alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 10.3

 

TRADEMARK LICENSE EXTENSION AGREEMENT

 

This Trademark License Extension Agreement dated as of July 14, 2011 is by and between Hallmark Licensing, Inc. (“Hallmark Licensing”) and Crown Media United States, LLC (“Crown US”),

 

WHEREAS, Crown US and Hallmark Licensing 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, as of August 1, 2005, as of April 10, 2006, as of August 1, 2007, as of August 1, 2008, as of August 15, 2009 and as of June 29, 2010, and as modified by the Trademark License Waiver Agreement, dated March 3, 2010 (collectively, the “License Agreement”);

 

WHEREAS, pursuant to that certain Security Agreement, dated as of January 1, 2004 (the “Security Agreement”), Crown US granted to Hallmark Licensing a security interest in the Collateral (as defined therein) to secure Crown US’s performance under the License Agreement and compensation for breaches of the License Agreement; and

 

WHEREAS, Crown US has requested that Hallmark Licensing extend the term of the License Agreement to facilitate Crown US’s refinancing;

 

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

 

1.                                       Subject to continuing accuracy of the representations and warranties of Crown US under the Security Agreement, and the lien on the Collateral constituting a perfected, first priority security interest in the Collateral, Hallmark Licensing hereby agrees to extend the term of the License Agreement for an additional period terminating the earlier of (i) July 14, 2019 and (ii) the later of (x) the expiration or termination of that certain Credit Agreement dated as of July 14, 2011, among Crown Media Holdings, Inc. as the Borrower, JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. as the Agent and various other parties thereto, and (y) the redemption of all of the Senior Notes issued pursuant to that certain Indenture dated July 14, 2011, subject to any earlier termination of the License Agreement pursuant to the terms of the License Agreement.

 

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

 

3.                                       Crown US hereby acknowledges that the Security Agreement is in full force and effect and confirms the grant of the security interest in the Collateral to Hallmark Licensing pursuant thereto.

 

4.                                       This Trademark License Extension Agreement shall be governed by Section 13 of the License Agreement.

 

[Remainder of page intentionally left blank.]

 











 

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

 

	
HALLMARK LICENSING, INC.
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
 
    
	
By:
    	
/s/ Deanne R. Stedem
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
 
    
	
Title: Vice President
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
 
    
	
CROWN MEDIA UNITED STATES, LLC
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
 
    
	
By:
    	
/s/ C. Stanford
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
 
    
	
Title: EVP & General Counsel
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision **

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff - Appellee,

 v.

LUCAS ORTEGA-LOPEZ,

 Defendant - Appellant.

No. 10-50374

D.C. No. 3:09-cr-03956-BTM

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of California

Barry T. Moskowitz, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted April 20, 2011** 

Before: RYMER, THOMAS, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.

Lucas Ortega-Lopez appeals from the 63-month sentence imposed following

his guilty-plea conviction for attempted re-entry after deportation, in violation of 

8 U.S.C. § 1326, and fraud and misuse of an entry document, in violation of 

18 U.S.C. § 1546(a). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm. 

FILED

APR 28 2011

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 10-50374

Ortega-Lopez first contends that the district court procedurally erred by: (1) 

refusing to consider imposing a lower sentence in order to achieve parity with

fast-track defendants; and (2) failing to adequately explain its reasons for the

sentence. The record reflects that the district court considered all of the factors set

forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), adequately explained the sentence, and did not

otherwise procedurally err. See United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 991-93 (9th

Cir. 2008) (en banc). 

Ortega-Lopez also contends that his sentence is substantively unreasonable. 

The record reflects that the 63-month sentence is substantively reasonable in light

of the totality of the circumstances. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51-52

(2007); see also United States v. Gonzalez-Zotelo, 556 F.3d 736, 739 (9th Cir.

2009) (“[A] district court may not take fast-track disparities into account in

sentencing under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(6) because § 3553(a)(6) directs the district

judge to consider only ‘unwarranted’ sentencing disparities.”). 

To the extent Ortega-Lopez challenges the constitutionality of his sentence

on the ground that the statutory maximum sentence for a section 1326 violation is

two years imprisonment or that his sentence was wrongly enhanced because his

prior conviction was not charged in the indictment, submitted to a jury, or proved

beyond a reasonable doubt, these arguments are without merit. See United States
3 10-50374

v. Contreras-Hernandez, 628 F.3d 1169, 1174-75 (9th Cir. 2011); see also United

States v. Covian-Sandoval, 462 F.3d 1090, 1096-97 (9th Cir. 2006).

AFFIRMED.
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 64 (Tuesday, April 4, 1995)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 17048]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-8133]



=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 73

[MM Docket No. 95-33, RM-8597]


Radio Broadcasting Services; Fairbanks, AK

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: This document requests comments on a petition for rule making 
filed by Northern Television, Inc. seeking the allotment of FM Channel 
245C3 to Fairbanks, Alaska, as that community's sixth local FM 
broadcast service. Coordinates used for Channel 245C3 at Fairbanks are 
North Latitude 64-50-16 and West Longitude 147-42-59. Fairbanks is 
located with 320 kilometers (199 miles) of the United States-Canadian 
border, and therefore, the Commission must obtain concurrence of the 
Canadian government to this proposal.

DATES: Comments must be filed on or before May 22, 1995, and reply 
comments on or before June 6, 1995.

ADDRESSES: Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, Washington, 
D.C. 20554. In addition to filing comments with the FCC, interested 
parties should serve the petitioner, as follows: Northern Television, 
Inc., Attn: Henry H. Hove, President, Fairbanks Division, 3528 
International Way, Fairbanks, AK 99701.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Nancy Joyner, Mass Media Bureau, (202) 
418-2180.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a synopsis of the Commission's 
Notice of Proposed Rule Making, MM Docket No. 95-33, adopted March 22, 
1995, and released March 29, 1995. The full text of this Commission 
decision is available for inspection and copying during normal business 
hours in the FCC's Reference Center (Room 239), 1919 M Street, NW, 
Washington, D.C. The complete text of this decision may also be 
purchased from the Commission's copy contractors, International 
Transcription Service, Inc., (202) 857-3800, 2100 M Street, NW, Suite 
140, Washington, D.C. 20037.
    Provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act of l980 do not apply 
to this proceeding.
    Members of the public should note that from the time a Notice of 
Proposed Rule Making is issued until the matter is no longer subject to 
Commission consideration or court review, all ex parte contacts are 
prohibited in Commission proceedings, such as this one, which involve 
channel allotments. See 47 CFR 1.1204(b) for rules governing 
permissible ex parte contacts.
    For information regarding proper filing procedures for comments, 
See 47 CFR 1.415 and 1.420.

List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 73

    Radio broadcasting.

Federal Communications Commission.
John A. Karousos,
Chief, Allocations Branch, Policy and Rules Division, Mass Media 
Bureau.
[FR Doc. 95-8133 Filed 4-3-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-F
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

February 4, 2019

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-5080

A.W. Chesterton 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

General Counsel
#### STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Robert PRUITT, Appellant. Robert PRUITT, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.

Nos. 63727, 66447.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Two.

March 14, 1995.

Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., Breek K. Burgess, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent State.

Robert E. Steele, Jr., Asst. Public Defender, St. Louis, for appellant Pruitt.

Before SMITH, P.J., and PUDLOWSKI and WHITE, JJ.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

Defendant appeals the judgment entered on his conviction by a jury of delivery of a controlled substance. The trial court sentenced defendant as a prior offender to ten years imprisonment. Defendant also appeals the denial of his Rule 29.15 motion without an evidentiary hearing. No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion. The judgments are affirmed in accordance with Rules 30.25(b) and 84.16(b)
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE O F FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME E XPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED RI CHARD L. WATKINS , A ppellant ,
v. Case No. 5D 21

- 2626 LT Case No. 2021

- CC

- 13178 SFR ORLANDO O WNER 1, LP ,

Appellee

. ________________________________/ Decisio n filed O ctober

11 , 2 022 Appeal from t he C ounty C ourt f or Ora nge C ounty , Amy J. Carter , Judge. Richard Lee Watkins, Hawthorne, C A , pr o se. William J

. M cCabe, L ongwood, for A ppellee. PER CURIAM. AFFIRMED. WALLIS , EDWARDS and WOZNIAK , JJ. , concur

.
#### Margaret JOHNSON, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.

No. 67711.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division One.

Oct. 17, 1995.

Rosalynn Koch, Office of the State Public Defender, Columbia, for appellant.

Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., David G. Brown, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.

Before REINHARD, P.J., and KAROHL and WHITE, JJ.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

Movant appeals from the motion court’s denial, without an evidentiary hearing, of her Rule 24.035 motion for post-conviction relief. We affirm. The findings and conclusions of the motion court are not clearly erroneous. No jurisprudential purpose would be served by an extended written opinion. The judgment of the motion court is affirmed in accordance with Rule 84.16(b).
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

May 29, 2019

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-3337

ECM Industries LLC: 

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

_5-30-2019.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
#### A. L. WILSON v. GEIGY & COMPANY, a Corporation.

(Filed 26 November, 1952.)

Damages § la—

Compensatory damages may not be recovered for damage to a tobacco crop when plaintiffs evidence fails to establish any causal connection between tbe dust from defendant’s chemical plant which settled on the crop and injury to the crop.

Parker, J., took no part in the consideration or decision of this ease.

Appeal by plaintiff from *Nettles, J.,*at March Term, 1952, of Moobe.

Civil action to recover for damage to plaintiff’s tobacco crop allegedly caused by actionable negligence of defendant in that it negligently permitted “highly toxic and poisonous dust including benezine hexachloride-dust,” emanating from tbe manufacture of insecticide at its plant, to *567escape and spread to and over plaintiff’s nearby field of growing tobacco causing injury thereto.

Defendant denies, in material aspects, the allegations of the complaint.

Upon trial in Superior Court plaintiff offered evidence tending to show these facts: In late July and early August, 1949 : (1) Fogs of dust from defendant’s chemical plant spread over and settled on plaintiff’s tobacco crop, and “a very strong odor of benezine hexachloride” was noticed. (2) Plaintiff had an airplane dust the tobacco — blowing dust on it. (3) There was a drought. But there is no other evidence as to the kind or quality of dust emanating from defendant’s plant, or blown from the airplane. The tobacco “burned up and rotted off.”

And plaintiff’s expert witness gave this pertinent summary: “There were two types of trouble there. One was the killing of the leaves, and the other was the odor on the tobacco, the bad smell. The injury was not evident to me. I couldn’t be sure just what caused it. And there was one more factor and it was what per cent should be attributed to various factors.”

Motion of defendant for judgment as of nonsuit, entered at close of plaintiff’s evidence, was allowed — and from judgment in accordance therewith plaintiff appeals to Supreme Court and assigns error.

*Robert L. McMillan, Jr., and Herbert F. Seawell, Jr., for plaintiff, appellant.*

*Spence <& Boyette for defendant, appellee.*

Per Curiam.

Taking the evidence offered by plaintiff in the light most favorable to him, and giving to him the benefit of every reasonable intendment upon the evidence, and reasonable inference to be drawn therefrom, as is done when considering a demurrer thereto under G.S. 1-183, the evidence is insufficient to make out a case of actionable negligence. The element of causal relation between the dust from defendant’s plant and the injury to plaintiff’s tobacco crop is missing. The establishment of that relation may not be based upon speculation or conjecture.

Hence the judgment below is

Affirmed.

Parser, J., took no part in the consideration or decision of this ease.
```
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 57 (Friday, March 24, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 15610]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-7213]

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

NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION

Advisory Panel for Cell Biology Program; Notice of Meeting

    In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-
463, as amended), the National Science Foundation announces the 
following meeting.

    Name and Committee Code: Advisory Panel for Cell Biology (1136).
    Date and Time: April 12-14, 1995, 8:30 am to 5:00 pm.
    Place: Room 370, National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson 
Boulevard, Arlington, VA 22230.
    Type of Meeting: Closed.
    Contact Person: Dr. Barbara Zain, Dr. Larry Griffing and Dr. 
David Capco, Program Directors, for Cell Biology, Division of 
Molecular and Cellular Biosciences, National Science Foundation, 
4201 Wilson Boulevard, Room 655, Arlington, VA 22230, Telephone: 
(703) 306-1442.
    Purpose of Meeting: To provide advice and recommendations 
concerning proposals submitted to NSF for financial support.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate research proposals submitted to 
the Signal Transduction and Regulation Program as part of the 
selection process for awards.
    Reason for Closing: The proposals being reviewed include 
information of a proprietary of confidential nature, including 
technical information; financial data, such as salaries and personal 
information concerning individuals associated with the proposals. 
These matters are exempt under 5 U.S.C. 552b(c) (4) and (6) of the 
Government in the Sunshine Act.

    Dated: March 20, 1995.
M. Rebecca Winkler,
Committee Management Officer.
[FR Doc. 95-7213 Filed 3-23-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7555-01-M
```
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

December 28, 2018

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-6307

CW Bearing USA, 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/12.21.18_Notice_of_Product_E

xclusions.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 the 10-digit HTSUS subheading under which your request was filed. 

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,

Stephen P. Vaughn

General Counsel
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 64 (Tuesday, April 4, 1995)]
[Sunshine Act Meetings]
[Page 17096]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-8263]



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


Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

date and time: April 24, 1995, 2:00 P.M. (Eastern Time).

place: Conference Room on the Ninth Floor of the EEOC Office Building, 
1801, ``L'' Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20507.

Status: The Meeting will be open to the public.
MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED:

Open Session

    1. Announcement of Notation Votes.
    2. Recommendations on Relationships with Fair Employment 
Practices Agencies will be heard by the Commission.

    Note: Any matter not discussed or concluded may be carried over 
to a later meeting. (In addition to publishing notices on EEOC 
Commission meetings in the Federal Register, the Commission also 
provides a recorded announcement a full week in advance on future 
Commission sessions.) Please telephone (202) 663-7100 (voice) and 
(202) 663-4074 (TDD) at any time for information on these meetings.

contact person for more information: Frances M. Hart, Executive Officer 
on (202) 663-4070.

    This Notice issued March 30, 1995.
Frances M. Hart,
Executive Officer, Executive Secretariat.
[FR Doc. 95-8263 Filed 3-30-95; 4:23 pm]
BILLING CODE 6750-06-M