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

|   | 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   results of operations of the Company. |
|--------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Date:  April 1, 2010 |   | By:    | /s/ John MacDonald                                                    |   |
|--------------------------------|--------|--------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
|                           |   |   | John MacDonaldChief Financial Officer andPrincipal Accounting Officer |   |
1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

MIAMI DIVISION

CASE NO.: 20-CV-22054-DPG

SISVEL INTERNATIONAL S.A.,

3G LICENSING S.A., and SISVEL S.p.A.

Plaintiff(s),

vs.

NOETIC, INC. and SUN CUPID 

TECHNOLOGY (HK), LTD.

Defendant(s).

 /

DEFENDANT, NOETIC, INC.’S, MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO RESPOND 

TO COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT 

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6(b), Defendant, NOETIC, INC., respectfully 

submits this Motion for an Extension of Time to Respond to Plaintiff’s Complaint for Patent 

Infringement (the “Complaint”) to and including September 3, 2020. In support hereof, Defendant 

states the following: 

1. Plaintiffs filed the Complaint on May 18, 2020.

2. Defendant, NOETIC, INC., was served with the original Summons and Complaint 

on July 14, 2020.

3. The deadline for Defendant to file a response to the Complaint was August 4, 2020. 

4. The undersigned was retained by Defendant in the evening of August 4, 2020 and 

will need additional time to review the Complaint and discuss the case with Defendant’s corporate 

representative to properly respond to the Complaint.

Case 1:20-cv-22054-DPG Document 9 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/05/2020 Page 1 of 3
2

5. As soon as the undersigned was retained, the undersigned contacted counsel for 

Plaintiffs requesting an extension of time to file a response to the Complaint. Counsel for Plaintiff 

do not oppose the motion.

THEREFORE, Defendant, NOETIC, INC., respectfully requests the Court for an order 

extending the time to respond to the Complaint for Patent Infringement up to and including 

September 3, 2020 and award such other relief as this Court deems proper. 

Dated: August 5, 2020.

Respectfully submitted by:

The Law Office of Hongwei Shang, LLC

7350 SW 89th Street, Suite 100

Miami, FL 33156

Tel: (305) 670-5266

Fax: (305) 670-5299

Email: hshanglaw@gmail.com

 /S/Hongwei Shang__________________

Hongwei Shang, Esq.

Fla Bar No. 0037199

Attorney for Defendant Noetic, Inc.

Case 1:20-cv-22054-DPG Document 9 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/05/2020 Page 2 of 3
3

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was served on this 5th

day of August, 2020, by ECF system to: 

Jorge Espinosa, Esq.

Jorge.Espinosa@gray-robinson.com

Francesca Russo, Esq.

francesca.russo@gray-robinson.com

Robert R. Jimenez, Esq.

Robert.Jimenez@gray-robinson.com

GRAY ROBINSON, P.A.

333 S.E. 2nd Ave., Suite 300

Miami, FL 33131

Tel: 305-416-6880

Fax: 305-416-6887

/S/Hongwei Shang_______

Hongwei Shang

Case 1:20-cv-22054-DPG Document 9 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/05/2020 Page 3 of 3
### §683. Omitted

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section, act June 19, 1952, ch. 445, §3, 66 Stat. 140, which provided that payments made under former sections 681 to 683 of this title would not be held to be "other income and resources", was omitted from the Code as being of special and not general application.
# Trafi Finnish Transport SafetyAgency 

## CERTIFICAITON OF RECIPROCITY

Date 24 April 2015 Mr. Paul Gretch Director Ind.No TRAFI 21782/03

.02.00.00/2014 Office of International Aviation U.S. Department ofTransportation Washington, D

.C. 20509 Facsimile +1 202 267 5364 brian.morris@faa.gov



### CERTIFICATION OF RECIPROCITY Dear Mr.Gretch, Ref OST-2006-24269

The Finnish Transport Safety Agency hereby confirms that it will grant, on the basis of reciprocity, to any air carrier designated by the United States ofAmerica, the right to conduct third, fourth and fifth freedom traffic rights on scheduled or nonscheduled basis, which are in conformity with the AirTransport Agreement between the European Union and its Member States and the United States ofAmerica, signed on 25 and 30 April 2007 as amended by the provisionally applicable Protocol to Amend the AirTransport Agreement between the United States ofAmerica and the European Community and Its Member States, signed on 24June 2010. Sincerely yours

# ~~~ Dr. Matti Tupamaki Deputy to Director General of Civil Aviation

Finnish Transport Safety Agency • P.O. Box 320, FI-00101 Helsinki, Finland Tel. +35829 534 5000, fax +35829 534 5095 • Business ID 1031715-9 www.trafi.fi
AFS-11-046-E Dec 10 2010 Exemption No. 6612G Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2000-8525

Mr. Juan de Mesa United Airlines Flight Training Center United Air Lines, Inc. 7401 Martin Luther King Boulevard Denver, CO 80207

Dear Mr. de Mesa:

This letter is to inform you that we have granted your petition to extend Exemption No. 6612, as amended. It explains the basis for our decision and describes its effect.

The Basis for Our Decision

By letter dated November 10, 2010, you petitioned the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) on behalf of United Air Lines, Inc. (United), for an extension of Exemption No. 6612, as amended. That exemption from § 121.135(a)(3) of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations allows United to use electronic digital technology to document the revision level in lieu of printing the last revision date on each page of each manual required under § 121.133.

In your petition, you indicate that there has been no change in the conditions and reasons relative to public interest and safety that were the basis for granting the original exemption.

The FAA has determined that good cause exists for not publishing a summary of the petition in the Federal Register because the requested extension of the exemption would not set a precedent, and any delay in acting on this petition would be detrimental to United.

Our Decision

The FAA has determined that the justification for the issuance of Exemption No. 6612, as amended, remains valid with respect to this exemption and is in the public interest.2

Therefore, under the authority provided by 49 U.S.C. 40113 and 44701, which the FAA Administrator has delegated to me, I grant your petition, subject to the conditions and

limitations listed below.

Conditions and Limitations

1. The page numbers may be omitted from any data output; however, the organizational

format of the technical data must be retained.

2. The data output must employ appropriate references to the organizational format used (e.g., chapters, sections, paragraphs).

3. The data output system must include a means to allow a user to determine the revision status of the data output.

4. All printed data output must contain at least the following information:

a. The date the data output was printed;

b. The revision date of the data output; and

c. The title of the manual and the aircraft, component, or item to which the manual applies (e.g., Boeing 767, GE CF6-6, Sunstrand Constant Speed Drive).

The Effect of Our Decision

Our decision extends the termination date of Exemption No. 6612, as amended, to April 30, 2013, unless sooner superseded or rescinded.

Sincerely,

/s/ Raymond Towles Acting Director, Flight Standards

Service
§ 3504.25 Do I have to produce a certain amount per year? ( a ) If your mineral lease was issued, renewed or readjusted any time after April 22, 1986, you must either produce a minimum amount or pay a minimum royalty in lieu of production each lease year. This requirement begins in the sixth lease year or the first full year of a renewed or readjusted lease, whichever comes first. The minimum royalty payment is $3 per acre or fraction of an acre. For phosphate, sulphur, gilsonite and hardrock leases, pay the minimum royalty in advance before the lease anniversary date. For sodium, potassium and asphalt leases the minimum royalty is due in advance before January 1 of each year.
( b ) MMS will credit any lease rental payment (see § 3504.16(d) of this part) against the minimum royalty payment amount due under paragraph (a) of this section. MMS then will credit your minimum royalty as specified under paragraph (a) to your production royalties for that year only. For example, if you pay $1,000 in rental and you owe $3,000 in minimum royalties, you will pay a total of $3,000 for both. If during the lease year you accrue $10,000 in production royalties, MMS will credit $3,000 against that amount.
( c ) Hardrock mineral leases or development or operating agreements subject to escalating rentals are exempt from minimum production and minimum royalty requirements.
----

 

 

 

CERTIFICATION PURSUANTTO SECTION 302

OF THE SARBANES-OXLEYACT OF 2002

 I, Peter Wanner, certify that:

 

 1. I have reviewed this annualreport on Form 10-KSB of First National Power Corporation for the year endedDecember 31, 2004;

 

2. Based on my knowledge, this annualreport does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to statea material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respectto the period covered by this annual report;

 

3. Based on my knowledge, thefinancial statements, and other financial information included in this annualreport, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, resultsof operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periodspresented in this annual report.

 

4. The registrant's other certifyingoffering officers and I are responsible for establishing and maintainingdisclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and15d-14) for the registrant and we have: a) designed such disclosure controls andprocedures to ensure that material information relating to the registrant,including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others withinthose entities, particularly during the period in which this annual report isbeing prepared; b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosurecontrols and procedures as of a date within 90 days prior to the filing date ofthis annual report (the "Evaluation Date"); and c) presented in this annualreport our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls andprocedures based on our evaluation as of the Evaluation Date;

 

5. The registrant's other certifyingofficers and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation, to theregistrant's auditors and the audit committee of registrant's board of directors(or persons performing the equivalent function): a) all significant deficienciesin the design or operation of internal controls which could adversely affect theregistrant's ability to record, process, summarize and report financial data andhave identified for the registrant's auditors any material weaknesses ininternal controls; and b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involvesmanagement or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant'sinternal controls; and 

 

6. The registrant's other certifyingofficers and I have indicated in this annual report whether or not there weresignificant changes in internal controls or in other factors that couldsignificantly affect internal controls subsequent to the date of our most recentevaluation, including any corrective actions with regard to significantdeficiencies and material weaknesses.

 

Date: August 4, 2005

 

 

/s/ Peter Wanner 

Peter Wanner, CFO

 

----
### §6039I. Returns and records with respect to employer-owned life insurance contracts

#### (a) In general

Every applicable policyholder owning 1 or more employer-owned life insurance contracts issued after the date of the enactment of this section shall file a return (at such time and in such manner as the Secretary shall by regulations prescribe) showing for each year such contracts are owned—

(1) the number of employees of the applicable policyholder at the end of the year,

(2) the number of such employees insured under such contracts at the end of the year,

(3) the total amount of insurance in force at the end of the year under such contracts,

(4) the name, address, and taxpayer identification number of the applicable policyholder and the type of business in which the policyholder is engaged, and

(5) that the applicable policyholder has a valid consent for each insured employee (or, if all such consents are not obtained, the number of insured employees for whom such consent was not obtained).

#### (b) Recordkeeping requirement

Each applicable policyholder owning 1 or more employer-owned life insurance contracts during any year shall keep such records as may be necessary for purposes of determining whether the requirements of this section and section 101(j) are met.

#### (c) Definitions

Any term used in this section which is used in section 101(j) shall have the same meaning given such term by section 101(j).

(Added Pub. L. 109–280, title VIII, §863(b), Aug. 17, 2006, 120 Stat. 1023.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

The date of the enactment of this section, referred to in subsec. (a), is the date of enactment of Pub. L. 109–280, which was approved Aug. 17, 2006.

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

#### Effective Date

Section applicable to life insurance contracts issued after Aug. 17, 2006, except for a contract issued after such date pursuant to an exchange described in section 1035 of this title for a contract issued on or prior to that date, and any material change to cause the contract to be treated as a new contract, with exception in the case of a master contract, see section 863(d) of Pub. L. 109–280, set out as an Effective Date of 2006 Amendment note under section 101 of this title.
No. 14,649.

#### Rivers *v.*Pierce.

(103 P. [2d] 690)

Decided May 27, 1940.

Rehearing denied June 17, 1940.

Mr. Mortimer Stone, Mr. Alden T. Hill, for plaintiff in error.

Mr. Hatfield Chilson, Mr. Robert M. McCreary, for defendant in error.

*In Department.*

Mr. Justice Bakke

delivered the opinion of the court.

Action in damages by plaintiff in error, who was also plaintiff below, for the loss of a horse, allegedly killed by defendant’s negligent operation of a motor vehicle. Plaintiff recovered in the justice of the peace court, but on appeal to the county court, sitting without a jury, a *237motion for nonsuit was sustained at the close of plaintiff’s case. The findings of the court were against defendant on his counter-claim for damages to his car. Reversal is sought by plaintiff on a writ of error. No cross error is assigned to the ruling on the counterclaim.

The facts briefly are as follows: Plaintiff owns about fifty saddle horses at Estes Park. On the evening of July 5, 1938, about ten o’clock, two of his employees were driving the herd along the paved highway in an easterly direction from the village to the pasture. The horses were strung along the north side of the road (next to the pasture) for about one hundred yards. At the same time, defendant approached in his car, driving between forty and fifty miles an hour. He did not slacken his speed, he says, because he did not see the horses. He had passed all except the last one, which suddenly jumped in front of his car and was so badly injured that it had to be killed. The employees admitted they did nothing to get the horse off the shoulder of the road when they saw the car coming.

We think the court properly sustained the motion for nonsuit.

While a motorist is required to exercise reasonable care to avoid a collision with domestic animals on a highway, he is not an insurer against injury to such animals, and if injury occurs which is unavoidable he is not liable. Liability attaches in such cases only where the driver of the car is negligent, which negligence must be established by the owner of the animal injured or killed. 5-6 Huddy Law of Automobiles, p. 358, §212.

The attempt on the part of the plaintiff in error to show that it was the custom in Estes Park to give saddle horses the right of way, such as would entitle it to legal sanction, is not convincing and we do not consider it.

Judgment affirmed.

Mr. Justice Knous and Mr, Justice Burke concur.
Section 333 Petition

Opperators Name: Edward V Cummings, 1 136 Deal Rd Wayside, NJ 07712 Regulations from which relief is required : Certification procedures for products and parts, A irworthiness Certificates , Pilots licensing and any associated noise certification and testing requirements Operator will stay a safe distance from the public, will not fly at night, stay below 400 feet, no faster the 50mph and used no closer then 3 miles from airports Granting the exemption would be in public interest by providing local businesses, schools, and charities with aerial photography wich can be used for surveys, construction, education, real estate. In addition, this method of obtaining photography is safer and better for the enviroment as it eliminates photography that would otherwise be taken in a manned plane involving a maned planed with passenge rs and fuel. Proposed operations include: aerial surveying, real estate, photography, and videography. Aircraft make and model : YUNEEC Q500 4K Typhoon Quadcopter
#### Frank T. SCOZZAFAVA, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES of America, Respondent.

Misc. No. 450.

United States Court of Appeals Ninth Circuit.

June 8, 1955.

*255Frank T. Scozzafava, Steilacoom, Wash., for petitioner, in pro. per.

No appearance for respondent.

Before DENMAN, Chief Judge, and BONE and ORR, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Scozzafava seeks to obtain review by this court of an order of the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington denying his motion pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255.

The papers do not show that an appeal has been taken by filing a notice of appeal with the district court. The petition is ordered dismissed.
### §792. Repealed. Pub. L. 95–281, §1(b)(1), May 15, 1978, 92 Stat. 246

Section, act Aug. 1, 1956, ch. 843, §2, 70 Stat. 893, defined "tribe", "Secretary", "lands", and "tribal property".
[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 191 (Monday, October 4, 2004)]
[Notices]
[Page 59267]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-22157]


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

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Antitrust Division


Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and 
Production act of 1993--American Society for Blood and Marrow 
Transplantation

    Notice is hereby given that, on September 10, 2004, pursuant to 
section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production act of 
1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301 et seq. (``the Act''), American Society for Blood 
and Marrow Transplantation (``ASBMT'') has filed written notifications 
simultaneously with the Attorney General and the Federal Trade 
Commission disclosing (1) the name and principal place of business of 
the standards development organization and (2) the nature and scope of 
its standards development activities. The notifications were filed for 
the purpose of invoking the Act's provisions limiting the recovery of 
antitrust plaintiffs to actual damages under specified circumstances.
    Pursuant to section 6(b) of the Act, the name and principal place 
of business of the standards development organization is American 
Society for Blood and Marrow Transplantation (``ASBMT'') Arlington 
Heights, IL 60005-4460. The nature and scope of ASBMT's standards 
development activities are to develop, plan, establish, coordinate, and 
publish voluntary consensus standards applicable to the field of 
cellular therapy and blood and marrow transplantation. Specifically, 
ASBMT develops, plans, establishes coordinates, and publishes voluntary 
consensus standards in the form of: Policy statements relating to the 
effectiveness of transplant therapies; transplant center guidelines; 
physician training guidelines; and clinical practice guidelines in the 
form of evidence-based reviews. Through its standard development 
activities, ASBMT seeks to ensure the highest quality of medical 
practice, define commonly accepted medical practice, and develop 
standards of medical care as related to the field of cellular therapy 
and blood and marrow transplantation. ASBMT's standards development 
activities are ongoing in nature, and existing guidelines and policy 
statements may be updated and/or amended from time to time.

Dorothy B. Fountain,
Deputy Director of Operations, Antitrust Division.
[FR Doc. 04-22157 Filed 10-1-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-11-M
[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 23 (Wednesday, February 4, 2004)]
[Notices]
[Page 5312]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-2243]


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

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Forest Service


West Maurys Fuels and Vegetation Management Project, Ochoco 
National Forest, Crook County, OR

AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA.

ACTION: Revised notice of intent to prepare an Environmental Impact 
Statement.

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

SUMMARY: On January 16, 2004, the USDA, Forest Service, Ochoco National 
Forest, published a notice of intent in Federal Register (69 FR 2563) 
to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) on a proposal to 
manage the fuels and vegetation in the west half of the West Maury 
Mountains. The original notice of intent identified 7,650 acres of 
fuels treatment; the correct number is 17,890 acres.

DATES: The original notice of intent asked that comments concerning the 
scope of the analysis would be most helpful if received by February 16, 
2004. To provide adequate time for meaningful participation, comments 
are now due March 1, 2004.

ADDRESSES: Send written comments to Arthur Currier, District Ranger, 
Lookout Mountain District, Ochoco National Forest, 3160 NE., Third 
Street, Prineville, Oregon 97754.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Bryan Scholz, Interdisciplinary Team 
leader, phone: (541) 416-6500, or e-mail: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#c6a5a9ababa3a8b2b5ebb6a7a5afa0afa5a8a9b4b2aeb1a3b5b2eba9a5aea9a5a986a0b5e8a0a3a2e8b3b5"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="7f1c1012121a110b0c520f1e1c1619161c11100d0b17081a0c0b52101c17101c103f190c51191a1b510a0c">[email protected]</span></a>.

    Dated: January 28, 2004.
Craig Courtright,
Acting Forest Supervisor.
[FR Doc. 04-2243 Filed 2-3-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-11-M


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>