alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 93.807 Other importations. ( a ) Elephants, hippopotami, rhinoceroses, and tapirs are exempt from the regulations in this part under the following circumstances: ( 1 ) They are imported from Canada and are accompanied by a document signed by a salaried veterinarian of the Canadian Government that states: ( i ) They were not imported into Canada during the year preceding their importation into the United States; and
( ii ) They did not, during the year preceding their importation into the United States, have physical contact with or share a pen or bedding materials with any elephant, hippopotamus, rhinoceros, or tapir imported into Canada during that year; or
( 2 ) They were exported into Canada from the United States and then imported back into the United States accompanied by a United States health certificate.
( b ) Notwithstanding other provisions in this part, the Administrator may in specific cases allow the importation and entry of elephants, hippopotami, rhinoceroses, or tapirs into the United States other than as provided for in this part under such conditions as the Administrator may prescribe to prevent the introduction of ectoparasites into the United States.
(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control number 0579-0020) [52 FR 29502, Aug. 10, 1987; 52 FR 35350, Sept. 18, 1987, as amended at 57 FR 23049, June 1, 1992; 59 FR 67133, Dec. 29, 1994. Redesignated at 62 FR 56012, Oct. 28, 1997, as amended at 64 FR 23179, Apr. 30, 1999]
EXHIBIT 4.5

 


 



 

AMENDMENT TO EZCHIP SEMICONDUCTOR LTD. 2007 U.S. EQUITY INCENTIVE PLAN, DATED SEPTEMBER 10, 2013

 

Effective as of September 10, 2013, the EZchip Semiconductor Ltd. 2007 U.S. Equity Incentive Plan (the “Plan”) is hereby amended as follows (the “Amendment”):

 

4.     Section 3(a) of the Plan shall be deleted in its entirety and replaced with the following:

 

“SHARE RESERVE. Subject to the provisions of Section 8(a) relating to adjustments upon changes in share capital, the aggregate number of Ordinary Shares of the Company that may be issued pursuant to Awards upon the Effective Date shall be one million two hundred thousand (1,200,000) shares. Any Ordinary Shares which remain unissued and which are not subject to outstanding Awards at the termination of the Plan shall cease to be reserved for the purpose of the Plan, but until termination of the Plan the Company shall at all times reserve sufficient number of Ordinary Shares to meet the requirements of the Plan. Should any Award for any reason expire or be canceled prior to its exercise or relinquishment in full, the Ordinary Shares therefore subject to such Award may again be subjected to an Award under the Plan or under the Company’s other equity incentive plans. Any Shares subject to Awards shall be counted against the numerical limits of this Section 3(a) as one Ordinary Share for every Ordinary Share subject thereto.”

 

5.     Except as explicitly amended by this Amendment, all other terms of the Plan shall remain in full force and effect.
```

[Federal Register: July 21, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 139)]
[Notices]               
[Page 42380]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr21jy10-37]                         

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

COMMISSION OF FINE ARTS

 
Notice of Meeting

    The next meeting of the U.S. Commission of Fine Arts is scheduled 
for 15 July 2010, at 10 a.m. in the Commission offices at the National 
Building Museum, Suite 312, Judiciary Square, 401 F Street, NW., 
Washington, DC 20001-2728. Items of discussion may include buildings, 
parks and memorials.
    Draft agendas and additional information regarding the Commission 
are available on our Web site: http://www.cfa.gov. Inquiries regarding 
the agenda and requests to submit written or oral statements should be 
addressed to Thomas Luebke, Secretary, U.S. Commission of Fine Arts, at 
the above address; by e-mailing staff@cfa.gov; or by calling 202-504-
2200. Individuals requiring sign language interpretation for the 
hearing impaired should contact the Secretary at least 10 days before 
the meeting date.

    Dated: July 6, 2010 in Washington, DC.
Thomas Luebke,
AIA, Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-17653 Filed 7-20-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6330-01-M
```
<PAGE>
                                                                   EXHIBIT 99.04


                           ALLIANCE SEMICONDUCTOR
                         CERTIFICATION 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 of Alliance Semiconductor Corporation (the
"Company") on Form 10-K for the year ended March 29, 2003, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Ronald
K. Shelton, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that:

      (1)  The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
           15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

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

This certification is not to be deemed filed pursuant to the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 and does not constitute a part of the Report accompanying this
letter.





Date: June 27, 2003                             /s/ Ronald K. Shelton
      -------------                             --------------------------------
                                                Ronald K. Shelton
                                                Vice President Finance and
                                                Administration and Chief
                                                Financial Officer
### §15f. Actions by Attorney General

#### (a) Notification to State attorney general

Whenever the Attorney General of the United States has brought an action under the antitrust laws, and he has reason to believe that any State attorney general would be entitled to bring an action under this Act based substantially on the same alleged violation of the antitrust laws, he shall promptly give written notification thereof to such State attorney general.

#### (b) Availability of files and other materials

To assist a State attorney general in evaluating the notice or in bringing any action under this Act, the Attorney General of the United States shall, upon request by such State attorney general, make available to him, to the extent permitted by law, any investigative files or other materials which are or may be relevant or material to the actual or potential cause of action under this Act.

(Oct. 15, 1914, ch. 323, §4F, as added Pub. L. 94–435, title III, §301, Sept. 30, 1976, 90 Stat. 1395.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

The antitrust laws, referred to in subsec. (a), are defined in section 12 of this title.

This Act, referred to in text, is act Oct. 15, 1914, ch. 323, 38 Stat. 730, known as the Clayton Act, which is classified generally to sections 12, 13, 14 to 19, 21, and 22 to 27 of this title, and sections 52 and 53 of Title 29, Labor. For further details and complete classification of this Act to the Code, see References in Text note set out under section 12 of this title and Tables.

#### **Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries**

#### Effective Date

Injuries sustained prior to Sept. 30, 1976, not covered by this section, see section 304 of Pub. L. 94–435, set out as a note under section 15c of this title.
### SUBCHAPTER II—AUTOMOBILE CONSUMER INFORMATION STUDY
###### Editorial Note on Part 28

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 28 appear at 76 FR 76873, Dec. 9, 2011.

#### § 28.140 Personnel actions involving SES members.

Members of the GAO Senior Executive Service (SES) may appeal adverse actions relating to misconduct, malfeasance or similar action to the Board in accordance with Subpart B of this part. Members of the GAO SES who allege that they have been subjected to a personnel action that constitutes a prohibited personnel practice or prohibited discrimination may appeal to the Board in accordance with subpart B or subpart D of this part respectively.
1

United States Court of Appeals,

Fifth Circuit.

No. 93-8534.

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

William Phillip NICHOLS, Defendant-Appellant.

Aug. 25, 1994.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western

District of Texas.

Before POLITZ, Chief Judge and DUHÉ and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Appellant, William Nichols, appeals the district court's

denial of his motions to correct his sentence under 28 U.S.C. §

2255 and for appointment of counsel under 18 U.S.C. §

3006A(a)(2)(B). We vacate and remand in part and affirm in part.

BACKGROUND

Appellant was convicted in February 1992 of three counts of

distributing crack cocaine within a thousand feet of a public

school in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), 860(a). At

sentencing, the district court found Appellant a career felon based

on two state drug convictions. Accordingly, the district court

enhanced Appellant's sentence to 262 months imprisonment from a

sentencing range of 41 to 51 months.

On March 10, 1993, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals vacated

one of Appellant's state convictions on the ground that his guilty

plea was involuntary because the state withheld exculpatory

evidence. Nichols then filed a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to
2

vacate, set aside, or correct his federal sentence on the ground

that he could no longer be considered a career offender since his

state conviction had been vacated. Appellant also filed a motion

for appointment of counsel under 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2)(B). The

district court denied both motions, and Appellant appeals.

DISCUSSION

I.

Appellant first contends that § 2255 relief is appropriate

when a state conviction that formed the basis of career offender

status is invalidated after the federal sentencing. In the recent

case, Custis v. United States, --- U.S. ----, 114 S.Ct. 1732, 128

L.Ed.2d 517 (1994), the Supreme Court stated in dicta that a

defendant who was successful in attacking his state conviction in

state court may then apply for reopening of any federal sentence

enhanced by that state sentence. Id. at ----, 114 S.Ct. at 1739.

At oral argument, the Government conceded that, in light of Custis,

Appellant should get the benefit of the fact that he subsequently

had the previous state conviction overturned. Accordingly, we

vacate and remand on the basis of the Government's concession.

II.

Appellant next argues that the district court abused its

discretion by refusing to appoint counsel. Whether to appoint

counsel to represent a defendant in a § 2255 proceeding is

committed to the sound discretion of the district court. Ford v.

United States, 363 F.2d 437 (5th Cir.1966). No evidentiary hearing

was necessary in this case, and at the time he requested counsel,
3

Appellant merely alleged that "the interest of justice" required

that counsel be appointed. We conclude that the district court did

not abuse its discretion in denying Appellant's motion to appoint

counsel.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, we VACATE and REMAND in part and

AFFIRM in part.
### §1177. Confiscation of gambling devices and means of transportation; laws governing

Any gambling device transported, delivered, shipped, manufactured, reconditioned, repaired, sold, disposed of, received, possessed, or used in violation of the provisions of this chapter shall be seized and forfeited to the United States. All provisions of law relating to the seizure, summary and judicial forfeiture, and condemnation of vessels, vehicles, merchandise, and baggage for violation of the customs laws; the disposition of such vessels, vehicles, merchandise, and baggage or the proceeds from the sale thereof; the remission or mitigation of such forfeitures; and the compromise of claims and the award of compensation to informers in respect of such forfeitures shall apply to seizures and forfeitures incurred, or alleged to have been incurred, under the provisions of this chapter, insofar as applicable and not inconsistent with the provisions hereof: Provided, That such duties as are imposed upon the collector of customs or any other person with respect to the seizure and forfeiture of vessels, vehicles, merchandise, and baggage under the customs laws shall be performed with respect to seizures and forfeitures of gambling devices under this chapter by such officers, agents, or other persons as may be authorized or designated for that purpose by the Attorney General.

(Jan. 2, 1951, ch. 1194, §7, 64 Stat. 1135.)

#### **Executive Documents**

#### Transfer of Functions

Offices of collector of customs, comptroller of customs, surveyor of customs, and appraiser of merchandise in Bureau of Customs of Department of the Treasury to which appointments were required to be made by President with advice and consent of Senate ordered abolished with such offices to be terminated not later than Dec. 31, 1966, by Reorg. Plan No. 1 of 1965, eff. May 25, 1965, 30 F.R. 7035, 79 Stat. 1317, set out in the Appendix to Title 5, Government Organization and Employees. Functions of offices eliminated were already vested in Secretary of the Treasury by Reorg. Plan No. 26 of 1950, eff. July 31, 1950, 15 F.R. 4935, 64 Stat. 1280, set out in the Appendix to Title 5.
#### § 95.6 Offal derived from bovines.

Offal derived from bovines is prohibited importation into the United States unless it meets the requirements for the importation of meat, meat products, and meat byproducts in either § 94.19, § 94.20, or § 94.21, with the exception of the requirements in §§ 94.19(c), 94.20(b), and 94.21(b), respectively. The person importing the offal must obtain a United States Veterinary Permit for Importation and Transportation of Controlled Materials and Organisms and Vectors by filing a permit application on VS Form 16-3. To apply for a permit, file a permit application on VS Form 16-3, which is available from Strategy and Policy, Veterinary Services, APHIS, 4700 River Road, Riverdale, MD 20737-1231, or electronically at *https://efile.aphis.usda.gov/s/vs-permitting-assistant.* The application for such a permit must state the intended use of the offal and name and address of the consignee in the United States.

[86 FR 45628, Aug. 16, 2021]
# C_2011145EN.01002801.xml

| 14.5.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 145/28 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.5.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 145/28

---

Order of the General Court of 21 March 2011 — Milux v OHIM (FERTILITYINVIVO)

(Case T-175/10) (1)

1

(Community trade mark - Representation of the applicant by a lawyer who is not a third party - Inadmissibility)

2011/C 145/47

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Milux Holding SA (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) (represented by: J. Bojs, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: P. Geroulakos, acting as Agent)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Action against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 2 February 2010 (Case R 1116/2009-4), concerning the application for registration of the word sign FERTILITYINVIVO as a Community trade mark

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The action is dismissed as inadmissible. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

| 2. | Milux Holding SA is ordered to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Milux Holding SA is ordered to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 161, 19.6.2010.

1

---
# C_2010113EN.01006602.xml

| 1.5.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 113/66 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.5.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 113/66

---

Action brought on 2 March 2010 — Meica v OHIM — Tofutown.com (TOFUKING)

(Case T-99/10)

2010/C 113/99

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Meica Ammerländische Fleischwarenfabrik Fritz Meinen GmbH & Co. KG (Edewecht, Germany) (represented by: S. Russlies, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Tofutown.com GmbH (Wiesbaum/Vulkaneifel, Germany)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 7 January 2010 (Case R 63/2009-4); |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 7 January 2010 (Case R 63/2009-4);

| — | Order OHIM to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order OHIM to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: Tofutown.com GmbH

Applicant for a Community trade mark:

Community trade mark concerned: the word mark ‘TOFUKING’ for goods in Classes 29, 30 and 32 (Application No 5 027 016)

Community trade mark concerned:

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: the applicant

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings:

Mark or sign cited in opposition: the German word mark ‘King’ (trade mark No 30 404 434), the Community word mark ‘Curry King’ (trade mark No 2 885 077) and the German word mark ‘Curry King’ (trade mark No 39 902 969), all three of which were registered for goods in Classes 29 and 30

Mark or sign cited in opposition:

Decision of the Opposition Division: rejection of the opposition

Decision of the Opposition Division:

Decision of the Board of Appeal: dismissal of the appeal

Decision of the Board of Appeal:

Pleas in law: Breach of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (1) as there is a likelihood of confusion between the marks at issue

Pleas in law:

1

---

(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark (OJ 1994 L 11, p. 1).

1

---
# C_2012343EN.01001501.xml

| 10.11.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 343/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.11.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 343/15

---

Judgment of the General Court of 21 September 2012 — Wesergold Getränkeindustrie v OHIM — Lidl Stiftung (WESTERN GOLD)

(Case T-278/10) (1)

1

(Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community word mark WESTERN GOLD - Earlier national, international and Community word marks WESERGOLD, Wesergold, and WeserGold - Relative grounds for refusal - No likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Distinctiveness of the earlier marks)

2012/C 343/23

Language of the case: German

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Wesergold Getränkeindustrie GmbH & Co. KG (Rinteln, Germany) (represented by: P. Goldenbaum, T. Melchert and I. Rohr, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: R. Pethke, Agent)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: Lidl Stiftung & Co. KG (Neckarsulm, Germany) (represented by A. Marx and M. Schaeffer, lawyers)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court:

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board Board of Appeal of OHIM of 24 March 2010 (Case R 770/2009-1) concerning opposition proceedings between Wesergold Getränkeindustrie GmbH & Co. KG and Lidl Stiftung & Co. KG

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 24 March 2010 (Case R 770/2009-1); |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 24 March 2010 (Case R 770/2009-1);

| 2. | Orders OHIM to bear its own costs and also to pay the costs of the applicant; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders OHIM to bear its own costs and also to pay the costs of the applicant;

| 3. | Orders Lidl Stiftung & Co. KG to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders Lidl Stiftung & Co. KG to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 221, 14.8.2010.

1

---
#### § 317.344 Identification of major cuts of meat products.

The major cuts of single-ingredient, raw meat products are: Beef chuck blade roast, beef loin top loin steak, beef rib roast large end, beef round eye round steak, beef round top round steak, beef round tip roast, beef chuck arm pot roast, beef loin sirloin steak, beef round bottom round steak, beef brisket (whole, flat half, or point half), beef rib steak small end, beef loin tenderloin steak, pork loin chop, pork loin country style ribs, pork loin top loin chop boneless, pork loin rib chop, pork spareribs, pork loin tenderloin, pork loin sirloin roast, pork shoulder blade steak, pork loin top roast boneless, lamb shank, lamb shoulder arm chop, lamb shoulder blade chop, lamb rib roast, lamb loin chop, lamb leg (whole, sirloin half, or shank half), veal shoulder arm steak, veal shoulder blade steak, veal rib roast, veal loin chop, and veal cutlets.

[58 FR 664, Jan. 6, 1993, as amended at 59 FR 45196, Sept. 1, 1994; 75 FR 82165, Dec. 29, 2010]
§ 88.2 General information. ( a ) State governments may enact and enforce regulations that are consistent with or that are more stringent than the regulations in this part.
( b ) To determine whether an individual or other entity found to transport equines for slaughter is subject to the regulations in this part, a USDA representative may request from any individual or other entity who transported the equines information regarding the business of that individual or other entity. When such information is requested, the individual or other entity who transported the equines must provide the information within 30 days and in a format as may be specified by the USDA representative.
[66 FR 63615, Dec. 7, 2001, as amended at 76 FR 55216, Sept. 7, 2011]
### **CHAPTER 101—NANOTECHNOLOGY RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT**

Sec.
7501.
National Nanotechnology Program.
7502.
Program coordination.
7503.
Advisory Panel.
7504.
Quadrennial external review of the National Nanotechnology Program.
7505.
Authorization of appropriations.
7506.
Department of Commerce programs.
7507.
Department of Energy programs.
7508.
Additional centers.
7509.
Definitions.
### §1174. Labeling and marking of shipping packages

All gambling devices, and all packages containing any such, when shipped or transported shall be plainly and clearly labeled or marked so that the name and address of the shipper and of the consignee, and the nature of the article or the contents of the package may be readily ascertained on an inspection of the outside of the article or package.

(Jan. 2, 1951, ch. 1194, §4, 64 Stat. 1135.)