alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### The CHRISTENSEN FIRM, a Washington Sole proprietorship, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CHAMELEON DATA CORPORATION, a Washington Corporation; Derek S. Dohn, an individual, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 08-35624.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Argued and Submitted Aug. 2, 2010.

Filed Oct. 8, 2010.

Colleen A. Christensen, Esquire, The Christensen Firm, Duffy Graham, James Savitt, Savitt Bruce *&*Willey, LLP, Seattle, WA, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

Larry B. Feinstein, Vortman & Fein-stein, Daniel Gandara, Esquire, James C. Fowler, Vandeberg Johnson & Gandara, John David Du Wors, Esquire, Derek Linke, Derek Alan Newman, Newman *&*Newman, LLP, Daniel Foster Johnson,' Esquire, Roger Mulford Townsend, Bres-*246kin Johnson & Townsend, PLLC, Seattle, WA, for Defendants-Appellees.

Before: CANBY, NOONAN and BERZON, Circuit Judges.

MEMORANDUM *

The Christensen Firm appeals the judgment of the district court in favor of Chameleon DATA Corporation and its owner Derek Dohn (“defendants”). We affirm the judgment.

*Breach of fiduciary duty.*After a trial on the merits, the defendants won a jury verdict. Therefore, the district court’s denial of summary judgment is not reviewable. *See De Saracho v. Custom Food Mach., Inc.,*206 F.3d 874, 877-78 (9th Cir.2000).

*Violation of the Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act (ACPA).*The Christensen Firm did not present sufficient evidence of secondary meaning of its domain names. *See Filipino Yellow Pages, Inc. v. Asian Journal Publ’ns Inc.,*198 F.3d 1143, 1151-52 (9th Cir.1999). The Christensen Firm’s evidence of third-party registrations of similar marks did not identify the goods or services associated with the similar marks or the basis for their registration. *See Lahoti v. VeriCheck, Inc.,*586 F.3d 1190, 1199, 1201 (9th Cir.2009). The Law Firm also didn’t present evidence that anyone in the relevant class of consumers ascribed any meaning to “cc” other than “Colleen Christensen.” *See Yellow Cab Co. v. Yellow Cab of Elk Grove, Inc.,*419 F.3d 925, 929 (9th Cir.2005). The district court otherwise properly ruled that the defendants were entitled to summary judgment. *See Lahoti,*586 F.3d at 1195 (“[A] district court’s classification of a trademark’s strength is a factual determination to which we apply clear error review.”).

*Conversion.*The damages presented were the fees The Christensen Firm could have generated had its energies not been devoted to this case. These damages were essentially the attorneys’ fees a non-lawyer would have expended to litigate the action. Under Washington law, such attorneys’ fees are not recoverable. *See Dayton v. Farmers Ins. Group,*124 Wash.2d 277, 876 P.2d 896, 897-98 (1994). Other evidence of damages and the possibility of injunctive relief were not fairly presented in opposition to the defendants’ motion for judgment as a matter of law.

AFFIRMED.

*

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 23.3

INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' REPORT

To the Board of Directors and Stockholders of
First Bell Bancorp, Inc.:

We have audited the consolidated statements of income, comprehensive income,
changes in stockholders' equity and cash flows of First Bell Bancorp, Inc. and
subsidiary for the year ended December 31, 2000. These financial statements are
the responsibility of First Bell Bancorp, Inc.'s management. Our responsibility
is to express an opinion on these financial statements based on our audit.

We conducted our audit in accordance with auditing standards generally accepted
in the United States of America. Those standards require that we plan and
perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about 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. We believe that our audit provides a
reasonable basis for our opinion.

In our opinion, such consolidated financial statements present fairly, in all
material respects, the results of operations and cash flows of First Bell
Bancorp, Inc. and subsidiary for the year ended December 31, 2000, in conformity
with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America.


/s/DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP
------------------------

Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
March 23, 2001
U.S. COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION

140 Broadway

New York, New York 10005

Telephone: (646) 746-9733

Facsimile: (646) 746-9940

Division of

Enforcement

June 27, 2013

BULLETIN TO FORMER CLIENTS OF

WALTER SCOTT LEV & ASSOCIATES, LLC. 

To the Former Clients of Walter Scott Lev & Associates, LLC (WSL):

On November 18, 2003, the CFTC filed six separate federal injunctive actions in the 

United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. Information on these matters 

may be found at www.cftc.gov (search term: 4867-03). 

The civil cases were assigned to Judge George B. Daniels, who issued orders restraining 

the defendants’ assets and appointing Brian Rosner, Esquire to act as the Receiver for the 

individual and entity defendants.

The Receiver is attempting to locate the former clients of WSL, a defendant in one of the 

lawsuits: U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission v. Walter Scott Lev & Associates, LLC, 

et al., 03 CV 9126 (S.D.N.Y. GBD).

The Receiver has restrained a small amount of assets of WSL. Additionally, the related 

individual defendants have commenced payment of their court-ordered restitution on behalf of 

the former clients. 

The Receiver is preparing to release the restrained assets to confirmed former clients of 

WSL. Prior to the release of such funds under a court approved-asset allocation plan, the 

Receiver must verify that you are, in fact, one of the former clients. 

If you are a former client of WSL, please immediately forward any information or 

documents on your investment with WSL via email to nnapierala@carltonfields.com or via 

regular mail to Natalie A. Napierala, Esq., Carlton Fields, P.A., 26 Broadway, 22nd Fl. New 

York, New York 10004.
# CE2013168EN.01015501.xml

| 14.6.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 168/155 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.6.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 168/155

---

Wednesday 14 December 2011EU-Morocco fisheries partnership agreement ***

P7_TA(2011)0569

European Parliament legislative resolution of 14 December 2011 on the draft Council decision on the conclusion of a Protocol between the European Union and the Kingdom of Morocco setting out the fishing opportunities and financial compensation provided for in the Fisheries Partnership Agreement between the European Community and the Kingdom of Morocco (11226/2011 – C7-0201/2011 – 2011/0139(NLE))

2013/C 168 E/42

(Consent)

The European Parliament,

The European Parliament

| — | having regard to the draft Council decision (11226/2011), |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to the draft Council decision (11226/2011),

| — | having regard to the draft Protocol between the European Union and the Kingdom of Morocco setting out the fishing opportunities and financial compensation provided for in the Fisheries Partnership Agreement between the European Community and the Kingdom of Morocco (11225/2011), |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to the draft Protocol between the European Union and the Kingdom of Morocco setting out the fishing opportunities and financial compensation provided for in the Fisheries Partnership Agreement between the European Community and the Kingdom of Morocco (11225/2011),

| — | having regard to the request for consent submitted by the Council in accordance with Article 43(2) and Article 218(6), second subparagraph, point (a), of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (C7-0201/2011), |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to the request for consent submitted by the Council in accordance with Article 43(2) and Article 218(6), second subparagraph, point (a), of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (C7-0201/2011),

| — | having regard to Rules 81 and 90(7) of its Rules of Procedure, |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to Rules 81 and 90(7) of its Rules of Procedure,

| — | having regard to the recommendation of the Committee on Fisheries and the opinions of the Committee on Budgets and the Committee on Development (A7-0394/2011), |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to the recommendation of the Committee on Fisheries and the opinions of the Committee on Budgets and the Committee on Development (A7-0394/2011),

| 1. | Declines to consent to conclusion of the Protocol; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Declines to consent to conclusion of the Protocol;

| 2. | Instructs its President to notify the Council that the Protocol cannot be concluded; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Instructs its President to notify the Council that the Protocol cannot be concluded;

| 3. | Instructs its President to forward its position to the Council, the Commission and the governments and parliaments of the Member States and the Kingdom of Morocco. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Instructs its President to forward its position to the Council, the Commission and the governments and parliaments of the Member States and the Kingdom of Morocco.

---
Exhibit 32.1

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

     In connection with the Quarterly Report of Norquest  Acquisition Corp. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for three month period ended  December 31, 2009 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the  "Report"),
I, Philip  Wainwright,  certify  pursuant to 18 U.S.C.  Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002, that to the best of
my knowledge and belief:

     1. 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.

Dated: January 5, 2010

                                         By:  /s/ Philip Wainwright
                                              -------------------------------
                                              Philip Wainwright
                                              Chief Executive Officer and
                                              Chief Financial Officer
                                              (Principal Executive Officer)
                                              (Principal Financial Officer)
# FCM Data September 2014

SELECTED FCM FINANCIAL DATA AS OF September 30,&KFF0000 &K0000002014FROM REPORTS FILED BY October 31,&KFF0000 &K0000002014	&P of &N
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

In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of KBS Real Estate Investment Trust II, Inc. (the Registrant) for the quarter ended March 31, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the undersigned, Charles J. Schreiber Jr., Chief Executive Officer and Director of the Registrant, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of his knowledge and belief:



|1. | 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 Registrant.
|-- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date:  May 13, 2009



/s/ Charles J. Schreiber, Jr.Charles J. Schreiber, Jr. Chairman of the Board, Chief Executive Officer and Director
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Gracie WALKER, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 09-10065

Summary Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Oct. 29, 2010.

Gracie Walker, Bruceton Mills, WV, pro se.

Before DAVIS, SMITH, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Gracie Walker, federal prisoner # 35712-177, appeals the denial of her motion for a sentence reduction pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). She pleaded guilty to conspiracy to distribute a controlled substance and was sentenced under the career offender provision, U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1, to 290 months of imprisonment.

Walker contends that Amendment 709 to the sentencing guidelines applies retroactively to her criminal history calculation because the amendment became effective while her case was pending on direct appeal. She asserts that under several subsections of § 4A1.2, as amended by Amendment 709, criminal history points were improperly assigned to her sentences.

The decision whether to reduce a sentence under § 3582(c)(2) is discretionary, so the denial of a § 3582(c) motion is reviewed for abuse of that discretion. *United States v. Evans,*587 F.3d 667, 672 (5th Cir.2009), *cert. denied,*— U.S. -, 130 S.Ct. 3462, 177 L.Ed.2d 1064 (2010). The district court is authorized to reduce a sentence based on a sentencing range that subsequently was lowered by the Sentencing Commission only if the amendment to the guidelines is listed in U.S.S.G. § lB1.10(c). *See*§ 3582(c)(2); § lB1.10(a)(l); § 1B1.10, comment. (n.l(A)); *United States v. Gonzalez-Balderas,*105 F.3d 981, 982 (5th Cir.1997). Amendment 709 is not listed in § lB1.10(c), so the district court was not authorized to reduce the sentence pursuant to § 3582(c)(2), and the denial of the motion was not an abuse of discretion. *See Evans,*587 F.3d at 672, 674.

*946Walker’s motion for the appointment of counsel is DENIED. There is no right to appointed counsel in a § 3582(c)(2) proceeding. *United States v. Whitebird,*55 F.3d 1007, 1010-11 (5th Cir.1995). Moreover, because the district court was not authorized to grant § 3582(c)(2) relief, the interest of justice does not require appointment of counsel. *Cf. United States v. Robinson,*542 F.3d 1045, 1052 (5th Cir. 2008) (finding that the interest of justice required the appointment of counsel where appeal raised issues not previously resolved by this court’s precedent).

AFFIRMED.

*

 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.
Federal and DCM speculative position limit = 1,000 lots.

• Application for non-enumerated hedge exemption to CME and ICE 

shows 8,000 futures equivalent lots of exposure.

• CME and ICE analyze and determine their view of exposure to be 6,000 

futures equivalent lots.

• Based on market liquidity and other consideration ICE and CME grant 

exemption for non-enumerated hedges of 4,000 lots each. 

• Hedger may enter 6,000 lot total position (the determined exposure 

amount) on a combination of CME, ICE and OTC, but no more than 

4,000 on either of CME or ICE.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-6330

CHARLES H. TRAMMELL, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus ALTON BASKERVILLE, Chief Warden; TRACEY RAY, Assistant Warden of Programs; CARL MARROW, Food Operator Manager, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Albert V. Bryan, Jr., Senior District Judge. (CA-98-702-AM) Submitted: May 25, 1999 Decided: June 2, 1999 Before ERVIN, WILKINS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.Charles H. Trammell, Appellant Pro Se. Pamela Anne Sargent, Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Charles Trammell appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 1998) complaint. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Trammell v. Baskerville , No. CA-98-702-AM (E.D. Va. Feb. 25, 1999). We dispense with oral argument becausethe facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
#### Arthur S. WEST, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES; et al., Defendants-Appellees, and United States Secretary of Defense; et al., Defendants.

No. 08-35785.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Sept. 22, 2010.*

Filed Oct. 5, 2010.

Arthur S. West, Olympia, WA, pro se.

Helen J. Brunner, Esquire, Thomas Merton Woods, Esquire, Office of the U.S. Attorney, Seattle, WA, Terence A. Pruit, Assistant Attorney General, AGWA — Office of the Washington Attorney General, Jeffrey Scott Myers, Esquire, Law Lyman Daniel Kamerrer, et al., Olympia, WA, Carolyn Lake, Goodstein Law Group, Tacoma, WA, for Defendants-Appellees.

Before: WALLACE, HAWKINS, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Arthur S. West’s (“West”) motion to reconsider because he presented no grounds justifying relief under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b). *See Backlund v. Barnhart,*778 F.2d 1386, 1388 (9th Cir.1985) (listing grounds for reconsideration under Rule 60(b)).

We lack jurisdiction to consider West’s challenges to the underlying judgment because the notice of appeal was filed more than sixty days after entry of judgment, and the motion to reconsider did not toll the time to' appeal from the judgment. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 4(a)(1)(B), (a)(4)(A)(vi).

West’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
EXHIBIT B

CDS CLEARING

CLIENT FEE

DETAILS

 USD DENOMINATED PRODUCTS EUR DENOMINATED PRODUCTS

INDEX (per Million) $6 €5

INDEX OPTION (per Million)1 $24 €24

SINGLE NAME (per Million) $20 €15

All fees are charged directly to a client’s Clearing Participant.

MAINTENANCE FEE

• No maintenance fee

FEE REPORTING

• Clearing Participants receive a daily clearing activity report from 

ICE Link containing clearing house fees for each client

• Report can be downloaded from the ICE Link GUI or delivered 

electronically via FTP

• Clearing house fees are charged at the block level and prorated to 

each allocation (if applicable, see example below)

• A monthly clearing house detailed fee report is also available for 

download via the clearing house website on the second business 

day of every month

BILLING

• ICE Clear Credit invoices Clearing Participants on the third 

business day of every month via email

• Clearing Participant invoices are collected through end of day 

processing on the third Friday of each month

• Clearing Participants have discretion on client billing

EXAMPLE

CLIENT HAS CLEARED 40MM IN IG S16

1 The listed fees are applicable from January 3, 2023 through calendar year 2023 and reflect a discount from ICC’s regular Index Option fees of $4/million 

or €4/million. On the first business day of 2024, ICC shall remove this discount and the listed fees will revert to ICC’s regular Index Option fees on this 

schedule dated January 2024.

No Allocations
EXHIBIT B

FURTHER INFORMATION

icesales.otcfinancial@theice.com

theice.com/clearcredit

The following are trademarks of Intercontinental Exchange, Inc. and/or its affiliated companies: Intercontinental Exchange, ICE, ICE Futures Europe, New York Stock Exchange and NYSE. For more information regarding trademarks 

owned by Intercontinental Exchange, Inc. and/or its affiliated companies see: intercontinentalexchange.com/terms-of-use

ICE CLEAR CREDIT: CLIENT FEE DETAILS 1

Clearing Participant fee is $240 (40MM x $6).

With allocations to 3 funds

40MM allocated to 3 funds:

Fund 1 - 10MM, Fund 2 - 10MM and Fund 3 - 20MM.

The Clearing Participant fee is $240 (40MM x $6).
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Federal Maritime Commission

# AGENCY HOLDING THE MEETING:

Federal Maritime Commission.

# TIME AND DATE:

10 a.m.—June 20, 2001.

# PLACE:

800 North Capitol Street, NW., First Floor Hearing Room, Washington, DC.

# STATUS:

Closed.

# MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED:

1. Docket No. 98-14—Shipping Restrictions, Requirements and Practices of the Peoples Republic of China.

2. Docket No. 96-20—Port Restrictions and Requirements in the United States/Japan Trade.

3. Docket No. 94-01—Ceres Marine Terminals, Inc. v. Maryland Port Administration.

# CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION:

Bryant L. VanBrakle, Secretary, (202) 523-5725.

Bryant L. VanBrakle,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 01-14886  Filed 6-8-01; 2:23 pm]

BILLING CODE 6730-01-M
```

[Federal Register: October 28, 1999 (Volume 64, Number 208)]
[Notices]
[Page 58037-58038]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr28oc99-44]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION


Sunshine Act Meeting

AGENCY HOLDING THE MEETING: Commodity Futures Trading Commission.

TIME AND DATE: 11 a.m., Friday, November 26, 1999.

PLACE: 1155 21st St., N.W., Washington, D.C., 9th Floor Conference
Room.

STATUS: Closed.

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: Surveillance Matters.


[[Page 58038]]


CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: Jean A. Webb, 202-418-5100.
Jean A. Webb,
Secretary of the Commission.
[FR Doc. 99-28345 Filed 10-26-99; 1:40 pm]
BILLING CODE 6351-01-M
```

----

**======== RETURN TO INDEX    ========**

----