alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 10.4


 


TRADEMARK
LICENSE EXTENSION AGREEMENT


 


This Extension Agreement dated as of August 1,
2005 is by and between Hallmark Licensing, Inc. (“Hallmark Licensing”) and
Crown Media United States, LLC (“Crown US”).


 


WHEREAS, Crown US and Hallmark Licensing have
previously entered into that certain Movie Channel Trademark License Agreement
between the parties dated as of January 1, 2004 as extended as of August 1,
2004 (the “License Agreement”); and


 


WHEREAS, the parties desire to further extend
the term of the License Agreement;


 


NOW, THEREFORE, Crown US and Hallmark
Licensing hereby agree as follows:


 


1.                                       The term of the
License Agreement shall be extended for an additional period terminating on September 1,
2006, subject to any earlier termination pursuant to the terms of the License
Agreement.


 


2.                                       Hallmark Hall of
Fame shall no longer be included as a Licensed Mark and Section 1(b) shall
be eliminated in its entirety.


 


3.                                       All other terms
and conditions of the License Agreement will remain unchanged and in full force
and effect.


 


IN WITNESS
WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Extension Agreement as of the
date set forth above.


 


 


	
  HALLMARK LICENSING, INC.

  
	
   

  
	
   

  
	
  By:

  	
   

  	
  Deanne R.
  Stedem

  	
   

  
	
   

  
	
  Title:

  	
   

  	
  Vice
  President

  	
   

  
	
   

  
	
   

  
	
  CROWN MEDIA UNITED STATES, LLC

  
	
   

  
	
  By:

  	
   

  	
  C. Stanford

  	
   

  
	
   

  
	
  Title:

  	
   

  	
  Vice
  President
Jose Cristino VELASQUEZ-LOPEZ, petitioner, v. Harold W. CLARKE, Director, Virginia Department of Corrections.

No. 16-5936.

Supreme Court of the United States

Nov. 7, 2016.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Virginia denied.
----

            COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 1488/2004

of 20 August 2004         

amending Council Regulation (EC) No 314/2004 concerning certain restrictive measures in respect of Zimbabwe

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 314/2004 of 19 February 2004 concerning certain restrictive measures in respect of Zimbabwe (1), and in particular Article 11(a) thereof,

Whereas:

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

Annex II to Regulation (EC) No 314/2004 is hereby amended in accordance with the Annex to this Regulation.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on the day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.

It shall apply from 1 May 2004.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 20 August 2004.

For the Commission

Christopher PATTEN            

Member of the Commission

----

(1)OJ L 55, 24.2.2004, p. 1.

----

ANNEX

Annex II to Regulation (EC) No 314/2004 is amended as follows:

----
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

July 31, 2006 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

130871 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

DONNA JOSEPH, a/k/a DONNA Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman, YOUNG-JOSEPH, Justices Plaintiff-Appellant, 

v SC: 130871 

 COA: 257651 

Kent CC: 03-005528-NO 

DENNY'S, INC., and CRYSTAL 

CARPET CARE, INC.,

 Defendants-Appellees. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the February 23, 2006 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the question presented should be reviewed by this Court. 

l0724 

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

July 31, 2006 

 Clerk
Jose Felipe VELASCO, petitioner, v. Stuart SHERMAN, Warden.

No. 16-5702.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 31, 2016.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.
Page 1 

Commodity Futures Trading Commission 

CEA CASES 

NAME: MELVIN MILLER AND DOMINICK F. AUCIELLO 

DOCKET NUMBER: 151 

DOCUMENT TYPE: ISSUANCE OF COMPLAINT 

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Commodity Exchange Authority 

Washington, D. C. 20250 

ISSUANCE OF COMPLAINT - CEA DOCKET NO. 151 

(Administrative Hearing Under the Commodity Exchange Act) 

A complaint and notice of hearing has been signed by the Assistant Secretary 

of Agriculture, charging violation of the Commodity Exchange Act by: 

Melvin Miller and 

Dominick F. Auciello 

(New York, New York) 

The complaint charges that on May 10, 1967, the respondents, registered floor 

brokers handling orders received from a futures commission merchant, cheated and 

defrauded customers of such futures commission merchant and caused false reports 

and false records to be made. In addition, the complaint charges that the 

respondents deceived the futures commission merchant. 

The issuance of a complaint under the Commodity Exchange Act does not 

constitute proof of violation of the law. Such violation is established only 

when the Judicial Officer of the Department has made a determination that the 

evidence substantiates allegations in the complaint. Complaints are filed in 

the Office of the Hearing Clerk of the Department of Agriculture and are a 

matter of public record. Pending disposition by the Judicial Officer, it is the 

policy of the Commodity Exchange Authority not to comment or elaborate on 

charges contained in complaints or to discuss evidence on which they are based. 

A public hearing on the complaint is scheduled to be held before a referee at 

10:00 a.m., local time, on February 28, 1968, in New York, New York. 

LOAD-DATE: June 16, 2008 
Page 2
COMMENT 

To whom it may concern: 

I have been a broker/trader for almost 20 years. I execute customer orders and trade for 

my personal account in the Coffee and Cocoa option rings on the ICE trading floor in New York. I'm 

writing in reference to "the proposed rules for trading off the centralized markets". I understand that 

you are seeking comments and I would like to comment on 'Block trading" quantities. I am very glad to 

hear this. I believe "non competitive trading" (block trades) should be rethought .Is it necessary in every 

market, and If so, who should make the decisions and regulations regarding "non competitive trading". 

I have, in the past, expressed my displeasure with "non competitive trading" because it 

takes the "transparency" out of the markets. My opinions and those of my colleagues have fallen on 

deaf ears. So that being said, I would like to make a suggestion on how we could implement the right 

quantities for a "non competitive trade". Every market is unique in its own right, so when determining 

minimum quantities for "non competitive trading", we should let the product committees for each 

particular commodity determine the quantity size. I do not think the exchanges should dictate what size 

is acceptable. Most exchanges are publicly traded companies and their responsibilities are to their share 

holders. They are interested in volume and cater to the large hedge funds, not the everyday users of the 

products. 

So in conclusion, let the product committees for each particular product determine 

quantity size for a "non competitive trade". They are, after all, the professionals. 

Michael Apollonio 

_ .. i.
NUMBER 13-20-00197-CR

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI – EDINBURG

 

OSCAR G. HERNANDEZ, Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee.

On appeal from the 226th District Court

of Bexar County, Texas.

ORDER

Before Justices Benavides, Hinojosa, and Silva

Order Per Curiam

 On March 3, 2021, counsel for appellant filed an Anders brief and a motion to 

withdraw in this cause. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738,744 (1967). On March 

9, 2021 and March 29, 2021, the Clerk of this Court issued notices to appellant’s

counsel, the Honorable Patrick Montgomery, that the brief filed was not in compliance 

with Kelly v State, 436 S.W.3d 313 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014). Specifically, we noted that
2

Mr. Montgomery provided appellant with the mailing address for this Court in order to

return the form motion for pro se access to the appellate record. See Anders v. 

California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967) and Kelly, 436 S.W.3d 313. To date, Mr. Montgomery 

has failed to comply with this Court’s instructions.

 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Honorable Patrick Montgomery, 

counselor for appellant, file documentary evidence in compliance with the abovereferenced requirements with this Court on or before ten (10) days after the date of this 

order.

PER CURIAM

Do not publish.

TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).

Delivered and filed on the

21st day April, 2021.
EXHIBIT 13.2





CERTIFICATION OF
CHIEF FINANCIAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER
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 Annual Report on Form
20-F/A of IRSA Inversiones y Representaciones Sociedad Anónima
(the “Company”) for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2016
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
hereof (the “Report”), Matias Gaivironsky, as Chief Financial and
Administrative Officer of the Company, hereby certifies, pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:





(1)The Report fully complies with
the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities and
Exchange Act of 1934, except as disclosed in “Item 15.
Controls and Procedures ̶  A. Disclosure Controls
and Procedures” of the Report; and





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








IRSA Inversiones y Representaciones Sociedad
AnónimaMarch
23, 2017.
By:
/s/ Matías
GaivironskyMatías
GaivironskyChief
Financial and Administrative Officer





This certification accompanies the Report pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except as to the
extent required by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed
by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities and
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
Dorothy Lee ANDERSON, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES, et al.

No. 16-6160.

Supreme Court of the United States

Nov. 14, 2016.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit denied.
Page 1 

Commodity Futures Trading Commission 

CEA CASES 

NAME: SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE V. ABRAHAM ARTHUR BANK 

DOCKET NUMBER: 4 

DATE: MAY 13, 1937 

DOCUMENT TYPE: COMPLAINT 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

BEFORE THE SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE 

Docket No. 4 C.E.A. 

Secretary of Agriculture, Complainant, v. Abraham Arthur Bank, Respondent. 

Complaint and notice of hearing on the suspension or revocation of 

registration under the Commodity Exchange Act 

Abraham Arthur Bank, hereinafter called the registrant, having filed with the 

Department of Agriculture on August 22, 1936, an application on form 1-R for 

registration as futures commission merchant pursuant to the Commodity Exchange 

Act and the rules and regulations of the Secretary of Agriculture; and the said 

registration having been issued by the Secretary of Agriculture on September 1, 

1936; and 

The Secretary of Agriculture having reason to believe that 

(a) The said registrant is presently suspended from membership in a commodity 

exchange, namely, the Chicago Open Board of Trade, pursuant to the action of the 

board of directors of that exchange on March 24, 1937; and 

(b) The said registrant has violated section 305 of the rules and regulations 

governing registration, as amended, made and promulgated by the Secretary of 

Agriculture pursuant to the Commodity Exchange Act, by reason of the said 

registrant's having failed to report on form 3-R the fact of the suspension 

referred to in (a) above, within ten days after the date thereof, which rendered 

the information stated under Item 14 of the application aforesaid no longer 

accurate; 

WHEREFORE, the said Abraham Arthur Bank is hereby notified to be and appear 

at a hearing to be held at 10:00 o'clock a.m., Eastern Standard Time, on the 

seventh day of June 1937, at the office of the Commodity Exchange 

Administration, United States Department of Agriculture, Washington, D. C., 

before a referee to be designated by the Secretary of 

Agriculture to conduct such hearing, and then and there show cause if any there 

be, why the registration of the said registrant should not be suspended or 

revoked. 

IT IS ORDERED that this complaint and notice of hearing be served on the said 

Abraham Arthur Bank by an employee of the Department of Agriculture or by 

registered mail at least three days prior to the date herein set for hearing. 

(SEAL) 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Secretary of Agriculture has hereunto set his hand 

and caused the official seal of the Department of Agriculture to be affixed in 

the city of Washington, this 13th day of May 1937. 

(Signed) H.A. Wallace 
Page 2 

Secretary of Agriculture. 

LOAD-DATE: June 11, 2008 
Page 3
## NO. 12

- 15

- 00165

- CV

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

TYLER, TEXAS

TREY BECK, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS EXECUTOR OF THE ESTA TE OF HAYDEN RUSSELL, DEC E A SE D

V.

DALE BLANTON RUSSELL AND LORETTA KINGSLEY, APPELLEE S §

§

§ APPEAL FR OM THE 217TH

JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT

ANGELINA COUNTY, TEX AS

MEMORANDUM OPINION PER CURIAM This appeal is being dismissed because Appellant has failed, after notice, to pay or make arrangements to pay the trial court clerk’s fee for preparing the clerk’ s record. The trial court’s judgment was signed on May 8, 2015 , and Appellant timely filed a notice of appeal. The clerk’s
record was due on September 8, 2015 . On September 9, 2015 , this court notified the trial court
clerk that the record had not been filed. The clerk responded on October 7, 2015, by filing a motion for extension of time to file the clerk’s record. In the motion, the clerk stated that the reason for the delay in filing was that Appellant had not made a claim of indigence and had faile d to either pay or make arrangements to pay for the prep aring of the clerk’s record. On that same
date , this court informed Appellant that, pursuant to rules of appellate procedure 37.3(b) and 42.3(c), the appeal would be dismissed unless proof of full pa yment to the clerk was provided to
this court no later than October 19, 2015

. The October 19, 2015 deadline has now passed, and Appellant has neither provided proof of full payment nor otherwise responded to this court’s notice. Accordingly, the appeal i s dismissed

. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 37.3(b), 42.3(c). Opinion delivered October 21, 2015. Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J., and Neeley, J. ( PUBLISH )

## COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT OF TEXAS

JUDGMENT

OCTOBER 2 1 , 2015

NO. 12

- 15

- 00165

- CV

TREY BECK, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS EXECUTOR OF THE ESTATE OF HAY DEN RUSSELL, DEC EASED Appellant V. DALE BLANTON RUSSELL AND LORETTA KINGSLEY , Appellee s

Appeal from the 217th District Court of Angelina County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. CV

- 01158

- 12

- 02) THIS CAUSE came to be heard on the appellate record; and the same being considered, it is the opinion of this court that this appeal should be dismissed.

It is therefore ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED by this court that this appeal be, and the same is, hereby dismissed ; and that this decision be certified to the court
below for observance.

By per curiam opinion

. Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J. and Neeley, J.
No. —, original.

#### Texas *v.*New York et al.

December 21, 1936.

A rule is ordered to issue, returnable within forty days from this date, requiring the respondents to show cause why leave to file the bill of complaint should not be granted.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
     The Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements
     for the period ended December 27, 1997
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              OCT-03-1998
<PERIOD-START>                                 SEP-28-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                   DEC-27-1997
<CASH>                                         8363
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  2210
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    2880
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               14471
<PP&E>                                         753
<DEPRECIATION>                                 0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 22218
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          4223
<BONDS>                                        9
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       10
<OTHER-SE>                                     17976
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   22218
<SALES>                                        2418
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               2538
<CGS>                                          1495
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  1495
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               2742
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             11
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (1710)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (514)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (1196)
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (1196)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  (0.17)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (0.17)
        

</TABLE>
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

NASSIR NAZAROVICH KOURBANOV,

AKA Milan F. Fargo, AKA Milan Frank

Fargo,

Plaintiff

- Appellant,

v.

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND

SECURITY,

Defendant

- Appellee. No. 19

- 15560

D.C. No. 1:16

- cv

- 00024

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of the Northern Mariana Islands

Ramona V . Manglona

, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted May 6, 2020 * *

Before: BERZON, N.R. SMITH, and MILLER, Circuit Judges

.

Nassir Nazarovich Kourbanov, AKA Milan F. Fargo , AKA Milan Frank

Fargo, appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his actio n

seeking mandamus relief and disclosure of records under the Freedom of

* 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

MAY 12 2020

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS2 19

- 15560

Information Act (“FOIA”). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We

review de novo. Kwan v. SanMedica Int’l , 854 F.3d 1088, 1093 (9th Cir. 2017)

(dismissal under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6)) ; Watison v. Carter , 668 F.3d 1108, 1112

(9th Cir. 2012) (dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii)) ; In re Gallagher

,

548 F.3d 713, 716 (9th Cir. 2008) ( denial of mandamus) . We affirm.

The district court properly denied Fargo’s mandamus claims because Fargo

failed to allege facts sufficient to demonstrate entitlement to mandamus relief. See

Patel v. Reno

, 134 F.3d 929, 931 (9th Cir. 1997) ( stating that mandamus is an

“extraordinary reme dy” and setting forth the requirements for mandamus relief ).

T he district court properly dismissed Fargo’s claims related to his FOIA

request because Fargo failed to exhaust administrative remedies. See In re Steele

,

799 F.2d 461, 465 (9th Cir. 1986) (“Exhaustion of

. . . administrative remedies is

required under the FOIA before that party can seek judicial review.”).

We reject as meritless Fargo’s contentions that the district court erred by

consolidating his cases and by refusing to adjudicate the history of his immigration

status dating back to 2002.

We do not consider documents not filed with the district court. See United

States v. Elias , 921 F.2d 870, 874 (9th Cir. 1990).

All pending motions are denied.

AFFIRMED.
**EXHIBIT 23.2**

 

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS**

 

Storage Computer Corporation 

Nashua, NewHampshire 

 

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in theRegistration Statements on Forms S-8 (No. 333-48987, and No. 333-69536, and No. 333-31207) of our audit report dated February 21, 2003, relating to the consolidated financial statements of Storage Computer Corporation appearing in the Company’sAnnual report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2003. 

 

/s/ BDO SEIDMAN, LLP 

 

Boston, Massachusetts

April 14, 2004
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0000850625
<NAME> CHRISKEN GROWTH & INCOME LP II

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                         105,727
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               281,390
<PP&E>                                       5,675,663
<DEPRECIATION>                                 642,378
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               5,314,675
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          184,039
<BONDS>                                      4,581,539
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                     549,097
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 5,314,675
<SALES>                                        946,388
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,003,455
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  725,042
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             248,322
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 30,091
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             30,091
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    30,091
<EPS-BASIC>                                       2.35
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     2.35


</TABLE>