alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 115 (Thursday, June 14, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Page 32414]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-14987]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

Customs Service


Application for Recordation of Trade Name: ``Red Bull North 
America, Inc.''

ACTION: Notice of application for recordation of trade name.

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

SUMMARY: Application has been filed pursuant to section 133.12, Customs 
Regulations (19 CFR 133.12), for the recordation under section 42 of 
the Act of July 5, 1946, as amended (15 U.S.C. 1124), of the trade name 
``RED BULL GMBH''. The trade name is owned by Red GmbH, an Austrian 
corporation incorporated in the State of Salzburg, Brunn 115, A-5330 
Fuschl am See, Oesterreich, Austria.
    The application states that the trade name is used on a product 
called Red Bull Energy Drink and Point of Sale and other promotional 
materials for Red Bull Energy Drink.
    The merchandise is manufactured in the United States. Before final 
action is taken on the application, consideration will be given to any 
relevant data, views, or arguments submitted in writing by any person 
in opposition to the recordation of this trade name. Notice of the 
action taken on the application for recordation of this trade name will 
be published in the Federal Register.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before August 13, 2001.

ADDRESSES: Written comments should be addressed to U.S. Customs 
Service, Attention: Office of Regulations and Rulings, Intellectual 
Property Rights Branch, 1300 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Ronald Reagan 
Building, Room 3.4A, Washington, DC.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gwendolyn Savoy, Intellectual Property 
Rights Branch, 1300 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20229 
(202) 927-2330.

    Dated: June 8, 2001.
Joanne Roman Stump,
Chief, Intellectual Property Rights Branch.
[FR Doc. 01-14987 Filed 6-13-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4820-02-P
Page 1 

Commodity Futures Trading Commission 

CEA CASES 

NAME: HAROLD GOLDSTEIN 

DOCKET NUMBER: 208 

DATE: SEPTEMBER 27, 1974 

DOCUMENT TYPE: NOTICE OF EFFECTIVE DATE OF DECISION 

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

BEFORE THE SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE 

In re: Harold Goldstein, Respondent 

CEA Docket No. 208 

Notice of Effective Date of Decision 

The attached Initial Decision which was issued by Administrative Law Judge 

Harry S. McAlpin on August 7, 1974, in this proceeding, has not been appealed to 

the Secretary within the allotted time. 

In accordance with the applicable rules of practice the Initial Decision 

became final on September 26, 1974, and the cease and desist provisions thereof 

became effective on September 26, 1974. The suspension provision and the 

prohibition of trading and denial of trading privileges will become effective on 

October 26, 1974. 

Dated: September 27, 1974 

[SEE SIGNATURE IN ORIGINAL] 

Audrey W. Gearhart 

Acting Hearing Clerk 

LOAD-DATE: June 16, 2008 
Page 2
Exhibit 32
 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
 SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  (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.
 /s/ Robert W. DecherdRobert W. DecherdChairman of the Board, President and Chief Executive Officer  November 3, 2010 /s/ Alison K. EngelAlison K. EngelSenior Vice President/Chief Financial Officer November 3, 2010 28
EX-10.14






Exhibit 10.14




Termination Agreement With Respect To

Web Promotion and Technical Service Contract




This Termination Agreement (this “Agreement”) is made by and between the following parties on the
5th day of July, 2010.



Party A: Beijing Dong Fang Xi Mei Investment Consulting Co., Ltd.

Company address: Room 23B1, No 1 Building, Yard 1, Xizhimenwai Dajie, Xicheng District, Beijing
(Deshengyuan District)



Party B: Beijing SouFun Technical Development Co., Ltd.

Company address: Room 203, 2/F, Tower 14, 46 South District Service Building, Zhongguancun Dajie,
Haidian District, Beijing



WHEREAS: Party A and party B entered into Web Promotion and Technical Service Contract (the
"Contract”) dated February 5, 2010. Both Parties hereby agree the following provisions:




	1.	 	Through amicable negotiation, both Parties agree to terminate the Contract. Party A hereby
agrees to repay the principal of commitment deposit to Party B. Upon the repayment of the
commitment deposit to Party B, there is no debtor-creditor or commercial relationship between
both Parties.
	 
	2.	 	This Agreement shall come into force once the authorized representatives of both Parties have
signed and affixed their official seals.
	 
	3.	 	Laws of the People’s Republic of China shall be applied for resolving the coming into force,
the interpretation, implementation, jurisdiction and dispute of this Agreement.
	 
	4.	 	This Agreement shall be executed in two copies, each of which shall constitute the same
instrument.





Intentionally Left Blank




 









 





Party A: Beijing Dong Fang Xi Mei Investment Consulting Co., Ltd.




	 	 	 
	 
	/Seal/
Beijing Dong Fang Xi Mei Investment Consulting Co., Ltd. 
	 	 







Party B: Beijing SouFun Technical Development Co., Ltd.




	 	 	 
	 
	/Seal/
Beijing SouFun Technical Development Co., Ltd.
<PAGE>   1
                                                                      EXHIBIT 99




FORWARD-LOOKING STATEMENTS

            In connection with the "safe harbor" provisions of the Private
Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995, AmeriGas Partners, L.P. ("AmeriGas
Partners") is hereby filing cautionary statements identifying important factors
that could cause AmeriGas Partners' actual results to differ materially from
those projected in forward-looking statements of AmeriGas Partners made by or on
behalf of AmeriGas Partners.


RISK FACTORS

            The financial and operating performance of AmeriGas Partners is
subject to risks and uncertainties, all of which are difficult to predict, and
many of which are beyond the control of management. Forward-looking statements
concerning AmeriGas Partners' performance may differ materially from actual
results because of these risks and uncertainties. They include, but are not
limited to:

            1. Weather conditions;
            2. price and availability of propane, and the capacity to
               transport to market areas;
            3. governmental legislation and regulations;
            4. local economic conditions;
            5. labor relations;
            6. environmental claims;
            7. competition from the same and alternative energy sources;
            8. operating hazards and other risks incidental to transporting,
               storing, and distributing propane;
            9. energy efficiency and technology trends;
           10. interest rates; and
           11. large customer defaults.
| (i)         | the      accompanying Annual Report on Form 10-K /A of the Company for      the fiscal year ended June 30, 2007 (the “Report”) fully complies      with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d), as      applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended;      and |
|-----------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

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

|               |   |                                       |
|--------------------|--------|--------------------------------------------|
|               |   |                                       |   |
| March      7, 2008 | By:    | /s/ William      J. Garner, MD        |   |
|               |   | WILLIAM      J. GARNER, MD                 |   |
|               |   | President      and Chief Executive Officer |   |
|               |   | (Principal      Executive Officer)         |   |
5 tfO. \\-\S-co%iX^t FILED IN 14th COURT OF APPEALS HOUSTON, TEXAS DEC 162015 CHRISTOPHER A. PR1NE CLERK 

### l)lErr Tywift '&&&, fypeuMKtfoSz v 

## The I^Ue o^Texas, ftftPiAW, Uiw- CootT ouss- *0o. 145547a 

## 1©sa.i ^ 'iJwJr W-i*sr^% Unw ^ !lmeb (kW^ ^W^ fatwty ^bfl^ fyfdW', (P 5

## hkiidJr, Pro S&. uJ«.s- oriciiiwi^ wdw <vi hafjsr<2&#>i3 

## -hW &*^/^'.^Clerk 4d 4^U AjfJ^ *W,



# •fUfw yli &> &-. r^4 4U4^ W^ (Vr, ail Sitk, (WTi^sWy ^ docu^h,

ur

w (P

### VaJ+WP^*^^; -Be<£yvirse3^CbA7^iOG^e/jt "Aopeif^u*^: Qt>%.. prtu/s Udr 

### jwi **A Copies 6.faiidccumeJs, "\o4k^akafc^ta(-tfwA nowW^ &s^?+d be heard on^ls 

### 5W^ 44\is 4-U- —cW|of „ ., do 

# 3^ H-WU!^ £Z_ Q>Conflscr 

### X hw^u (?£rhfy4^M dio U&fM^ l2Pfl/5^ d-(rue. 

## adLtffttdrCdpf ofAj^WX6 ft) SL Motn^^tfe^f"" 1

" Si 4': **fi S i& tr. h: $ &

r6 o=> OS ^4 <± cTJ

• ^ -4 ?°

CO l£ A ; K'y-^fr.wgtWJiWm -^A vO 4 p 4. <u P

/O 4 09 o < £

o £ ^ *-> o orr 

### P

C I* i r- (M o CM i CM O C3 p..
#### Kenneth A. FRIEDMAN, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. LAS VEGAS METROPOLITAN POLICE DEPARTMENT; et al., Defendants—Appellees.

No. 10-17812.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Dec. 19, 2011.*

Filed Jan. 4, 2012.

Kenneth A. Friedman, Indian Springs, NV, pro se.

Robert J. Gower, Deputy District, Las Vegas, NV, for Defendants-Appellees.

Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Kenneth A. Friedman, a Nevada state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court’s order denying his motion for reconsideration of the denial of his motion for partial summary judgment. We dismiss.

We lack jurisdiction over this appeal because the district court’s order “[did] not dispose of all claims and [did] not end the litigation on the merits,” and is thus not a final, appealable order. *Williamson v. UNUM Life Ins. Co. of Am.,*160 F.3d 1247, 1250 (9th Cir.1998); *see also*28 U.S.C. § 1291 (appellate jurisdiction over “final decisions”).

DISMISSED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Hector Corona, Appellant.

[873 NYS2d 912]

— Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Gerald, J.), rendered June 5, 2007, convicting him of attempted criminal contempt in the second degree and harassment in the second degree, after a nonjury trial, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant’s contention that the evidence was legally insufficient to establish his guilt of attempted criminal contempt in the second degree is unpreserved for appellate review. The defendant did not specify the ground upon which he now relies in his motion to dismiss at trial *(see*CPL 470.05 [2]; *People v*
      *782
      *Hawkins,*11 NY3d 484 [2008]; *People v Caldwell,*54 AD3d 1053 [2008], *lv denied*11 NY3d 923 [2009]). In any event, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see *People v Contes,*60 NY2d 620, 621 [1983]) we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant’s guilt of attempted criminal contempt in the second degree beyond a reasonable doubt.

Upon our independent review pursuant to CPL 470.15 (5), we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence *(see People v Romero,*7 NY3d 633 [2006]). Rivera, J.P., Florio, Dickerson and Chambers, JJ., concur.
No. 231.

#### Wachovia Bank & Trust Co., Administrator, et al. *v.*United States.

October 14, 1935.

*Mr. Hiram P. Whitacre*for petitioners.

*Solicitor General Reed,*and *Messrs. Will G. Beardslee, W. Marvin Smith, Fendall Marbury,*and *Young M. Smith*for the United States.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit and motion for leave to proceed further *in forma pauperis*denied.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Omar VILLAREAL, Appellant.

No. 09-3170.

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted: July 5, 2010.

Filed: July 7, 2010.

*581David A. Kelly, Lee’s Summit, MO, for appellant.

Jane Pansing Brown, Asst. U.S. Atty., Kansas City, MO, for appellee.

Before LOKEN, BYE, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Omar Villareal appeals his drug conviction and sentence entered by the district court1 following a jury trial. His counsel has moved to withch’aw, and has filed a brief under *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), challenging the sufficiency of the evidence to support the jury’s verdict, the district court’s drug quantity finding, and Villareal’s 210-month sentence. In a pro se supplemental brief, Villareal argues that drug quantity was not proven to a jury, in violation of *United States v. Booker,*543 U.S. 220, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005), and that he did not have an opportunity to confront witnesses.

We reject these arguments seriatim: (1) the evidence was sufficient to convict Villa-real of conspiring to distribute 5 kilograms or more of cocaine based on the testimony of his co-conspirators and the investigating drug agents, *see United States v. Hernandez,*569 F.3d 893, 896 (8th Cir.2009) (government must prove there was agreement to distribute drugs, and defendant knew of conspiracy and intentionally joined it); (2) based on the trial testimony, a preponderance of the evidence supports the district court’s drug quantity finding, *see U.S. v. Alexander,*408 F.3d 1003, 1009 (8th Cir.2005) (district court’s drug quantity determination must be found by preponderance of evidence); (3) the district court was permitted to determine drug quantity because it applied the Guidelines in an advisory manner, *see United States v. Brave Thunder,*445 F.3d 1062, 1065 (8th Cir.2006); (4) nothing in the record suggests that Villareal was denied the opportunity to confront witnesses; and (5) his 210-month sentence, representing a downward variance from the 235-293 month Guidelines range, was not unreasonable, see *United States v. Lazarski,*560 F.3d 731, 733 (8th Cir.2009).

Further, after reviewing the record independently under *Penson v. Ohio,*488 U.S. 75, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), we have found no nonfrivolous issues for appeal. Accordingly, we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw, and we affirm the district court’s judgment.

1

. The Honorable Nanette K. Laughrey, United States District Judge for the Western District of Missouri.
Page 1 

Commodity Futures Trading Commission 

CEA CASES 

NAME: RODNEY KAMINGA 

DOCKET NUMBER: 172 

DATE: NOVEMBER 26, 1970 

DOCUMENT TYPE: CEASE AND DESIST ORDER 

Docket No. 172 

Name: Rodney Kaminga 

Effective November 26, 1970 

(a) The respondent, Rodney Kaminga, shall cease and desist from failing to 

file, in accordance with the Commodity Exchange Act and the regulations 

thereunder, such reports as he is required to file under such Act and 

regulations. 

Done at Washington, D. C. 

OCT 27 1970 

[SEE SIGNATURE IN ORIGINAL] 

Thomas J. Flavin 

Judicial Officer 

LOAD-DATE: June 16, 2008 
Page 2
[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 114 (Wednesday, June 13, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Page 31899]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-14849]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RP01-38-001]


Colorado Interstate Gas Company; Notice of Compliance Filing

June 7, 2001.

    Take notice that on May 31, 2001, Colorado Interstate Gas Company 
(CIG) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff, First Revised 
Volume No. 1, the following tariff sheets with an effective date of 
July 1, 2001:

Fourth Revised Sheet No. 314
Third Revised Sheet No. 315
Fourth Revised Sheet No. 316

    CIG states that the filing is being made in compliance with the 
Commission's order issued November 9, 2000 at Docket No. RM96-1-014, et 
at.
    CIG states that the filing revises the imbalance neeting and 
trading tariff provisions in response to the Commission's order in this 
proceeding.
    CIG states that copies of this filing have been served on CIG's 
jurisdictional customers and public bodies.
    Any person desiring to protest said filing should file a protest 
with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, N.E., 
Washington, D.C. 20426, in accordance with section 385.211 of the 
Commission's Rules and Regulations. All such protests must be filed in 
accordance with section 154.210 of the Commission's Regulations. 
Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the 
appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants 
parties to the proceedings. Copies of this filing are on file with the 
Commission and are available for public inspection in the Public 
Reference Room. This filing may be viewed on the web at http://www.ferc.fed.us/online/rims.htm (call 202-208-2222 for assistance). 
Comments, protests and interventions may be filed electronically via 
the internet in lieu of paper. See, 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the 
instructions on the Commission's web site at http://www.ferc.fed.us/efi/doorbell.htm.

David P. Boergers,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 01-14849 Filed 6-12-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
Electronically Filed Supreme Court SCWC-30158 12-SEP-2011 02:17 PM

SCWC-30158 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI ' I
STATE OF HAWAI ' I, Respondent/Plaintiff-Appellee,
vs. JOEL M.P. GIONSON, Petitioner/Defendant-Appellant.
CERTIORARI TO THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS (ICA NO. 30158; CASE NO. 1P309-0026) ORDER REJECTING APPLICATION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI (By: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, Acoba, Duffy, and McKenna, JJ.) Petitioner’s application for writ of certiorari filed on August 1, 2011, is hereby rejected. DATED: Honolulu, Hawai ' i, September 12, 2011. /s/ Mark E. Recktenwald James S. Tabe, Deputy Public Defender, on the application /s/ Paula A. Nakayama /s/ Simeon R. Acoba, Jr. /s/ James E. Duffy, Jr. /s/ Sabrina S. McKenna
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                           2,201
<SECURITIES>                                    16,764
<RECEIVABLES>                                      755
<ALLOWANCES>                                        25
<INVENTORY>                                        201
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                20,510
<PP&E>                                           4,678
<DEPRECIATION>                                   1,713
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  24,112
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            2,142
<BONDS>                                            326
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           127
<OTHER-SE>                                      21,517
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    24,112
<SALES>                                          3,658
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 4,108
<CGS>                                              899
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                      899
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                12,501
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    25
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 828
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (2,264)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (2,264)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (2,264)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.18)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.18)
        

</TABLE>
Page 1 

Commodity Futures Trading Commission 

CEA CASES 

NAME: LEE B. STERN 

DOCKET NUMBER: STIPULATION 136 

DATE: FEBRUARY 28, 1972 

DOCUMENT TYPE: STIPULATION OF COMPLIANCE 

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

BEFORE THE SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE 

In re: Lee B. Stern 

Stipulation of Compliance Under the Commodity Exchange Act No. 136 

The Secretary of Agriculture has reason to believe that Lee B. Stern has 

violated the provisions of the Commodity Exchange Act (7 U.S.C., Chapter 1), and 

the order of the Commodity Exchange Commission establishing limits on position 

and daily trading in grain for future delivery (17 CFR 150.1). 

No complaint with respect to such violations has been issued and the said Lee 

B. Stern is desirous of disposing of the matter by entering into a stipulation 

of compliance as authorized by Section 0.4(a) of the rules of practice under the 

Commodity Exchange Act (17 CFR, Part 0). 

(1) Lee B. Stern, an individual whose address is 141 West Jackson Boulevard, 

Room 1200, Chicago, Illinois 60604, is now and was at all times material herein, 

a registered floor broker under the Commodity Exchange Act and a member of the 

Board of Trade of the City of Chicago. 

(2) The positions herein described were in wheat futures on the Board of 

Trade of the City of Chicago, a designated contract market under the Commodity 

Exchange Act. 

(3) On the dates specified in the table below, Lee B. Stern held or 

controlled net long speculative positions in the 

March 1972 wheat future on the Board of Trade of the City of Chicago as follows: 

Date Net Long Speculative Position

1971 (In thousands of bushels) 

November 23 2030 

24 2315 

26 2390 

29 2320 

30 2635 

December 1 2610 

2 2210 

15 2165 

16 2015 

The Commodity Exchange Authority has advised Lee B. Stern that the positions 

in the March 1972 wheat future, as set forth above, were in excess of the 

maximum amount of such positions permitted by the order of the Commodity 

Exchange Commission establishing limits on positions in wheat futures and that 

his holding or controlling such positions was in violation of such order and of 

Section 4a of the Commodity Exchange Act (7 U.S.C. 6a, 17 CFR 150.1). 
Page 2 

The said Lee B. Stern agrees to desist from such acts and practices in the 

future. He further understands and agrees that this stipulation is admissible 

as evidence of such acts and practices in any future proceeding based upon acts 

or practices in addition to those referred to herein, which may be brought by 

the Secretary of Agriculture against him under the provisions of the 

said Act. He also understands that it is the practice of the Commodity Exchange 

Authority to issue press releases on stipulations of compliance and to make them 

a matter of public record. 

Done at Chicago, Illinois 

this 28 day of Feb. 1972. 

[SEE SIGNATURE IN ORIGINAL] 

Lee B. Stern 

Witnessed by: 

[SEE SIGNATURE IN ORIGINAL] 

[SEE SIGNATURE IN ORIGINAL] 

LOAD-DATE: June 16, 2008 
Page 3 
Page 4