2d 381,

November 1, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied.

Same case below, 376 Fed. Appx. 285.
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2744 Engrossed Amendment Senate (EAS)]

<DOC>
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  

                  In the Senate of the United States,

                                                     February 13, 2020.
    Resolved, That the bill from the House of Representatives (H.R. 
2744) entitled ``An Act to authorize the Administrator of the United 
States Agency for International Development to prescribe the manner in 
which programs of the agency are identified overseas, and for other 
purposes.'', do pass with the following

                               AMENDMENT:

            Strike out all after the enacting clause and insert:

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``USAID Branding Modernization Act''.

SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION FOR BRANDING.

    (a) In General.--The Administrator of the United States Agency for 
International Development (referred to in this section as ``USAID''), 
in coordination with the Secretary of State, as appropriate, and with 
due consideration for the safety and security of implementing partners 
and beneficiaries, is authorized to prescribe, as appropriate, the use 
of logos or other insignia of the USAID Identity, or the use of 
additional or substitute markings, including the United States flag, to 
appropriately identify, including as required by section 641 of the 
Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2401), overseas programs 
administered by USAID.
    (b) Audit.--Not later than 1 year after the date of the enactment 
of this Act, the Inspector General of USAID shall submit to Congress an 
audit of compliance with relevant branding and marking requirements of 
USAID by implementing partners funded by USAID, including any 
requirements prescribed pursuant to the authorization under subsection 
(a).

            Attest:

                                                             Secretary.
116th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                               H.R. 2744

_______________________________________________________________________

                               AMENDMENT
```
* Pursuant to Local Rule 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in Local Rule 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-11106 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus JOSE MEJIA-MENDEZ, a/k/a Jose Mendez Mejia, Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 4:96-CR-31-A-3

- - - - - - - - - - June 17, 1997 Before SMITH, STEWART, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Court-appointed counsel for Jose Mejia-Mendez has filed a brief as required by Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Our independent review of the brief and the record discloses no nonfrivolous issue. Accordingly, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED.
```

[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 123 (Monday, June 27, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Page 37371]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-16027]

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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement 
(BOEMRE)

Ocean Energy Safety Advisory Committee; Notice of Meeting

AGENCY: Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement 
(BOEMRE), Interior.

ACTION: Notice of meeting.

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

SUMMARY: The Ocean Energy Safety Advisory Committee will meet at the 
Astor Crowne Plaza Hotel in New Orleans, Louisiana.

DATES: Wednesday, July 13, 2011, from 1 p.m. to 5 p.m. and Thursday, 
July 14, 2011, from 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m.

ADDRESSES: The Astor Crowne Plaza Hotel, 739 Canal Street, New Orleans, 
Louisiana 70130, telephone (504) 962-0500.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:  Dr. Brad J. Blythe at the Bureau of 
Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement, 381 Elden Street, 
Mail Stop 4040, Herndon, Virginia 20170-4187. He can be reached by 
telephone at (703) 787-1636 or by electronic mail at 
brad.blythe@boemre.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Ocean Energy Safety Advisory Committee 
consists of representatives from industry, Federal Government agencies, 
non-governmental organizations, and the academic community. It provides 
policy advice to the Secretary of the Interior through the Director of 
BOEMRE on matters relating to ocean energy safety, including, but not 
limited to drilling and workplace safety, well intervention and 
containment, and oil spill response.
    The agenda for Wednesday, July 13, will address the progress of 
outreach on industry and academic initiatives relevant to the work of 
the Committee.
    The agenda for Thursday, July 14, will address subcommittee 
progress, and include discussions of Federal initiatives relevant to 
the work of the Committee.
    The meeting is open to the public. Approximately 100 visitors can 
be accommodated on a first-come-first-served basis. Members of the 
public will have the opportunity to comment on a first-come-first-
served basis during the time allotted for public comment and may submit 
written comments to the Ocean Energy Safety Advisory Committee during 
the meeting or by email to the Committee at OESC@boemre.gov.
    Minutes of the Ocean Energy Safety Advisory Committee meeting will 
be available for public inspection on the Committee's Web site at: 
http://www.boemre.gov/mmab/EnergySafety.htm.

    Authority:  Federal Advisory Committee Act, Pub. L. 92-463, 5 
U.S.C. Appendix 1, and the Office of Management and Budget's 
Circular No. A-63, Revised.

    Dated: June 22, 2011.
Michael R. Bromwich,
Director, Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and 
Enforcement.
[FR Doc. 2011-16027 Filed 6-24-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-MR-P
```
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent

except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 98-20320

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

LARRY D. BROWN,

Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. H-97-CV-1410

- - - - - - - - - -

October 2, 1998

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, JONES, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Larry Brown, federal prisoner # 59615-079, appeals the

district court’s denial of his motion to modify the terms of his

fine. Brown filed his notice of appeal more than 10 days after

the district court’s order denying his motion. His appeal from

the denial of that motion is DISMISSED as untimely. See Fed. R.

App. P. 4(b).

Brown seeks a certificate of appealability (COA) to appeal

the district court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. He

argues that he received ineffective assistance of counsel based 
No. 98-20320

-2-

upon his attorney’s failure to argue on appeal that the

sentencing court 1) erred by holding Brown accountable for 20

grams of cocaine because the evidence did not indicate that he

had the ability to purchase that large a quantity and 2) should

have granted a downward departure from the Sentencing Guidelines

range based upon sentencing entrapment. 

In order to obtain a COA, Brown must make a substantial

showing of the denial of a constitutional right. See 28 U.S.C.

§ 2253(c)(2). Brown has not made such a showing with any of the

issues he raises. Accordingly, COA is DENIED.
##### 



Exhibit 21.1 EaglePicher Holdings, Inc. Subsidiaries of EaglePicher Incorporated (EPI) Cincinnati Industrial Machinery Sales Company [Ohio]
Daisy Parts, Inc. [Michigan]
Eagle-Picher Acceptance Corporation [Ohio]
Eagle-Picher Development Company, Inc. [Delaware]
      EPMR Corporation [Michigan]
Eagle-Picher Far East, Inc. [Delaware]
Eagle-Picher, Inc. [Virgin Islands]
Eagle-Picher Industries of Canada Limited [Canada]
Eagle-Picher Industries Europe B.V. [Netherlands]
      Eagle-Picher Automotive GmbH [Germany]
      Eagle-Picher UK Limited [England and Wales]
            Eagle-Picher Hillsdale Limited [England and Wales]
      Eagle-Picher Wolverine GmbH [Germany]
            Eagle-Picher Technologies GmbH [Germany]
      EaglePicher Kokam, Ltd. [Republic of Korea]
EaglePicher Filtration & Minerals, Inc. [Nevada]
      Eagle-Picher Minerals International S.A.R.L. [France]
            Eagle-Picher Minerals Europe GmbH & Co. KG [Germany]
            Eagle-Picher Minerals Europe Verwaltungs- und Beteiligungs GmbH [Germany]
EaglePicher Technologies, LLC [Delaware]
      Eagle-Picher Energy Products Corp. [Canada]
      EaglePicher Pharmaceutical Services, LLC [Delaware]
EPTEC, S.A. de C.V. [Mexico]
Eagle Picher Funding Corporation [Delaware] (10% held by EaglePicher Holdings, Inc.)
EaglePicher Investments, LLC [Arizona]
      EaglePicher Horizon Batteries, LLC [Delaware]
      EP NTZ Micro Filtration, LLC [Delaware]
EaglePicher Automotive, Inc. [Michigan]
      Carpenter Enterprises Limited [Michigan]