alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2010237EN.01002301.xml

| 2.9.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 237/23 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.9.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 237/23

---

DECISION No 296

of 12 May 2010

terminating the procedure for granting authorisation for the prospection and exploration of oil and natural gas, being subsurface resources as defined in Article 2(1)(3) of the Subsurface Resources Act, in Block 1-8 ‘Altimir’, located in the provinces of Vratsa and Pleven

2010/C 237/07

REPUBLIC OF BULGARIA

COUNCIL OF MINISTERS

Pursuant to Article 50(2), in conjunction with Articles 23(4) and 46(2)(2), of the Subsurface Resources Act and having regard to an infringement noted in the conduct of the procedure, resulting in a tenderer who does not meet the mandatory requirements laid down in the Subsurface Resources Act and the tender dossier being deemed eligible to take part in the procedure,

THE COUNCIL OF MINISTERS HAS DECIDED THAT:

| 1. | The procedure for granting authorisation for the prospection and exploration of oil and natural gas, being subsurface resources as defined in Article 2(1)(3) of the Subsurface Resources Act, in Block 1-8 ‘Altimir’, located in the provinces of Vratsa and Pleven, shall be terminated. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The procedure for granting authorisation for the prospection and exploration of oil and natural gas, being subsurface resources as defined in Article 2(1)(3) of the Subsurface Resources Act, in Block 1-8 ‘Altimir’, located in the provinces of Vratsa and Pleven, shall be terminated.

| 2. | The Minister for the Economy, Energy and Tourism shall take the necessary steps to return the deposits to the tenderers after this Decision has entered into force. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The Minister for the Economy, Energy and Tourism shall take the necessary steps to return the deposits to the tenderers after this Decision has entered into force.

| 3. | This Decision shall be subject to appeal before the Supreme Administrative Court within 14 days following its communication to the tenderers. |
| --- | --- |

3.

This Decision shall be subject to appeal before the Supreme Administrative Court within 14 days following its communication to the tenderers.

Prime Minister

Boyko BORISOV

Chief Secretary of the Council of Ministers

Rosen ZHELYAZKOV

---
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE BALANCE
SHEET OF AMERIGAS FINANCE CORP. AS OF SEPTEMBER 30, 1999 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENT INCLUDED IN AMERIGAS PARTNERS'
ANNUAL REPORT ON FORM 10-K FOR THE YEAR ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 1999.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0000945792
<NAME> AMERIGAS FINANCE CORP.
<MULTIPLIER> 1

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                           1,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 1,000
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   1,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             1
<OTHER-SE>                                         999
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     1,000
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                         0
<EPS-BASIC>                                          0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
Exhibit 8         **Subsidiary** **Country of** **Interest Held** **Percentage**  **incorporation**   **Interest**British Sky BroadcastingLimited (“BSkyB Limited”) England and Wales British SkyBroadcasting Groupplc (“BSkyB”) andBSkyB InvestmentsLimited hold5,000,002 and5,000,000 OrdinaryShares of £1 eachrespectively  100%         Sky Television Limited England and Wales BSkyB holds13,376,982 OrdinaryShares of £1 each  100%         Sports Internet Group Limited England and Wales BSkyB holds38,247,184 OrdinaryShares of 5p each  100%         British InteractiveBroadcasting Holdings Limited(“BiB”) England and Wales BSkyB holds 651,960Ordinary Shares of£1 each  100%         BSkyB Investments Limited England and Wales BSkyB holds 100Ordinary Shares of£1 each  100%         BSkyB Finance Limited England and Wales BSkyB holds556,440,638Ordinary Shares of£1 each  100%         Sky Subscribers Services Limited England and Wales BiB holds 3Ordinary Shares of£1 each  100%         Sky In-Home Service Limited England and Wales BSkyB Limited holds1,576,000 OrdinaryShares of £1 each  100%         Hestview Limited England and Wales Surrey GroupLimited, a whollyowned subsidiary ofSports InternetGroup Limited,holds 108 OrdinaryShares of £1 each  100%         Sky Interactive Limited England and Wales BiB and BSkyBLimited hold 2Ordinary Shares and1 Ordinary Share of£1 eachrespectively  100%         Sky Ventures Limited England and Wales BSkyB Limited holds912 Ordinary Sharesof £1 each  100%         British Sky Broadcasting SA Luxembourg BSkyB Limited holds12,500 OrdinaryShares of £12 each  100%         Sky New Media Ventures Limited England and Wales BSkyB Limited holds12,500 OrdinaryShares of £1 each  100%         BSkyB Investments (Guernsey) LLP England and Wales BSkyB Malta 1Limited, BSkyBMalta 2 Limited andBSkyB Malta 3Limited, whollyowned subsidiariesof BSkyB Limited,hold 100,000,200,000,000 and100,000,000Ordinary Shares of£1 eachrespectively  100%         Marketing Contributions Limited England and Wales BiB holds 2Ordinary Shares of£1 each  100%
#### KEY WEST CIGAR MANUFACTURERS’ ASS’N et al. v. ROSENBLOOM.

(Circuit Court, S. D. New York.

May 1, 1909.)

1. ’Trade-Marks and Trade-Names (§ 88*) — Unlawful Competition—

Right- to Sue — Association of Manufacturers.

'Where an association of cigar manufacturers, as an association, did not manufacture or deal in cigars, and was not in any competition with defendant, it could not sue in equity for unfair competition, alleged to consist in the sale by defendant of cigars not made in Key West in packages marked and labeled to indicate that they were made there.

[Ed! Note. — For other cases, see Trade-Marks and Trade-Names, Cent. Dig. § 98; Dec. Dig. § 88.*]

2. Trade-Marks and Trade-Names (§ 91*) — Joinder—Right to Join.

Several cigar manufacturers, interested in obtaining the same relief against defendant for unfair competition in the sale of cigars not made in Key West, in packages marked and labeled to indicate that they were 'made there, were entitled to join as complainants.

[Ed! Note. — For other eases, see Trade-Marks and Trade-Names, Cent. Dig. § 101; Dec. Dig. § 91.*]

*2973. Courts (§ 308*) — Federal Courts — Jurisdiction—Citizenship.

Where one or more of several joint complainants was of the same citizenship as defendant, federal jurisdiction on the ground of diverse citizenship did not exist.

[Ed. Not,e.~For other cases, see Courts, Cent. Dig. §§ 855, 856; Dec. Dig. § 308.*

Diverse citizenship as ground of federal jurisdiction, see notes to Shipp v. Williams, 10 O. C. A. 249; Mason' v. Dullagham, 27 O. C. A. 298. ]

In Equity. On demurrer to a bill for unfair competition by defendant in the sale of cigars not made in Key West in packages so marked and labeled as to indicate that they are made there.

Sidney R. Perry and Stewart & Stewart, for complainants.

L. *&*I. J. Joseph, for defendant.

*

For other cases see same topic *&*§ number in Dec. & Am. Digs. 1907 to Sate, & Rep’r indexes

LACOMBE, Circuit Judge.

The bill sets forth a cause of action in favor of the individual complainants, who manufacture and sell cigars actually made in Key West; but it is not apparent on what theory the “association” of such manufacturers can maintain such a suit. It neither manufactures nor deals in the cigars, and is not in any competition with defendant. Complainants’ counsel asserts that in California Fruit Canners’ Association v. Myer (C. C.) 104 Fed. 82, a similar suit was sustained. The report of that case does not indicate that any such point was raised, and Judge Morris’ opinion begins with the statement that:

> “The complainants are a number of corporations in California, engaged in that state in the business of canning pears grown there.”

There is no reason why the several complainants who seek the same relief should not be joined as parties plaintiff; but two of them happen to be citizens of New York, and therefore this suit cannot be maintained in the federal courts against defendant, who is a citizen of the same state.

The demurrer is sustained, with leave to amend complaint within 20 days, so as to obviate the objections to it in its present form.
#### Nathaniel Keith SINGLETON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Lieutenant SWEET, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 05-41490

Summary Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Dec. 13, 2006.

Nathaniel Keith Singleton, Fort Meyers, FL, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

Christopher Champion Wike, Office of the Attorney General Law Enforcement Defense Div., Austin, TX, for DefendantAppellee.

Before REAVLEY, GARZA and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Nathaniel Singleton, a former Texas prison inmate, appeals the dismissal of his civil rights lawsuit against prison guard Bernard Sweet. The district court dismissed Singleton’s case without prejudice pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a) for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. Dismissals for failure to exhaust administrative remedies under § 1997e(a) are reviewed de novo. *Powe v. Ennis,*177 F.3d 393, 394 (5th Cir.1999).

The district court concluded that the Step 1 and 2 grievances that Singleton produced involved an appeal of a disciplinary procedure and did not relate to the excessive force claim that Singleton raised in his complaint. A “grievance should be considered sufficient to the extent that the grievance gives officials a fair opportunity to address the problem that will later form the basis of the lawsuit.” *Johnson v. Johnson,*385 F.3d 503, 517 (5th Cir.2004). The record shows that the investigating officer responded to Singleton’s Step 2 grievance in part by opening an investigation of Singleton’s excessive force allegations. Thus, it is unclear whether the grievance forms on which Singleton relies *373relate only to the appeal of a disciplinary procedure.

Nevertheless, we need not reach the question whether Singleton’s grievance was sufficient to provide notice of this claim, as we affirm the dismissal for failure to exhaust on an alternative ground. *See Underwood v. Wilson,*151 F.3d 292, 296 (5th Cir.1998). At the time Singleton filed his complaint, he had not completed the Texas Department of Criminal Justice grievance process. Generally, an inmate must exhaust his administrative remedies before filing a § 1983 lawsuit. *Wendell v. Asher,*162 F.3d 887, 890-91 (5th Cir.1998). Because Singleton did not do so, the district court did not err in dismissing the case. The judgment of the district court is 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.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

PETER J. Mc DANIELS,

Plaintiff

- Appellant,

v.
BELINDA STEWART, Religious Programs Manager; et al.,

Defendants

- Appellees. No. 17

- 35275

D.C. No. 3:15

- cv

- 05943

- BHS

DWC

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington Benjamin H. Settle, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted October 23 , 2017 **

Before: McKEOWN, WATFORD, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.

Washington state prisoner Peter J. McDaniels appeals pro se from the

district court’s order denying his motion for a preliminary injunction in his 42

U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging constitutional and statutory violations arising from

allegedly inad equate Halal meals

. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a).

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

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

# FILED

OCT 26 2017

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLER K U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S2 17

- 35275

We review for an abuse of discretion. Jackson v. City & County of San Francisco
, 746 F.3d 953, 958 (9th Cir. 2014). We affirm.

The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying McDaniels’s third

motion for mandatory preliminary injunctive relief because McDaniels failed to

establish that absent such relief he is likely to suffer irreparable harm. See id.

(setting forth s tandard for issuance of preliminary injunction); P ark Vill. Apartment

Tenants Ass’ n v. Mortimer Howard Trust , 636 F.3d 1150, 1160 (9th Cir. 2011)

(stating that mandatory injunctions are not generally granted “ unless extreme or

very serious damage will result” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted))

.
To the extent that McDaniels challenge s any other orders, we lack

jurisdiction to consider them in this appeal

. See 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1) ( court has

jurisdiction to review on an interlocutory basi s the district court’s denial of

injunctive relief); see also 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (generally, court has jurisdiction over

appeals from final decisions of the district court only ); Chacon v. Babcock , 640

F.2d 221, 222 (9th Cir. 1981) ( absent certification unde r Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b), an
order is not appealable unless it disposes of all claims as to all parties or judgment

is entered).

We reject as without merit McDaniels’s contention that the district court

abused its discretion by imposing page limits on McDa niels’s filings

. We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued3 17

- 35275

in the opening brief, or arguments and allegations raised for the first time on

appeal. See Padgett v. Wright , 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).

McDaniel s ’s motion to include new evidence on appeal (Docket Entry No.

4) is denied.

AFFIRMED.
Exhibit
10.61





Lee P.
Johnson


lee@dotvn.com




November
1, 2006




Mr.
Thomas Johnson


Chief
Executive Officer


Dot VN,
Inc.


9449
Balboa Avenue, Suite 114


San
Diego, CA 92123





RE:
FORMATION OF IT.VN AND ASSIGNMENT OF RIGHTS




To the
Board of Directors of Dot VN, Inc:




At the behest of the Board of Directors
(the “Board”) of Dot VN, Inc. (“Dot VN” or the “Company”), I have agreed to
serve as a founder and officer of a domestic Vietnamese company named IT.VN,
JSC. (“IT.VN”) in order to facilitate the Company’s business plans in the
Country of Vietnam.  As a holder (a “Holder”) of common stock, of
IT.VN, a company formed under the authority of the City of Hanoi, and consistent
with the requirements of my fiduciary duties as an officer and director of Dot
VN, for good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which
are acknowledged, the undersigned agrees to irrevocably assign all right, title
and interest in IT.VN to Dot VN.




In accordance with the terms and
conditions hereof, the undersigned agrees to represent the Company in the
management and operation of IT.VN, subject to the direction of the Board, until
the earlier of his resignation, termination or replacement.




The undersigned hereby represents and
warrants that the undersigned has full power and authority to enter into the
agreement set forth herein, and that, upon request, the undersigned will execute
any additional documents necessary in connection with enforcement
hereof.




Page |
1


Exhibit
10.61




This letter agreement shall be governed
by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of Delaware without
giving effect to its conflicts of laws principles.




This letter agreement may be executed
in any number of counterparts and by different parties hereto in separate
counterparts, each of which when so executed and delivered shall be deemed to be
an original and all of which counterparts taken together shall constitute but
one and the same instrument.  This letter agreement may be executed by
facsimile signatures.




Very
      truly yours,/s/
                          Lee P. JohnsonName:
                          Lee
      P.
Johnson




Accepted,
Acknowledged and Agreed to by:





Dot VN,
Inc.





By:
                  /s/ Thomas JohnsonName:
                  Thomas
      JohnsonTitle:
                  Chief
      Executive Officer and
Director




Page |
2
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.                  

###### Department of Commerce

###### Foreign-Trade Zones Board 

          - [Order No. 1169] 

Pursuant to its authority under the Foreign-Trade Zones Act of June 18, 1934, as amended (19 U.S.C. 81a-81u), the Foreign-Trade Zones Board (the Board) adopts the following Order: 

Whereas, the County of Clinton, New York, grantee of Foreign-Trade Zone 54, submitted an application to the Board for authority to expand FTZ 54 to include a site at the former Plattsburgh Air Force Base located in Plattsburgh, New York (Site 4), within the Champlain Customs port of entry (FTZ Docket 57-2000; filed 11/13/00); 

                    Whereas, notice inviting public comment was given in the                     **Federal Register**                     (65 FR 70693, 11/27/00) and the application has been processed pursuant to the FTZ Act and the Board's regulations; and,                 

Whereas, the Board adopts the findings and recommendations of the examiner's report, and finds that the requirements of the FTZ Act and Board's regulations are satisfied, and that the proposal is in the public interest; 

Now, therefore, the Board hereby orders: 

The application to expand FTZ 54 is approved, subject to the Act and the Board's regulations, including Section 400.28, and further subject to the Board's standard 2,000-acre activation limit. 

Signed at Washington, DC, this 29th day of May 2001. 

Faryar Shirzad, 

Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Import Administration, Alternate Chairman, Foreign-Trade Zones Board. 

Dennis Puccinelli, 

Executive Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 01-14796 Filed 6-11-01; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
**Exhibit 32.2**

 

**Certification of Principal Financial Officer**

 

Pursuant to 18U.S.C. § 1350, as created by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of2002, the undersigned officer of Valentis, Inc. (the “Company”) herebycertifies, to such officer’s knowledge, that:

 

(i)            theaccompanying Annual Report on Form 10-K/A of the Company for the fiscalyear ended June 30, 2003 (the “Report”) fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d), as applicable, of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

 

(ii)           theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 
| Dated:  October 28, 2003 | /s/ JOSEPH A. MARKEY                        |
|------------------------------------|---------------------------------------------|
|                               | Joseph A. Markey                            |
|                               | *Senior Director of Finance and Controller* |
|                               | *(Principal Financial Officer)*             |

 

----
```

[Federal Register: February 24, 1999 (Volume 64, Number 36)]
[Notices]
[Page 9130]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr24fe99-41]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION


Sunshine Act Meeting

AGENCY HOLDING THE MEETING: Commodity Futures Trading Commission.

TIME AND DATE: 11:00 a.m., Friday, March 26, 1999.

PLACE: 1155 21st St., N.W., Washington, D.C., 9th Floor Conference
Room.

STATUS: Closed.

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: Surveillance Matters.

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: Jean A. Webb, 202-418-5100.

Jean A. Webb,
Secretary of the Commission.
[FR Doc. 99-4745 Filed 2-22-99; 3:26 pm]
BILLING CODE 6351-01-M
```

----

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

----
```

[Federal Register: September 22, 1997 (Volume 62, Number 183)]
[Notices]
[Page 49499]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr22se97-43]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION


Sunshine Act Meeting

Agency Holding the Meeting: Commodity Futures Trading Commission.

Time and Date: 2:00 p.m., Friday, October 14, 1997.

Place: 1155 21st St., N.W., Washington, D.C., 9th Fl. Conference Room.

Status: Closed.

Matters to be Considered: Adjudicatory Matters.

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: Jean A. Webb, 202-418-5100.
Jean A. Webb,
Secretary of the Commission.
[FR Doc. 97-25201 Filed 9-18-97; 11:28 am]
BILLING CODE 6351-01-M
```

----

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

----