alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2010111EN.01002901.xml

| 30.4.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 111/29 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.4.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 111/29

---

Notice of the impending expiry of certain anti-dumping measures

2010/C 111/05

1.   As provided for in Article 11(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 of 30 November 2009 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community (1), the European Commission gives notice that, unless a review is initiated in accordance with the following procedure, the anti-dumping measures mentioned below will expire on the date mentioned in the table below.

1

2.   Procedure

Procedure

Union producers may lodge a written request for a review. This request must contain sufficient evidence that the expiry of the measures would be likely to result in a continuation or recurrence of dumping and injury.

Should the Commission decide to review the measures concerned, importers, exporters, representatives of the exporting country and Union producers will then be provided with the opportunity to amplify, rebut or comment on the matters set out in the review request.

3.   Time limit

Time limit

Union producers may submit a written request for a review on the above basis, to reach the European Commission, Directorate-General for Trade (Unit H-1), N-105 4/92, 1049 Bruxelles/Brussel, BELGIQUE/ BELGIË (2) at any time from the date of the publication of the present notice but no later than three months before the date mentioned in the table below.

2

4.   This notice is published in accordance with Article 11(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009.

| Product | Country(ies) of origin or exportation | Measures | Reference | Date of expiry |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Certain magnesia bricks | People's Republic of China | Anti-dumping duty | Council Regulation (EC) No 1659/2005 (OJ L 267, 12.10.2005, p. 1) as last amended by Council Regulations (EC) No 825/2009 (OJ L 240, 11.9.2009, p. 1) and (EC) No 826/2009 (OJ L 240, 11.9.2009, p. 7) | 13.10.2010 |

Product

Country(ies) of origin or exportation

Measures

Reference

Date of expiry

Certain magnesia bricks

People's Republic of China

Anti-dumping duty

Council Regulation (EC) No 1659/2005 (OJ L 267, 12.10.2005, p. 1) as last amended by Council Regulations (EC) No 825/2009 (OJ L 240, 11.9.2009, p. 1) and (EC) No 826/2009 (OJ L 240, 11.9.2009, p. 7)

13.10.2010

---

(1)  OJ L 343, 22.12.2009, p. 51.

1

(2)  Fax +32 22956505.

2

---
Note dated October 3, 2005  $50,000



 EXHIBIT 10.22 
  
 NOTE 
  
 US$50,000 
  
 Palo Alto, California 
  
 October 3, 2005 
  
 FOR
VALUE RECEIVED, the undersigned, AVICENA GROUP, INC., having an address of 228 Hamilton Avenue, 3rd Floor,
Palo Alto, CA 94301 (the “Borrower”), hereby promises to pay to the order of Nasser Menhall, having an address of One Cambridge Center, 5/F, Cambridge, MA 02142 (the “Lender”), the principal sum of Fifty Thousand Dollars
($50,000) (All monetary amounts herein are expressed in U.S. Dollars). Principal on this Note shall become due and payable six months from the date of this Note or such earlier date as the Borrower shall complete its proposed merger with AVN
Acquisition Corp. (the “Maturity Date”). Interest on the outstanding principal amount shall not begin to accrue until the Maturity Date. After the Maturity Date, interest on the outstanding principal amount shall accrue at the rate of
eight percent (8%) per annum. 
  
 The Borrower shall have the
option of prepaying the unpaid portion of such principal sum in full or part at any time before the Maturity Date without any premium or penalty. 
  
 All amounts owing pursuant to this Note but not yet paid shall, without any notice, demand, presentment or protest of any kind, automatically become
immediately due if the Borrower commences or has commenced against it any bankruptcy or insolvency proceeding. All amounts owing pursuant to this Note but not yet paid shall, without any notice, demand, presentment or protest of any kind, become
immediately due at the sole option of the Lender if (1) any amount owing pursuant to this Note is not paid when due, or (2) the Borrower is dissolved, or becomes insolvent (however such insolvency is evidenced). 
  
 All payments under this Note are to be made to the Lender at the
Lender’s address referenced above or at such other address as the Lender may from time to time designate in writing. 
  
 The Borrower promises to pay reasonable costs and expenses incurred by the Lender in collecting this Note and enforcing the Lender’s rights
hereunder, including, but not limited to, the reasonable fees and disbursements of legal counsel to the Lender. 
  
 Failure or delay by the Lender in exercising, or a single or partial exercise of, any power or right hereunder shall not operate as a waiver thereof or of
any other power or right or preclude any other future exercise of that or any other power or right. A waiver of any power or right hereunder shall be in writing, shall be limited to the specific instance and shall not be deemed a waiver of the
subject power or right in the future or a waiver of any other power or right. 
  
 This Note may not be modified or terminated orally or by any course of conduct but only by an agreement in writing duly executed by the Borrower and the Lender. 







 This Note shall be governed by and construed, interpreted and enforced in accordance with the internal
law of the State of California, without regard to principles of conflict of laws. 
  

			
	 AVICENA GROUP, INC.

		
	 By:
	 	 /s/ Belinda Tsao Nivaggioli


	 	 	 Belinda Tsao Nivaggioli

	 	 	 Chief Executive Officer



  

 2
Page 1 

Commodity Futures Trading Commission 

CEA CASES 

NAME: EDWARD A. COX 

DOCKET NUMBER: STIPULATION 74 

DATE: APRIL 12, 1965 

DOCUMENT TYPE: STIPULATION OF COMPLIANCE 

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

BEFORE THE SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE 

In re: Edward A. Cox 

Stipulation of Compliance under the Commodity Exchange Act No. 74 

The Secretary of Agriculture has reason to believe that Edward A. Cox has 

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

the regulations of the Secretary of Agriculture promulgated thereunder (17 CFR, 

Chapter 1). No complaint with respect to such violations has been issued and 

the said Edward A. Cox 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, 0.0-0.28). Therefore, the 

said Edward A. Cox stipulates the following facts are trust 

(1) Edward A. Cox, an individual whose address is 141 West Jackson Boulevard, 

Chicago, Illinois, 60604, is now and was at all times mentioned herein a member 

of the Board of Trade of the City of Chicago, a duly designated contract market 

under the Commodity Exchange Act. 

(2) The registration of Edward A. Cox as floor broker under the Commodity 

Exchange Act for the calendar year 1964 expired on December 31, 1964, and the 

said Edward A. Cox did not submit an application for registration as floor 

broker under the act for the calendar year 1965 until March 4, 1965. 

(3) During the period from January 1 through March 4, 1965, Edward A. Cox 

acted as floor broker by executing for others orders for the purchase or sale of 

commodities for future delivery on or subject to the rules of the Board of Trade 

of the City of Chicago and for such services received and accepted compensation. 

The Secretary of Agriculture has advised Edward A. Cox that by reason of such 

sots he has violated section 4e of the act and section 1.8 of the regulations 

thereunder. 

The said Edward A. Cox agrees to desist from such acts and practices in the 

future. He further understands and agrees that this stipulation shall be 

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 against him by the Secretary of Agriculture under the provisions of the 

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

Authority to make stipulations of compliance a matter of public record. 

Done at Chicago, Illinois, this 12 day of April, 1965 

[SEE SIGNATURE IN ORIGINAL] 

Edward A. Cox 

Witnessed by: 

[SEE SIGNATURE IN ORIGINAL] 
Page 2 

[SEE SIGNATURE IN ORIGINAL] 

LOAD-DATE: June 16, 2008 
Page 3
EXHIBIT 32.1


                           SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATION


     In connection with the Quarterly Report of Teen Education Group,  Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the quarter  ending March 31, 2008 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),  I, Robert
L.  Wilson,  President of the Company,  certify,  pursuant to 18 U.S.C.  Section
1350,  as adopted  pursuant  to Section 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002,
that, to my knowledge:

     (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.


Date: May 13, 2008



                                        By: /s/ ROBERT L. WILSON
                                            ___________________________
                                                Robert L. Wilson
                                                President
                                                (Principal Executive Officer),
                                                and Director
#### Leonard ROLLOCK, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Nicole LaBARBERA, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 09-3695-pr.

United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.

June 30, 2010.

Leonard Rollock, pro se, Lisbon, OH.

Li Yu, Assistant United States Attorney (Sarah S. Normand, Assistant United States Attorney, on the brief), for Preet Bharara, United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, New York, NY, for Defendant-Appellee.

PRESENT: ROGER J. MINER, JOSÉ A. CABRANES, RICHARD C. WESLEY, Circuit Judges.

*30SUMMARY ORDER

Plaintiff-Appellant Rollock, *pro se,*appeals from a judgment of the District Court dismissing his complaint, *sua sponte,*as barred by the doctrine of *res judicata.*Rollock alleges that the District Court erred in (a) raising the issue of *res judicata sua sponte*and (b) holding that his claim was barred by *res judicata.*“We review *de novo*the District Court’s application of the principles of *res judicata.” EDP Med. Computer Sys., Inc. v. United States,*480 F.3d 621, 624 (2d Cir.2007).

The District Court did not err when it *sua sponte*raised the issue of *res judicata. Scherer v. Equitable Life Assurance Soc’y of U.S.,*347 F.3d 394, 398 n. 4 (2d Cir.2003) (“[A] court is free to raise [the] defense [of *res judicata] sua sponte,*even if the parties have seemingly waived it.”). Indeed, after an independent and thorough review, we conclude, for substantially the reasons stated by the District Court in its well-reasoned order, *Rollock v. LaBarbera,*No. 09-civ-5736 (S.D.N.Y. Jun. 23, 2009), that Rollack’s claim is barred by *res judicata.*

Finally, we hold that Rollock’s attempt to invoke the “declaratory judgment exception” is unavailing. “As this Court has previously stated, the declaratory judgment exception to the application of the doctrine of *res judicata*applies when the prior action involved *only*a request for declaratory relief.” *Duane Reade, Inc. v. St. Paul Fire and Marine Ins. Co.,*600 F.3d 190, 196 (2d Cir.2010) (internal quotation marks omitted). Because Rollock’s prior claim sought injunctive as well as declaratory relief, *see Rollock v. Stine,*Civ. A. 6:06-61, 2006 WL 950186 at *2 (E.D.Ky.2006), the declaratory judgment exception is unavailable. *See Giannone v. York Tape & Label, Inc.,*548 F.3d 191, 194 (2d Cir.2008).

CONCLUSION

We have considered each of defendant’s arguments on appeal and find them to be without merit. For the reasons stated above, we AFFIRM the judgment of the District Court.
[LETTERHEAD OF MCGLADREY & PULLEN, LLP]





                       CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS



The Board of Directors
First Federal Bancorporation
Bemidji, Minnesota


We hereby consent to the  incorporation  by reference in this Form 10-KSB in the
previously filed Registration  Statement of First Federal Bancorporation on Form
S-8 (No.  33-98242)  of our  report,  dated  October 26,  2001,  relating to the
consolidated   financial   statements  of  First  Federal   Bancorporation   and
subsidiaries.




                                        /s/ MCGLADREY & PULLEN, LLP




Duluth, Minnesota
December 18, 2001
Page 1 

Commodity Futures Trading Commission 

CEA CASES 

NAME: AMERICAN COMMODITY BROKERS, INC. AND PHYLLIS C. DEMPSTER 

DOCKET NUMBER: 185 

DATE: AUGUST 1, 1972 

DOCUMENT TYPE: CEASE AND DESIST ORDER 

Docket No. 185 

Name: American Commodity Brokers, Inc. Phyllis C. Dempster 

1. Effective on the date of service of this order upon respondeat American 

Commodity Brokers, Inc., it shall cease and desist from the activities set forth 

below. Effective on the date of service of this order upon respondeat Phyllis 

C. Dempster, she shall cease and desist from causing, aiding, abetting, 

counseling, commanding or inducing American Commodity Brokers, Inc., or any 

other futures commission merchant to engage in the activities set forth below. 

a. Engaging as futures commission merchant without meeting the minimum 

financial requirements prescribed by section 1.17 of the regulations issued 

under the Commodity Exchange Act (17 CFR 1.17). 

b. Failing to maintain in segregation sufficient funds to pay all credits and 

equities due to its customers trading in commodity futures subject to the 

provisions of the Commodity Exchange Act. 

c. Failing to make a computation and permanent record, as of the close of the 

market on each business day, of the amount of money, securities, and property 

required to be held in segregated account as provided in section 1.32 of the 

regulations (17 CFR 1.32). 

d. Making material false statements in financial reports submitted to the 

Commodity Exchange Authority. 

e. Failing and refusing to remit to its customers money due and owing by it 

to such customers in connection with transactions in commodities for future 

delivery which the corporation had made for the account and benefit of such 

customers. 

A copy of this Decision and Order shall be served on each of the parties and 

on each contract market. 

Done at Washington, D. C. 

AUG 1 1972 

LOAD-DATE: June 16, 2008 
Page 2
) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Office of Proceedings 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

U.S. COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION 


Three Lafayette Centre 


1155 21st Street, NW, Washington, DC 20581 


www.cftc.gov 

LIONEL BOYD, 

Complainant, 

v. 

ANTHONY JOSEPH CHOLLY, 

GREG ALAN PERLIN, and 

R.J. O'BRIEN & ASSOCIATES, LLC, 

Respondents. 

CFfC Docket No. 16-Roos 

Served electronically 

FINAL DECISION 

The parties have elected the Voluntary decisional procedure. By electing the 

Voluntary decisional procedure, the parties have waived: one, the opportunity for an 

oral hearing, two, the right to receive a written statement ofthe findings offact upon 

which the final decision is based, and three, the right to appeal this final decision to the 

Commission and to the U.S. Court ofAppeals.1 

After carefully reviewing the evidentiary record, 2 it has been concluded that 

complainant has failed to establish by a preponderance ofthe evidence any violations by 

respondents proximately causing damages. Accordingly, the complaint in this matter is 

dismissed. 

1 CFrC rules 12.1oo(b) and 12.106(c). 2 The evidentiary record consists of: complainant's complaint (including attached account summary), and 

closing statements; respondents' answer and closing statement; and account opening documents and 

monthly account and trade confirmation statements for complainant's account, and broker's notes and 

written communications concerning complainant's account, produced by respondents in reply to a rule 

12.34 discovery order. 
June 22, 2016. 

tf).L7/A/f<l--· P~McGuire, Judgment Officer 

2
**Exhibit 13.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION**

 

June 27, 2008

 

Securities and Exchange Commission100 F Street, N.E.Washington, D.C. 20549

 

Ladies and Gentlemen:

 

Thecertification set forth below is being submitted to the Securities and ExchangeCommission solely for the purpose of complying with Rule 13a-14(b) orRule 15d-14(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended(the “Exchange Act”) and Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of theUnited States Code.

 

GuillermoGully, the General Director of Corporate Matters, Marco Emilio Patuano, theGeneral Director of Operations and Valerio Cavallo, the Chief Financial Officerof Telecom Argentina S.A. (“Telecom”) each certifies that, to the best of hisknowledge:

 

1.              this Annual Reporton Form 20-F (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

2.              the informationcontained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of Telecom.

 
|   | By:    | /s/ Guillermo Gully      |
|--------|--------|-------------------------------|
|   |   | Name:                         | Guillermo Gully |
|   |   | Title:                        | General Director of Corporate Matters |
|   |   |                          |   |
|   |   |                          |   |
|   | By:    | /s/ Marco Emilio Patuano |
|   |   | Name:                         | Marco Emilio Patuano |
|   |   | Title:                        | General Director of Operations |
|   |   |                          |   |
|   |   |                          |   |
|   | By:    | /s/ Valerio Cavallo      |
|   |   | Name:                         | Valerio Cavallo |
|   |   | Title:                        | Chief Financial Officer |

 

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

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0000863832
<NAME> GEODYNE INSTITUTIONAL PENSION ENERGY INC LTD PARTNERSHIP P-5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                         351,565
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  157,553
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               509,118
<PP&E>                                      10,356,187
<DEPRECIATION>                               8,925,761
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,939,544
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                   1,939,544
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,939,544
<SALES>                                        341,315
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               343,314
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,142,162
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (798,848)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (798,848)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (798,848)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (6.78)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
#### MONSTER CABLE PRODUCTS, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. The QUEST GROUP (doing business as Audioquest), Defendant-Cross Appellant.

Nos. 06-1111, 06-1112.

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

Dec. 13, 2006.

Ian N. Feinberg, Michael A. Molano, Donald M. Falk, Joshua M. Masur, Mayer *994Brown Rowe *&*Maw LLP, Palo Alto, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

Christopher T. Holland, Lori L. Behun, Krieg Keller Sloan Reilleyn *&*Roman, San Franciso, CA, for Defendant-Cross Appellant.

Before GAJARSA, Circuit Judge, PLAGER, Senior Circuit Judge, and MOORE, Circuit Judge.

PLAGER, Senior Circuit Judge.

On the basis of District Judge Patel’s thorough claim construction, *Monster Cable Prods., Inc. v. The Quest Group,*No. 04-0005 (N.D.Cal. Mar. 18, 2005), and her comprehensive analysis of the infringement issues, both literal and under the doctrine of equivalents, *Monster Cable Prods., Inc. v. The Quest Group,*No. 04-0005, 2005 WL 1875466 (N.D.Cal. Aug.8, 2005), and after considering the parties’ briefs and arguments, we *affirm*the appealed judgment of the district court in all respects. In addition, we *affirm*the district court’s rulings on the issues raised in the cross-appeal.
#### Sergio PONCE-GUTIERREZ, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 06-74778.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Dec. 19, 2011.*

Filed Jan. 4, 2012.

Peter J. Musser, Esquire, Peter James Musser A Professional Corporation, Vista, CA, for Petitioner.

David V. Bernal, Esquire, Liza S. Murcia, Esquire, OIL, Colette J. Winston, Esquire, DOJ-U.S. Department Of Justice, *603Washington, DC, CAS-District Counsel, Esquire, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Diego, CA, Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.

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 **

Sergio Ponee-Gutierrez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order denying his motion to reopen. We review de novo questions of law, *Vargas-Hernandez v. Gonzales,*497 F.3d 919, 921 (9th Cir.2007), and we dismiss the petition for review.

Ponce-Gutierrez’s contention that he is not deportable because his convictions have been expunged is unavailing, regardless of the date the expungement took effect. *See Ramirez-Castro v. INS,*287 F.3d 1172, 1175 (9th Cir.2002) (holding that a conviction expunged in 1993 under California law retained its adverse immigration consequences). We therefore lack jurisdiction to review the order of deportation against Ponce-Gutierrez because he is deportable under 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(A)(ii) on the basis of two convictions under California Penal Code § 273.5(a), for which a sentence of at least one year may be imposed. *See*8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(C); *Ghahremani v. Gonzales,*498 F.3d 993, 998 n. 5 (9th Cir.2007) (8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(C) applies to the court’s review of the denial of a motion to reopen).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED.

**

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