alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
```

[Federal Register: September 22, 1997 (Volume 62, Number 183)]
[Notices]
[Page 49498]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr22se97-40]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION


Sunshine Act Meeting

Agency Holding the Meeting: Commodity Futures Trading Commission.

Time and Date: 2:00 p.m., Monday, October 27, 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. 97-25198 Filed 9-18-97; 11:28 am]
BILLING CODE 6351-01-M
```

----

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

----
EXHIBIT 32.1

**CERTIFICATIONS PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

**(18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)**

Pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code), each of the undersigned officers of Portlogic Systems Inc., a Nevada corporation (the "Company"), does hereby certify, to such officer's knowledge, that:

The quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the three month period ended August 31, 2010 (the "Form 10-Q") of the Company fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and the information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

Date: March 31, 2011

/s/  Rafik Jallad

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

By:  Rafik Jallad

Chief Executive Officer

Date: March 31, 2011

/s/  Jueane Thiessen

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

By:  Jueane Thiessen

Principal Accounting Officer, and Treasurer
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                           1,522
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   41,767
<ALLOWANCES>                                       567
<INVENTORY>                                     33,406
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                76,593
<PP&E>                                          43,254
<DEPRECIATION>                                  11,694
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 108,216
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           25,182
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            71
<OTHER-SE>                                      50,976
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   108,216
<SALES>                                         55,131
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                55,131
<CGS>                                           44,660
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    3,511
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    96
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 363
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  6,597
<INCOME-TAX>                                     2,540
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              4,057
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     4,057
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .56
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .56
        

</TABLE>
Page 1 

Commodity Futures Trading Commission 

CEA CASES 

NAME: BENEDICT K. GOODMAN 

DOCKET NUMBER: 81 

DATE: OCTOBER 27, 1959 

DOCUMENT TYPE: EXTENSION OF TIME AND STAY ORDER 

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

BEFORE THE SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE 

In re Benedict K. Goodman, Respondent 

CEA Docket No. 81 

Extension of Time and Stay Order 

Respondent has requested an extension of time for the filing of a petition 

for reconsideration of the decision and order entered October 12, 1959 (18 

Agric. Dec. (18 A.D.)) and a stay of such decision and order pending action upon 

the petition for reconsideration. Accordingly, the time for filing a petition 

for reconsideration is extended to and includes November 12, 1959, and the 

effective date of the sanctions ordered October 12, 1959, is postponed until 

further order in this proceeding. 

Copies hereof shall be served upon the parties and the contract markets. 

Done at Washington, D. C. 

October 27, 1959 

Thomas J. Flavin 

Judicial Officer 

LOAD-DATE: June 12, 2008 
Page 2
Page 1 

Commodity Futures Trading Commission 

CEA CASES 

NAME: GEORGE SIROTA AND SONS, GEORGE SIROTA, NORMAN L. SIROTA, BENJAMIN SIROTA, 

HARRY A. ASPINWALL, AND DYKE CULLUM 

CITATION: 12 Agric. Dec. 947 

DOCKET NUMBER: 54 

DATE: AUGUST 26, 1953 

DOCUMENT TYPE: ORDER MODIFYING EFFECTIVE DATE 

(No. 3592) 

In re GEORGE SIROTA AND SONS, GEORGE SIROTA, NORMAN L. SIROTA, BENJAMIN SIROTA, 

HARRY A. ASPINWALL, AND DYKE CULLUM. CEA Docket No. 54. Decided August 26, 

1953. 

Postponement of Effective Date of Order

Pending action upon complainant's motion for clarification of the order of 

July 31, 1953, the effective date of that order is postponed insofar as it 

applies to the suspension of the registration of G. S. and Sons as a futures 

commission merchant, and the registration of S. and Company as a futures 

commission merchant, and the order of July 31, 1953 shall become effective on 

September 1, 1953 with respect to the suspensions of the registration of 

respondents N. L. S., B. S. and H. A. A. as floor brokers under the act and with 

respect to the refusal of trading privileges to D. C. 

Mr. Benjamin M. Holstein for Commodity Exchange Authority. 

Decision by Thomas J. Flavin, Judicial Officer

ORDER MODIFYING EFFECTIVE DATE

On August 18, 1953, the complainant in this disciplinary proceeding under the 

Commodity Exchange Act (7 U.S.C. Chapter 1) filed a motion for clarification of 

the order entered in this proceeding on July 31, 1953, effective September 1, 

1953. The motion seeks a supplemental order making it clear that the ordered 

suspension of the registration of George Sirota and Sons as a futures commission 

merchant under the act applies also to the registration of Sirota and Company, a 

partnership registered after the issuance of the referee's report in this 

proceeding consisting of the same partners as George Sirota and Sons with one 

additional partner. 

Pending action upon the complainant's motion, the effective date of the order 

of July 31, 1953, is postponed insofar as it applies to the suspension of the 

registration of George Sirota and Sons as a futures commission merchant and the 

registration of Sirota and Company as a futures commission merchant. The order 

of July 31, 1953, shall become effective on September 1, 1953, with respect to 

the suspensions of the registrations of respondents 

Norman L. Sirota, Benjamin Sirota and Harry A. Aspinwall as floor brokers under 

the act and with respect to the refusal of trading privileges to Dyke Cullum. 

Copies hereof shall be served upon the parties and the contract markets under 

the act by registered mail or in person. 

LOAD-DATE: June 8, 2008 
Page 2
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Daryl Andre FULLER, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 11-7625.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: March 29, 2012.

Decided: April 3, 2012.

Daryl Andre Fuller, Appellant Pro Se. Arthur Bradley Parham, Assistant United States Attorney, Florence, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Before WILKINSON, KING, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Daryl Andre Fuller appeals the district court’s order denying his motion for reduction of sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2006). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. *United States v. Fuller,*No. 7:98-cr-00076-HMH-1 (D.S.C. Nov. 16, 2011). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal con*153tentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*AFFIRMED.*
[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 116 (Friday, June 15, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Page 32624]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-15274]


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

FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM


Sunshine Act Meeting

Agency Holding the Meeting: Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve 
System.

Time and Date: 10:00 a.m., Wednesday, June 20, 2001.

Place: Marriner S. Eccles Federal Reserve Board Building, 20th and C 
Streets, NW., Washington, DC 20551.

Status: Closed.

Matters to be Considered:   
1. Personnel actions (appointments, promotions, assignments, 
reassignments, and salary actions) involving individual Federal Reserve 
System employees.
2. Any items carried forward from a previously announced meeting.

Contact Person for More Information: Michelle A. Smith, Assistant to 
the Board; 202-452-3204.

Supplementary Information: You may call 202-452-3206 beginning at 
approximately 5 p.m. two business days before the meeting for a 
recorded announcement of bank and bank holding company applications 
scheduled for the meeting; or you may contact the Board's Web site at 
http://www.federalreserve.gov for an electronic announcement that not 
only lists applications, but also indicates procedural and other 
information about the meeting.

    Dated: June 12, 2001.
Robert deV. Frierson,
Associate Secretary of the Board.
[FR Doc. 01-15274 Filed 6-13-01; 11:29 am]
BILLING CODE 6210-01-P
#### Saturnino SANDOVAL, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 08-74646.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted May 25, 2010.*

Filed June 10, 2010.

Robert Bradford Jobe, Esquire, Law Offices of Robert B. Jobe, San Francisco, CA, for Petitioner.

Saturnino Sandoval, Eloy, AZ, pro se.

Kate Deboer Balaban, Esquire, Trial, Justin Robert Markel, Trial, OIL, Daniel Shieh, Esquire, Trial, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Ronald E. LeFevre, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.

Before: CANBY, THOMAS, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Saturnino Sandoval, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision finding him removable. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo questions of law, *Delgado-Hernandez v. Holder,*582 F.3d 930, 932 (9th Cir.2009) (per curiam), and we deny the petition for review.

The agency properly determined that Sandoval is removable as an aggravated felon under 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii) because his conviction under California Penal Code § 207(a) for kidnapping is a crime of violence as defined by 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(F). *See id.*at 933 (kidnapping is categorically a crime of violence under 18 U.S.C. § 16(b) because “all kidnapping cases carry a substantial risk that force will be used”).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

No. DA 22-0529

STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee,

v.

JASSIE LAYDELL WESTERMAN,

Defendant and Appellant.

ORDER

Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, 

and good cause appearing,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension 

of time to and including September 29, 2023, within which to prepare, 

file, and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

August 23 2023

08/23/2023

Case Number: DA 22-0529
Page 1 

Commodity Futures Trading Commission 

CEA CASES 

NAME: ROY D. SIMMONS 

DOCKET NUMBER: 149 

DOCUMENT TYPE: ISSUANCE OF COMPLAINT 

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Commodity Exchange Authority 

Washington, D. C. 20250 

ISSUANCE OF COMPLAINT - CEA DOCKET NO. 149 

(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: 

Roy D. Simmons 

(Chicago, Illinois) 

The complaint charges that the respondent exceeded the limits on speculative 

positions in potato futures during the period September 11, 1967, through 

September 19, 1967. 

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 December 13, 1967, in Chicago, Illinois. 

LOAD-DATE: June 16, 2008 
Page 2
#### Inderjit KAUR, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 05-72088.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Dee. 4, 2006.*

Filed Dec. 12, 2006.

George P. Mann, Esq., Farmington, MI, for Petitioner.

Ronald E. LeFevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department Of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Carol Federighi, Esq., U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Div./Offiee of Immigration Lit., Justin M. Sandberg, U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division, Federal Programs Branch, Washington, DC, for Respondent.

*688Before: GOODWIN, RYMER and FISHER, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Inderjit Kaur, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) decision dismissing her appeal from an Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) denial of her application for asylum and withholding of removal, and request for relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence and will uphold the BIA’s and IJ’s decisions unless the evidence compels a contrary conclusion. *Malhi v. INS,*336 F.3d 989, 992-93 (9th Cir.2003). We deny the petition.

Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s and IJ’s denial of asylum based on an adverse credibility finding. Kaur testified inconsistently regarding matters that go to the heart of her claim, including the circumstances surrounding her brother’s arrest, whether the police continue to search for her, and whether her brother and father were released shortly after their last arrest or were still detained when she came to the United States. *See Li v. Ashcroft,*378 F.3d 959, 962-63 (9th Cir. 2004).

Because Kaur failed to establish eligibility for asylum, she necessarily failed to meet the more stringent standard for withholding of removal. *See Farah v. Ashcroft,*348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir.2003).

Because Kaur’s claim under the CAT is based on the same testimony that the IJ found not credible, and she points to no other evidence that she could claim the IJ should have considered in making its CAT determination, her CAT claim also fails. *See id.*at 1157.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                       3,187,906
<SECURITIES>                                 1,893,830
<RECEIVABLES>                                   47,979
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             5,129,715
<PP&E>                                         108,650
<DEPRECIATION>                                (54,394)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               5,621,293
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          504,646
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         7,121
<OTHER-SE>                                   5,109,526
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 5,621,293
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                           (1,997,082)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (1,820,614)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (1,820,614)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (1,820,614)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.28)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
Exhibit 10.9

 

Spousal Consent

 

The undersigned, Xu Xiaoping, a citizen of Canada with Passport Number: ******, is the lawful spouse of Chen Ling, a PRC citizen with PRC Identification Card No.: ******.  I hereby unconditionally and irrevocably agree to the execution of the following documents (hereinafter referred to as the “Transaction Documents”) by Chen Ling on June 18th, 2013, and the disposal of the equity interests of Beijing Dasheng Zhixing Technology Co., Ltd.  (“Dasheng Zhixing”) held by Chen Ling and registered in his/her name according to the following documents:

 

(1)                                 The Equity Interest Pledge Agreement entered into between Beijing Dasheng Online Technology Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the “WFOE”) and Dasheng Zhixing;

 

(2)                                 The Exclusive Option Agreement entered into between the WFOE and Dasheng Zhixing;

 

(3)                                 The Power of Attorney executed by Chen Ling.

 

I hereby undertake not to make any assertions in connection with the equity interests of Dasheng Zhixing which are held by Chen Ling.  I hereby further confirm that Chen Ling can perform the Transaction Documents and further amend or terminate the Transaction Documents without the authorization or consent from me.

 

I hereby undertake to execute all necessary documents and take all necessary actions to ensure appropriate performance of the Transaction Documents (as may be amended from time to time).

 











 

I hereby agree and undertake that if I obtain any equity interests of Dasheng Zhixing which are held by Chen Ling for any reasons, I shall be bound by the Transaction Documents and the Exclusive Business Cooperation Agreement entered into between the WFOE and Dasheng Zhixing as of June 18th, 2013 (the “Exclusive Business Cooperation Agreement”) (as may be amended from time to time) and comply with the obligations thereunder as a shareholder of Dasheng Zhixing.  For this purpose, upon the WFOE’s request, I shall sign a series of written documents in substantially the same format and content as the Transaction Documents and the Exclusive Business Cooperation Agreement (as may be amended from time to time).

 

	
/s/ Xu Xiaoping
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
Xu Xiaoping
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
Date: June 18,   2013
# FCM Data September 2015

SELECTED FCM FINANCIAL DATA AS OF September 30,&KFF0000 &K0000002015FROM REPORTS FILED BY October 27,&KFF0000 &K0000002015	&P of &N
#### MARS, INCORPORATED and Mars Electronics International, INC., Plaintiffs/Counterclaim Defendants-Appellees, and M&M/Mars Incorporated, Counterclaim Defendant-Appellee, v. COIN ACCEPTORS, INC., Defendant/Counterclaimant-Appellant.

No. 2006-1144.

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

Dec. 8, 2006.

Rehearing and Rehearing En Banc Denied Jan. 19, 2007.

LINN, Circuit Judge and FRIEDMAN and PLAGER, Senior Circuit Judges.

Judgment

PER CURIAM.

This CAUSE having been heard and considered, it is ORDERED and ADJUDGED:

*AFFIRMED. See*Fed. Cir. R. 36.
Exhibit 10.4


 


2005
EXECUTIVE BONUS PLAN


 


	
  Eligibility:

  	
  Eligible employees are all officers of the company
  with the title of vice president or above.

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Target Bonus:

  	
  Target bonuses for each eligible employee will be
  determined by the Compensation Committee based on input from the Chief
  Executive Officer.

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Actual Bonus:

  	
  A bonus payout ratio will be calculated, based on the
  Company’s performance to specific objectives, using the methodology described
  in this plan. The target bonus of each employee will be multiplied by the
  bonus payout ratio to calculate the actual bonus.

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Payments:

  	
  Bonuses will be payable 45 days after the end of the
  fiscal year.

  



 


Company Objectives:


 


Bonuses will be based on performance to the
following five objectives.  Specific criteria
under each objective will be determined by the Compensation Committee based on
input from the Chief Executive Officer.


 


	
  A.

  	
  Product Development

  
	
  B.

  	
  Technology Qualification

  
	
  C.

  	
  New Product Design-Ins

  
	
  D.

  	
  New Product Revenue

  
	
  E.

  	
  Total Revenue

  



 


Calculation of Bonus Payout Ratio:


 


Performance to each objective will be determined and a
weighting factor will be calculated for each objective.  The weighting factors will be determined by the Compensation Committee
based on input from the Chief Executive Officer.  The weighting factors for each objective will
then be added.  Bonus payout ratios will
then be calculated as follows:


 


	
  •

  	
   

  	
  Group A:

  	
   

  	
  Bonus Payout Ratio

  	
  =

  	
   

  	
  50% + Sum of Weighting Factors

  



 





 





















 


	
  •

  	
   

  	
  Group B:

  	
   

  	
  Bonus Payout Ratio

  	
  =

  	
   

  	
  Sum of Weighting Factors

  



 


Bonus Payment Approval:


 


Performance to objectives, weighting factors and individual bonuses
will be calculated by the Company and presented during the February 2006
Compensation Committee meeting.  All
individual bonuses will be approved by the Compensation Committee prior to
employee distribution.