alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Fifth Season International Inc.: Exhibit 10.11 - Filed by newsfilecorp.com






Exhibit 10.11

Agreement for Sale of Property  


Party A: Zibo Tongxinde Trade Co., Ltd.(Sellor)


Party B: Shandong the Fifth Season Commercial
Investment Co., Ltd.(Purchaser) 

	General Information 



	Pursuant to the contract entered on December 21, 2009, Party B will buy
  the property from Party A, located in the business building, from the third
  floor to the fourth floor, of No. 9 Chengdong Banshichu Street, Boshan
  District, Zibo City, Shandong Province and covered approximately 15,509.42
  sq.m., with the use right tothe outside square of 3200 sq.m. and underground
  garage of 7748.39 sq.m.. 




	Fees of the Property and Payment Arrangement 



  	
      The total fees of the property will be RMB 45,000,000
      yuan.

	
      1st payment: RMB 10,000,000 yuan within 15
      days after the assignment of this agreement as earnest money

      2 nd payment: RMB 15,000,000 yuan by February 1,
      2010

      3 rd payment: RMB 10,000,000 yuan by March 1,
      2010

      4 th payment: RMB 10,000,000 yuan by April 1,
      2010





	Handover Arrangement and Transfer of Risk 



	Party A and Party B will perform the handover procedure on December 25,
  2009 (temporarily designated handover date and subject to actual handover
  date) and the risk of the property will transfer from Party A to Party B on
  the actual day of handover. 




	Guarantee of Party A 



	Party A guarantees to own the ownership right to the said property and
  totally entitled to sell the property. In addition, the property has no
  mortgage on it and Party A has paid off all of the necessary costs for the
  building of the property. 




	Guarantee of Party B 



	Party B guarantees to be fully authorized to purchase the property and
  will pay to Party A as scheduled. 




	Breach of the Agreement 



	When Party A breaches the contract and leads the performance of the
  contract unavailable, Party A shall bear the responsibility of breach of the
  contract, pay the indemnities to Party B and pay the liquidated damages to
  Party B according to either 1‰ of the total amount of the property payment per
  day, or double earnest money penalty provision.
  
	When Party B breaches the contract, Party B shall bear the responsibility
  of breach of the contract, pay the indemnities to Party A. If Party B fails to
  pay as scheduled, Party B shall pay
the liquidated damages to Party A at the rate of 0.3‰ of the due payment per day. 











	
Headlines of the articles omitted



	
Confidentiality
	
Validity, Modification and Termination of Contract
	
Force Majeure
	
Dispute Settlement
	
Miscellaneous











Signature Page 

Party A: Zibo Tongxinde Trade Co., Ltd. 

By: /seal/ Zibo Tongxinde Trade Co., Ltd. 

Date: December 21, 2009 

Party B: The Fifth Season Shandong Commercial Investment &
Management Co., Ltd. 

By: /seal/ The Fifth Season Shandong Commercial Investment & Management Co.,
Ltd. 

Date: December 21, 2009
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

**Certification of CEO and CFO Pursuant to18 U.S.C. Section 1350,as Adopted Pursuant toSection 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

 

In connection with theQuarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Hard Rock Hotel, Inc. (the “Company”) for thethree month and nine month periods ended September 30, 2004 as filed withthe Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), PeterA. Morton, as Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and James D. Bowen, asChief Financial Officer of the Company, each hereby certifies, pursuant to 18U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Actof 2002, that, to the best of his knowledge:

 

(1)           The Report fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of1934; and

 

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

 
| /s/ Peter A.  Morton            |   |
|---------------------------------|--------|
| Name: Peter  A. Morton          |
| Title: Chief  Executive Officer |
| Date:  November 15, 2004        |
|                            |
| /s/ James D.  Bowen             |   |
| Name: James  D. Bowen           |
| Title: Chief  Financial Officer |
| Date:  November 15, 2004        |

 

This certification accompaniesthe Report pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shallnot, except to the extent required by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemedfiled by the Company for purposes of §18 of the Securities Exchange Act of1934, as amended.

 

----
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 7 (Wednesday, January 11, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 2748]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-627]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
[Docket No. RP95-28-001]


Williams Natural Gas Company; Proposed Changes in FERC Gas Tariff

January 5, 1995.
    Take notice that on December 30, 1994, Williams Natural Gas Company 
(WNG), tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff, Second 
Revised Volume No. 1, the following revised tariff sheets, with a 
proposed effective date of April 30, 1995:

Substitute Second Revised Sheet Nos. 227
Original Sheet Nos. 227A-227B
Substitute Second Revised Sheet No. 228
Substitute First Revised Sheet No. 229
Substitute Original Sheet Nos. 229A-229C

    WNG states that on October 31, 1994, it made a filing to amend 
Article 9 of the General Terms and Conditions of its tariff to provide 
for daily balancing penalties at receipt and delivery points where 95 
percent of volumes are measured by electronic flow measurement 
equipment. By order issued November 30, 1994, the Commission accepted 
and suspended the tariff sheets to become effective the earlier of 
April 30, 1995 or when the Commission completes its review of the 
technical conference required by the order, subject to refund and the 
outcome of the technical conference. WNG was required by the order to 
file revised tariff sheets that modify the language in Section 9.1(d) 
of the tariff to provide the specific conditions and procedures under 
which WNG will allow intra-day nominations. WNG states that Sheet Nos. 
227-227B in the instant filing are being filed to comply with the 
order. Sheet Nos. 228-229C are being filed for pagination purposes.
    WNG states that a copy of its filing was served on all participants 
listed on the service lists maintained by the Commission in the docket 
referenced above and on all of WNG's jurisdictional customers and 
interested state commissions.
    Any person desiring to protest said filing should file a protest 
with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 825 North Capitol Street 
NE., Washington, DC 20462, in accordance with Section 385.211 of the 
Commission's Rules and Regulations. All such protests should be filed 
on or before January 12, 1995. 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.
Lois D. Cashell,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 95-627 Filed 1-10-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

November 13, 2018

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-1722

Eccotemp Systems, LLC:

The purpose of this letter is to inform you that the product exclusion request referenced 

above has been denied. As you are aware, USTR published a Federal Register notice (83 FR 

28710) on June 20, 2018, that announced the Trade Representative’s determination to impose an 

additional duty of 25 percent on certain products from China. On July 11, 2018, the Trade 

Representative published a Federal Register notice (83 FR 32181) which announced that a 

process had been established under which interested persons could request that products falling 

within a covered HTSUS subheading be excluded from the additional duties announced on June 

20. 

Your request was reviewed in accordance with the factors and procedures set forth in 

Section B(1) of the July 11 notice. Based on that review, and after careful consideration, your 

request was denied because the request failed to show that this particular product is available 

only from China.

Because USTR will grant exclusion requests on a product specific basis, you may still 

benefit from a product exclusion if a similar product is granted an exclusion. Products for which 

an exclusion has been granted will be periodically announced on the USTR website. Product 

exclusions will become legally effective once published in the Federal Register. 

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Vaughn
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

November 19, 2018

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-2769

Price Pump Company:

The purpose of this letter is to inform you that the product exclusion request referenced 

above has been denied. As you are aware, USTR published a Federal Register notice (83 FR 

28710) on June 20, 2018, that announced the Trade Representative’s determination to impose an 

additional duty of 25 percent on certain products from China. On July 11, 2018, the Trade 

Representative published a Federal Register notice (83 FR 32181) which announced that a 

process had been established under which interested persons could request that products falling 

within a covered HTSUS subheading be excluded from the additional duties announced on June 

20. 

Your request was reviewed in accordance with the factors and procedures set forth in 

Section B(1) of the July 11 notice. Based on that review, and after careful consideration, your 

request was denied because the request failed to show that the imposition of additional duties on 

the particular product would cause severe economic harm to you or other U.S. interests.

Because USTR will grant exclusion requests on a product specific basis, you may still 

benefit from a product exclusion if a similar product is granted an exclusion. Products for which 

an exclusion has been granted will be periodically announced on the USTR website. Product 

exclusions will become legally effective once published in the Federal Register. 

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Vaughn
II 

117TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 3887 

To amend the West Los Angeles Leasing Act of 2016 with respect to the 

definition of land use revenue. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MARCH 21, 2022 

Mrs. FEINSTEIN (for herself and Mr. PADILLA) introduced the following bill; 

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Veterans’ Affairs 

A BILL 

To amend the West Los Angeles Leasing Act of 2016 with 

respect to the definition of land use revenue. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. DEFINITION OF LAND USE REVENUE UNDER 

4 WEST LOS ANGELES LEASING ACT OF 2016. 

5 Section 2(d)(2) of the West Los Angeles Leasing Act 

6 of 2016 (Public Law 114–226) is amended— 

7 (1) in subparagraph (A), by striking ‘‘; and’’ 

8 and inserting a semicolon; 

9 (2) by redesignating subparagraph (B) as sub10 paragraph (C); and 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 3887 IS

1 (3) by inserting after subparagraph (A) the fol2 lowing new subparagraph: 

3 ‘‘(B) any funds received as compensation 

4 for an easement described in subsection (e); 

5 and’’. 

Æ 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS
#### STATE v. GORDON DAWES.

(Filed 24 February, 1954.)

Appeal by defendant from *Bone, J.,*and a jury, at August Term, 1953, of Nash.

Criminal prosecution tried on appeal from the County Recorder’s Court upon a warrant charging the defendant with possession of nontax-paid whiskey for the purpose of sale.

From a verdict of guilty and judgment imposing penal servitude of six months, the defendant appeals, assigning errors.

*Attorney-General McMullan, Assistant Attorney-General Bruton, and Charles G. Powell, Jr., Member of Staff, for the State.*

*Davenport & Davenport, C. C. A.bernathy, and T. A. Burgess for defendant, appellant.*

Per Curiam.

This case involves no new question requiring extended discussion. A careful examination of the record leaves us with the im*536pression it is free of reversible or prejudicial error. The verdict and judgment will be upheld.

No error.

BaeNíiill, C. J., took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

________________

No. 11

- 2576

________________

IN RE: PETITION OF FRESCATI SHIPPING COMPANY, LTD., AS OWNER

OF THE M/T ATHOS I AND TSAKOS SHIPPING & TRADING, S.A.,

AS MANAGER OF THE ATHOS I FOR EXONERA TION FROM

OR LIMITATION OF LIABILITY

________________

No. 11

- 2577

________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Appellant

v.

CITGO ASPHALT REFINING COMPANY; CITGO PETROLEUM CORPORATION;

CITGO EAST COAST OIL CORPORATION

________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania

(D.C. Civil Action Nos. 2

- 05

- cv

- 00305 / 2

- 08

- cv

- 02898)

Trial District Judge: Honorable John P. Fullam

District Judge: Honorable Joel H. Slomsky 

__________ ______

Argued September 20, 2012

 Judge Slomsky was assigned to this matter following the retirement of Judge Fullam,

who presided at trial and ruled on the merits.2

Before: AMBRO, GREENAWAY, Jr., and O’MALLEY

,   Circuit Judge

(Opinion filed May 16 , 2013 )

ORDER AMENDING PRECEDENTIAL OPINION

AMBRO, Circuit Judge

IT IS NOW ORDERED that the published Op inion in the above case filed

May 16 , 2013 , be amended as follows:

On page 3

, third address from the top of the page, delete the name “George

M. Chalos, Esquire,” and change the firm name to “Chalos O’Connor, LLP.” The

reference should read:

Euge ne J. O’Connor, Esquire

Chalos O’Connor, LLP

366 Main Street

Port Washington, NY 11050

By the Court,

/s/ Thomas L. Ambro, Circuit Judge

Dated: May 23, 2013

  Honorable Kathleen M. O’Malley, United States Court of Appeals for the Federal

Circuit, sitting by designation

.
```
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 42 (Friday, March 3, 1995)]
[Corrections]
[Page 12034]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-5175]

                                                    VOL. 60, NO. 42

                                              Friday, March 3, 1995

Federal Register/Vol. 60, No. 42/Friday, March 3, 1995/Corrections
[[Page 12034]]

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Office of the Secretary

Base Closure and Realignments

Correction

    In notice document 95-5175 beginning on page 11414 in the issue of 
Wednesday, March 1, 1995, make the following correction:
    On page 11607, at the bottom of the page, the FR Doc. line was 
omitted and should read as set forth below:

[FR Doc. 95-5175 Filed 2-28-95; 12:01 pm]
BILLING CODE 5000-04-C

BILLING CODE 1505-01-D
```
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

July 3, 2019

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-2619

Speck Pumps-Pool Products, Inc: 

I am pleased to notify you that the United States Trade Representative has determined to 

grant the above-referenced exclusion request submitted pursuant to the notice published at 83 FR 

32181 (‘July 11 notice’). The exclusion determination is set out in a formal notice which has 

been submitted to Office of the Federal Register for publication (‘the exclusion notice’). A prepublication version of the exclusion notice has been posted on the USTR website, at 

https://ustr.gov/sites/default/files/enforcement/301Investigations/Notice_of_Product_Exclusions.

pdf. 

The scope of the exclusion is governed by the formal HTSUS language in the annex to 

the product exclusion notice, and not by the product descriptions set out in any particular request 

for exclusion. An exclusion in response to your request has been granted by excluding from the 

additional tariffs products covered by a specially drafted description contained in the annex to 

the product exclusion notice. 

In accordance with the July 11 notice, the exclusion applies as of the July 6, 2018 

effective date of the tariff action, and will extend for one year after the exclusion notice is 

published in the Federal Register. As stated in the exclusion notice, U.S. Customs and Border 

Protection will issue additional instructions on entry guidance and implementation

Sincerely,

Joseph Barloon

General Counsel
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

November 19, 2018

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-2666

Reelcraft Industries:

The purpose of this letter is to inform you that the product exclusion request referenced 

above has been denied. As you are aware, USTR published a Federal Register notice (83 FR 

28710) on June 20, 2018, that announced the Trade Representative’s determination to impose an 

additional duty of 25 percent on certain products from China. On July 11, 2018, the Trade 

Representative published a Federal Register notice (83 FR 32181) which announced that a 

process had been established under which interested persons could request that products falling 

within a covered HTSUS subheading be excluded from the additional duties announced on June 

20. 

Your request was reviewed in accordance with the factors and procedures set forth in 

Section B(1) of the July 11 notice. Based on that review, and after careful consideration, your 

request was denied because the request did not contain a sufficient product identification or was 

determined to be non-administrable.

Because USTR will grant exclusion requests on a product specific basis, you may still 

benefit from a product exclusion if a similar product is granted an exclusion. Products for which 

an exclusion has been granted will be periodically announced on the USTR website. Product 

exclusions will become legally effective once published in the Federal Register. 

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Vaughn
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

January 4, 2019

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-2642

Datacolor, Inc:

The purpose of this letter is to inform you that the product exclusion request referenced 

above has been denied. As you are aware, USTR published a Federal Register notice (83 FR

28710) on June 20, 2018, that announced the Trade Representative’s determination to impose an 

additional duty of 25 percent on certain products from China. On July 11, 2018, the Trade 

Representative published a Federal Register notice (83 FR 32181) which announced that a 

process had been established under which interested persons could request that products falling 

within a covered HTSUS subheading be excluded from the additional duties announced on June 

20. 

Your request was reviewed in accordance with the factors and procedures set forth in 

Section B(1) of the July 11 notice. Based on that review, and after careful consideration, your 

request was denied because the request failed to show that this particular product is available 

only from China.

Because USTR will grant exclusion requests on a product specific basis, you may still 

benefit from a product exclusion if a similar product is granted an exclusion. Products for which 

an exclusion has been granted will be periodically announced on the USTR website. Product 

exclusions will become legally effective once published in the Federal Register. 

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Vaughn
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 15

- 41190 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee

v.
MARIO ALBERTO GARCIA

- BALDERAS , Defendant

- Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 7:14

- CR

- 1408

- 1

Before HIGGINBOTHAM , ELROD and SOUTHWICK , Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: *
Mario Alberto Garcia

- Balderas appeals his convictions and sentences of being an alien illegally in the United States in possession of a firearm and of being a felon in possession of a firearm for which he was sentenced to 120 months of imprisonment on each count , to run concurrently with each other. See 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1), (g)(5)(A); 18 U.S.C. § 924(a)(2).

* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5 , the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED July 14, 2016 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 15-41190 Document: 00513591979 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/14/2016No. 15

- 41190

2 Garcia

- Balderas challenges the constitutionality of § 922(g)(1) and (g)5) , arguing that the statute does not require a substantial effect on interstate

co mmerce or, in the alternative, that the Government adduced insufficient evidence to show that the “mere movement” of the components of a firearm constituted a substantial effect on interstate or foreign commerce. As he acknowledges, his argument is forecl osed by our prior decisions holding that § 922(g) generally, and § 922(g)(1) in particular, is a valid exercise of Congress’ s authority under the Commerce Clause

. See United States v.
Alcantar , 733 F.3d 143, 145

- 46 (5th Cir. 2013) ; United States v. Daughe rty , 264 F.3d 513, 518 (5th Cir. 2001); United States v. Wallace , 889 F.2d 580, 583 (5th Cir. 1989) ; see also United States v. Baltazar

- Lopez , 273 F.3d 1099 (5th Cir. 2001) (treating § 922(g)(5) as indistinguishable from § 922(g)(1) ). Garcia

- Balderas also argues that his convictions and sentences on charges both of being an illegal alien in possession of a firearm and of being a felon in possession of a firearm are multiplicitous and violate the Double Jeopardy Clause

. See § 922(g)(1), (g)(5). As the Government concedes, the simultaneous charges under § 922(g)(1) and (g)(5), which arise from the same single incident of possession of firearms, violate the constitutional prohibition on multiple punishments for one offence. See United St ates v. Munoz

- Romo , 989 F.2d 757, 759

- 60 (5th Cir. 1993).
We , therefore, VACATE the sentences and REMAND to the district court to vacate either of the convictions and resentence Garcia

- Balderas on the remaining count. Case: 15-41190 Document: 00513591979 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/14/2016