alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Dennis KING; Five Star Construction, Inc., Defendants-Appellants.

No. 10-4626.

United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.

Nov. 7, 2011.

Before: DAUGHTREY, MOORE, and McKEAGUE, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Dennis King and Five Star Construction, Inc. (“Five Star”) appeal the district court’s orders denying Five Star’s motion to return property and a subsequent motion for reconsideration.

In August 2009, a magistrate judge issued a seizure warrant for the funds in a bank account in the name of Five Star. The warrant noted that Dennis King was the sole proprietor of the account. After the funds were seized, the Drug Enforcement Administration commenced administrative forfeiture proceedings. King was charged with possession with intent to distribute cocaine base and heroin, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), and being a felon in possession of a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). The indictment sought forfeiture of the seized funds. No claims were filed in the administrative *213forfeiture proceeding and, in December 2009, the seized funds were forfeited to the United States. King subsequently pleaded guilty to all charges against him, and the district court sentenced him to 120 months in prison.

In November 2010, Five Star filed a motion to return property under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 41(g), arguing that the funds were seized without a warrant and that it did not receive proper notice of the administrative proceeding. The district court denied the motion. King and Five Star sought reconsideration, arguing that they did not receive proper notice of the forfeiture proceeding and that the seizure warrant was not supported by an affidavit. The district court denied the motion for reconsideration.

On appeal, King and Five Star again argue that they did not receive proper notice of the administrative forfeiture proceeding and that the seizure warrant was not supported by an affidavit. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to return property under Rule 41(g). *Savoy v. United States,*604 F.3d 929, 932 (6th Cir.2010).

The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying the Rule 41(g) motion. A motion to set aside a forfeiture under 18 U.S.C. § 983(e) is the exclusive remedy for seeking to set aside a declaration of forfeiture under a civil forfeiture statute, 18 U.S.C. § 983(e)(1), (5), and the district court lacked jurisdiction to review the merits of the administrative forfeiture determination. *See Mesa Valderrama v. United States,*417 F.3d 1189, 1196 (11th Cir.2005). Further, Five Star was given sufficient notice of the administrative forfeiture proceeding through certified mail sent to its address on file with the Ohio Secretary of State. *See*18 U.S.C. § 983(a)(1)(A)(i); *id.*at 1196-97. We need not consider whether King personally received proper notice of the forfeiture proceeding because only Five Star brought the motion to return property.

Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s orders denying the motion to return property and the subsequent motion for reconsideration.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0001029863
<NAME> AMERICA WEST HOLDINGS CORPORATION
<MULTIPLIER> 1
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                          146650
<SECURITIES>                                      1056
<RECEIVABLES>                                    88234
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                      21917
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                305732
<PP&E>                                          929507
<DEPRECIATION>                                  217200
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 1580333
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           493335
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           459
<OTHER-SE>                                      646969
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   1580333
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                939943
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   855897
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                  1500
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               20738
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  68701
<INCOME-TAX>                                     31739
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    36,962
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .81
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .81
        

</TABLE>
[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 130 (Monday, July 12, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Page 36590]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-14695]


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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-92331; File No. SR-CboeBZX-2021-042]


Self-Regulatory Organizations; Cboe BZX Exchange, Inc.; Notice of 
Withdrawal of a Proposed Rule Change To Introduce a New Data Product To 
Be Known as Short Sale Volume Data

July 6, 2021.
    On May 28, 2021, Cboe BZX Exchange, Inc. (the ``Exchange'') filed 
with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission''), pursuant 
to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act'') 
\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ a proposed rule change to introduce a 
new data product to be known as Short Sale Volume data.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed rule change was published for comment in the Federal 
Register on June 16, 2021.\3\ On June 30, 2021, the Exchange withdrew 
the proposed rule change (SR-CboeBZX-2021-042).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 92148 (June 10, 
2021), 86 FR 32088. Comment on the proposed rule change is located 
at: https://www.sec.gov/comments/sr-cboebzx-2021-042/srcboebzx2021042.htm.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, 
pursuant to delegated authority.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2021-14695 Filed 7-9-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P
WILLIAM HENRY BROWN

,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA

,

Appellee. IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D 17-2744

_____________________________/

Opinion filed October 12, 2017.

An appeal from the Circuit Court for Duval County

. Steven B. Whittington

, Judge.

William Henry Brown, pro se, Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi

, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

DISMISSED.

ROBERTS, RAY, and OSTERHAUS

, JJ., CONCUR.
Exhibit 32.1

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

I, Carl F. Fahrenkrug, Chief Executive Officer of Microwave Filter Company,
Inc. (the Company), certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:

(1) the quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the period ended June
    30, 2005 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section
    13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or
    78o(d); and

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

Dated: August 12, 2005                      /s/ Carl F. Fahrenkrug
                                                Carl F. Fahrenkrug
                                                Chief Executive Officer


                                                                   Exhibit 32.2

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

I, Richard L. Jones, Chief Financial Officer of Microwave Filter Company, Inc.
(the Company), certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:

(1) the quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the period ended June
    30, 2005 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section
    13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or
    78o(d); and

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

Dated: August 12, 2005                      /s/ Richard L. Jones
                                                Richard L. Jones
                                                Chief Financial Officer
### OF TEXAS AUWTIN. 

### TExAI3 mswla
January 22, 1975 The Honorable Joe Reswcber County Attorney ?Iarrim County Courthouee Houston, Texae 77002 Opinion No. H- 503 Re: County Clerk’n acceptance ofwaiver of certain marriage licenee requirement0 under the Family Code, as amended. Dear 

### Mr. Reeweber:

You have requented our opinion ar towhether or **not** “the County Clerk [in] obligated or permitted to accept a court ordered waiver of the furnishing of the information concerning age, identification of the applicant or identification of the parent required onthe marriage license applicatiofi. 1’

Prior to January 1, 1974, eection 1.05 of the Family Code read **as** followr: Any information pertaining **to** an applicant,

other thanthe applicant’r name, may be omitted from the application, and any formality required by Subchapters A, B, and D ofthie chapter may be waived on the countyjudge!0written order, issued for good cause ehown, and eubmitted to the county clerk at the time the application ie made. As rewritten, eection 1.05 omits entirely thin provision regarding waiver. Furthermore, rection 1.07 specifically prohibits the iseuance of 8 licenee unless certain conditions are fulfilled: (a) The county clerk may notissue a license tothe applicant if:

p. 2271The Honorable Joe Resweber page 2 (H-503)
(1)either applicant fails to provide informatim as required by Sections 1.02 and 1.05 of the code; [and1 (2) either applicant fails to submit proof ofage andidentity:
. . . . Both of these conditions were ‘ins’erfed for the first time in the amended code thattook effect on January 1, 1974.

Finally, a reference in former section 1.02 to the countyjudge’s waiver order, requiring an applicant to submit the order “if applicable, ” was deleted from section 1.02 ofthe amended code. This deletion would seem to indicate ‘thatthe Legislature did not contemplate the continued existence of such an order.

Itwould appear, therefore, thatonthree .separate’.occasions in the amended Family Code, the,Legislature expresses its intention to abrogate thewaiver provision offormer section 1.05. As a result, the County Clerk is neither obligated nor even permitted to accept a court-oidered waiver of thefurnishing oftheinformation concerning age, identification of the applicant or identification of the parent required on.the marriage license application. Compare Attorney General Opinion H-216 (1974) which discueaes waiver ofage requirements by a district court. SUMMARY A County Clerk is neither obligated nor permitted to accept a court ordered waiver Of the furnishing of the information concerning age,. identification of the applicant .or identification of the parent required on.the marriage license application.

**ours very**  **truly, <**  **Jiizdifs** . ti1 

# I/ Attorney General of Texas

.p. 2272. f :, . \ * :~ . . ‘I .f 1 The Honorable Joe Reeweber page 3 (H-503)

APPROVED:

DAVID M. KENDALL, First Asdistant

Opinion Committee

p. 2273
# C_2019432EN.01002201.xml

| 23.12.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 432/22 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.12.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 432/22

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Milano (Italy) lodged on 13 September 2019 — SPV Project 1503 Srl, Dobank SpA v YB

(Case C-693/19)

(2019/C 432/28)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Tribunale di Milano

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: SPV Project 1503 Srl, Dobank SpA

Defendant: YB

Question referred

Under what conditions, if any, do Articles 6 and 7 of Directive 93/13/EEC (1) and Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union preclude a national law, such as the one referred to, which prevents the enforcement court from performing a review of the content of a judicial enforceable instrument that has become final and, where a consumer has expressed his or her desire to rely on the unfairness of a term contained in the contract in respect of which the enforceable instrument was issued, precludes the same court from overriding the effects of the implicit force of res judicata?

---

(1)  Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts (OJ 1993 L 95, p. 29).

---
China BAK Battery, Inc.: Exhibit 10.89 - Prepared by TNT Filings Inc.




  




Exhibit 10.89


Summary of Loan Agreement Entered into by
and between Shenzhen BAK 

Battery Co., Ltd. ("the Company") and Shenzhen Longgang Branch, Bank of 

China (the "Creditor") Dated July 17, 2009 

Main articles: 


	Contract number:
  (2009)Zhenzhongyin Ganghuilizi 052; 


  	Loan principal: JPY
  296,604,000; 


  	Loan Term: from July 17, 2009
  to July 20, 2010; 


  	Interest rate: fixed at
  0.74375%; 



      	Interest settlement day
      is the maturity date of the loan; 


      	Penalty interest rate for
      delayed repayment is 2.23%; 



	If any of the following
  occurs, the Creditor is entitled to demand prepayment of loan principal and
  interest before maturity and cancel all loans unprovided: 




      	Delay in repayment of
      loan interest and the loan principal; 


      	The Company provides
      untrue declaration or breaks promise; 


      	The Company breaks other
      agreements with respect to its obligation; 



	
  Breach of
  contract penalties: release loan agreement, demand prepayment of loan
  principal and interest before maturity; withdraw from any accounts of the
  Company the loan principal, interest and other fees; any other measures the
  Creditor believes necessary and possible, etc. 



  	Amount of collateral:
  RMB21,624,000 



Headlines of the articles omitted 


	Loan arrangement 


  	Interest clearing of the loan
  


  	Fee 


  	Payment of the loan 


  	Guarantee 


  	Declaration and Promise of
  the Company 


  	Other agreements 


  	Modification, Amendment and
  Termination of Contract 


  	Disputation settlement 


  	Attachment 


  	Validity 


  	Text 


  	Notice
Amendment to Change in Control Agreement - Martin O'Donoghue



 Exhibit 10.30 
 AMENDMENT TO CHANGE IN CONTROL AGREEMENT 
 THIS
AMENDMENT TO CHANGE IN CONTROL AGREEMENT (“Amendment”) is entered into by and between VARIAN, INC., a Delaware corporation (the “Company”), and Martin O’Donoghue, an employee of the Company (“Employee”).

 The Company and Employee are parties to a Change in Control Agreement (the “Agreement”) dated as of
November 8, 2007. On July 26, 2009, the Company, Agilent Technologies, Inc., a Delaware corporation, and Cobalt Acquisition Corp., a Delaware corporation and a wholly owned subsidiary of Agilent, entered into an Agreement and Plan of
Merger (the “Merger Agreement”), pursuant to which Merger Sub will, subject to the satisfaction or waiver of the conditions set forth in the Merger Agreement, merge with and into the Company and the Company will survive the merger and
continue as a wholly owned subsidiary of Agilent (the “Merger”). In connection with approving entering into the Merger Agreement, the Board determined that it is in the best interest of the Company and its stockholders for the Company to
amend the Agreement, effective as of, and contingent upon, the closing of the Merger pursuant to the Merger Agreement. 
 In
view of the foregoing, the Company and Employee agree as follows: 
 1. Subsections (ii) and (iii) of the definition of
“Good Reason” set forth in Section 3(d) of the Agreement are hereby amended to read in their entirety as follows, effective as of, and contingent upon, the closing of the Merger: 
 “(ii) A reduction of Employee’s total compensation, as was provided to Employee as of July 26, 2009, as the
same may have been increased from time to time after the Change in Control Date other than (A) a reduction implemented with the consent of Employee or (B) a reduction that is generally comparable (proportionately) to compensation
reductions imposed on senior executives of the Company generally; or 
 (iii) The failure to provide to Employee
the benefits and perquisites, including participation on a comparable basis in the Company’s stock option, incentive, and other similar plans in which employees of the Company of comparable title and salary grade participate, as were provided
to Employee immediately prior to July 26, 2009, or with a package of benefits and perquisites that are substantially comparable in all material respects to such benefits and perquisites provided prior to July 26, 2009; or” 

2. This Amendment, taken together with the Agreement, to the extent not modified by this Amendment, supersedes any and all previous
contracts, arrangements or understandings between the parties with respect to the Agreement. 
 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties
acknowledge that they have read and understand the terms of this Amendment and have executed this Amendment to be effective on the date that it is signed by both parties. 








									
	VARIAN, INC.	 		 	EMPLOYEE
			
	             /s/ Arthur W. Homan

	 		 	            /s/ Martin O’Donoghue


	By:	 	Arthur W. Homan	 		 	Martin O’Donoghue
	Title:	 	Secretary	 		 	
					
	Date:	 	September 4, 2009	 		 	Date:	 	September 8, 2009

  

 2
#### ZINSSER et al. v. KOCH et al. (two cases).

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

April 12, 1912.)

Actions by August Zinsser and others against Reinhart G. Koch and others. No opinions. Motions to dismiss appeal denied. Orders filed.
Exhibit
10.40




Agreement
on Debt Transfer and Offset


Party A:  Xianggang
Fuhong Development Co., Ltd.


Party B:Tianshi
International Holdings Group Co., Ltd.


Party C:  Tianshi
International Investment Group Co., Ltd.





Party A,
Party B and Party C enter into this Agreement on February 10, 2010, which shall
be observed by all parties of this Agreement.


Whereas,
Party A is a creditor of Party B and Party B is a creditor of Party C. After
consultation, Party A, Party B and Party C agree the provisions as
follows:


1.           Party
C pays off the loan payable of USD3,000,000.00 to Party A in place of Party
B;


2.           Party
B writes off the debt of Party C with the same amount;


3.           Party
A, Party B and Party C shall perform this Agreement, including writing proper
receipts on February 10, 2010.


4.           This
Agreement is effective as of the date first written above and is signed by three
parties for confirmation.





Party A:  Xianggang
Fuhong Development Co., Ltd.


Legal
Representative: Jinyuan Li


Signature:  /s/ Jinyuan
Li





Party B:Tianshi
International Holdings Group Co., Ltd.


Legal
Representative:  Jinyuan Li


Signature:/s/ Jinyuan
Li





Party C:  Tianshi
International Investment Group Co., Ltd.


Legal
Representative:  Jinuan Li


Signature:
/s/ Jinyuan
Li
#### In re TRUSTEES OF CITY AND COUNTY HALL OF CITY OF BUFFALO AND ERIE COUNTY.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department.

March 13, 1912.)

In the matter of the appointment of two Trustees of the City and County Hall, for the Use of the City of Buffalo and the County of Erie, to succeed Henry V. Bisgood and Frank Whaley, whose terms of office expire on May 2, 1912. No opinion. The said trustees, Henry V. Bisgood and Frank Whaley, are hereby appointed as trustees to succeed themselves, each for the term of six years from the 2d of May, 1912. See, also, 126 App. Div. 920, 110 N. Y. Supp. 1124.
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.1

                   CERTIFICATION ACCOMPANYING PERIODIC REPORT
           PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
                             (18 U.S.C. SEC. 1350)

I, David G. Fiore, President and Chief Executive Officer of American Achievement
Corporation (the "Company"), hereby certify that:

          (1) The Annual Report of the Company on Form 10-K for the period year
     August 31, 2002 (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of
     Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

          (2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
     material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
     Company as of the dates and for the periods expressed in the Report.

Date: November 21, 2002

                                                  /s/ DAVID G. FIORE
                                          --------------------------------------
                                          Name:  David G. Fiore
                                          Title: President and Chief Executive
                                                 Officer