alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### §291. Derived patents

(a) In General.—The owner of a patent may have relief by civil action against the owner of another patent that claims the same invention and has an earlier effective filing date, if the invention claimed in such other patent was derived from the inventor of the invention claimed in the patent owned by the person seeking relief under this section.

(b) Filing Limitation.—An action under this section may be filed only before the end of the 1-year period beginning on the date of the issuance of the first patent containing a claim to the allegedly derived invention and naming an individual alleged to have derived such invention as the inventor or joint inventor.

(July 19, 1952, ch. 950, 66 Stat. 814; Pub. L. 112–29, §§3(h)(1), 20(j), Sept. 16, 2011, 125 Stat. 288, 335.)

#### Historical and Revision Notes

Based on Title 35, U.S.C., 1946 ed., §66 (R.S. 4918, amended Mar. 2, 1927, ch. 273, §12, 44 Stat. 1337).

Language is changed.

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

2011—Pub. L. 112–29, §20(j), struck out "of this title" after "146".

Pub. L. 112–29, §3(h)(1), amended section generally. Prior to amendment, text read as follows: "The owner of an interfering patent may have relief against the owner of another by civil action, and the court may adjudge the question of the validity of any of the interfering patents, in whole or in part. The provisions of the second paragraph of section 146 shall apply to actions brought under this section."

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

#### Effective Date of 2011 Amendment

Amendment by section 3(h)(1) of Pub. L. 112–29 effective upon the expiration of the 18-month period beginning on Sept. 16, 2011, and applicable to certain applications for patent and any patents issuing thereon, see section 3(n) of Pub. L. 112–29, set out as an Effective Date of 2011 Amendment; Savings Provisions note under section 100 of this title.

Amendment by section 20(j) of Pub. L. 112–29 effective upon the expiration of the 1-year period beginning on Sept. 16, 2011, and applicable to proceedings commenced on or after that effective date, see section 20(l) of Pub. L. 112–29, set out as a note under section 2 of this title.

#### Savings Provisions

Provisions of 35 U.S.C. 291, as in effect on the day before the expiration of the 18-month period beginning on Sept. 16, 2011, apply to each claim of certain applications for patent, and certain patents issued thereon, for which the amendments made by section 3 of Pub. L. 112–29 also apply, see section 3(n)(2) of Pub. L. 112–29, set out as an Effective Date of 2011 Amendment; Savings Provisions note under section 100 of this title.
### §512. Delegation of authority; assignment of functions and duties

(a) Except as otherwise provided by law, the Secretary may assign functions and duties, and delegate, or authorize successive redelegation of, authority to act and to render decisions, with respect to all laws administered by the Department, to such officers and employees as the Secretary may find necessary. Within the limitations of such delegations, redelegations, or assignments, all official acts and decisions of such officers and employees shall have the same force and effect as though performed or rendered by the Secretary.

(b) There shall be included on the technical and administrative staff of the Secretary such staff officers, experts, inspectors, and assistants (including legal assistants) as the Secretary may prescribe.

(Added Pub. L. 102–83, §2(a), Aug. 6, 1991, 105 Stat. 389.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Prior Provisions

Prior section 512 was renumbered section 1512 of this title.

Provisions similar to those in this section were contained in section 212 of this title prior to repeal by Pub. L. 102–83, §2(a).
#### Herbert H. Gibbs, Respondent, v. Knickerbocker Savings and Loan Company, Appellant.

Motion for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals denied. Present — Jenks, P. J., Thomas, Carr, Stapleton and Putnam, JJ.
# L_2018038EN.01000101.xml

| 10.2.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 38/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.2.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 38/1

---

Notice concerning the provisional application of the Economic Partnership Agreement between the European Union and its Member States, of the one part, and the SADC EPA States, of the other part

The European Union and the Republic of Mozambique have notified the completion of the procedures necessary for the provisional application of the Economic Partnership Agreement between the European Union and its Member States, of the one part, and the SADC EPA States, of the other part (1), in accordance with Article 113 of that Agreement. Consequently, the Agreement applies provisionally as from 4 February 2018 between the European Union and the Republic of Mozambique. By virtue of Article 3(2) of Council Decision (EU) 2016/1623 on the signing and provisional application of the Agreement, Article 12(4) shall not be provisionally applied.

1

---

(1)  
  OJ L 250, 16.9.2016, p. 3.

1

---
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

WESTERN DISTRICT

**SCOTT SNYDER,**

**Petitioner**

**v.**

**GEORGE M. THOMAS III, EXECUTOR**
**OF THE ESTATE OF GEORGE M. THOMAS, JR., ALSO KNOWN AS**  **GEORGE THOMAS, DECEASED, AND GEORGE M. THOMAS III, EXECUTOR** 
**OF THE ESTATE OF DOROTHY L. THOMAS, DECEASED,** 

**Respondent :** 

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**: No. 299 WAL 2014** 

**Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the Order of the Superior Court filed April 9,**  **2014 at No. 407 WDA 2013, reversing the Order of the Lawrence County Court of**  **Common Pleas filed February 13, 2013 at No. 11091 of 2010, C.A.** 

DISSENTING STATEMENT

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE SAYLOR DECIDED: JANUARY 23, 2 015

**I respectfully dissent from the majority’s summary dispo sition of this case on the** 

**allocatur docket. The Court’s Internal Operating Proced ures require that “[a] per curiam** 

**order granting allowance of appeal and reversing an o rder of the lower court must cite** 

**to controlling legal authority or provide a full exp lanation of the reasons for reversal.”** 

**Supreme Court IOP §6(B). The rule is plainly intend ed to provide litigants with a** 

**reasonably developed explanation as to why the Court is exercising its discretion to** 

**disturb the status quo attained in an as-of-right direct appeal. In this regard, the** 

**majority’s mere citation to a general legal principle, without any attempt to explain how** 

**that principle applies to the particular facts under rev iew, is facially deficient.** **Absent a citation to directly controlling authority inv olving an analogous** 

**paradigm, this Court should, at most, grant the reque st for allocatur and consider the** 

**merits upon full briefing by the parties.**

**Madame Justice Todd joins this dissenting statement.**
§ 270.350 Freedom of Information Act. As permitted by section 7(b) of the Act, the following information will not be released: ( a ) Information described by section 552(b) of Title 5, United States Code, or protected from disclosure by any other law of the United States; and
( b ) Copies of evidence collected, information created, or other investigation documents submitted or received by NIST, a Team, or any other investigation participant, until the final investigation report is issued.
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 96-60475

Summary Calendar

 

LOUIS DAVIS, JR.,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

STATE OF MISSISSIPPI; JOSEPH

W. GEX; JAMES G. TUCKER, III;

CHARLES E. WOOD; MISSISSIPPI BAR,

 Defendants-Appellees.

_____________________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Mississippi

USDC No. 1:96CV190BrR

______________________________________

*********************************************

LOUIS DAVIS, JR.,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

JAMES G. TUCKER, III,

Defendant-Appellee.

______________________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Mississippi

USDC No. 1:96CV288BrR

_____________________________________
June 20, 1997
June 20, 1997

*

 Pursuant to Local Rule 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 Local Rule

47.5.4.

Before DAVIS, EMILIO M. GARZA and STEWART, Circuit Judges:

PER CURIAM:*

Louis Davis, Jr., Mississippi prisoner #16425, appeals the dismissal of his civil rights

complaint asfrivolous. He has filed a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) on appeal.

The motion for leave to appeal IFP is GRANTED.

Davis is not required to pay an initial partial filing fee; however, he shall make monthly

payments oftwenty percent of the preceding month’s income credited to his account. See 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915(a). The agency having custody of Davis is directed to forward payments from his prisoner

account to the clerk of the district court each time the amount in his account exceeds $10 until the

filing fee is paid. See id.

Davis’ trial and appellate counsel are private parties and therefore are not state actors under

42 U.S.C. § 1983. Adickes v. S. H. Kress & Co., 398 U.S. 144, 152 (1970); Hobbs v. Hawkins, 968

F.2d 471, 480 (5th Cir. 1992). The state prosecutor is entitled to absolute prosecutorial immunity.

Boyd v. Biggers, 31 F.3d 279, 285 (5th Cir. 1994). The State of Mississippi and the Mississippi Bar,

as an “arm” of the state, are absolutely immune from suit under the Eleventh Amendment. Nordgren

v. Hafter, 789 F.2d 334, 336-37 (5th Cir.); Voisin’s Oyster House, Inc. v. Guidry, 799 F.2d 183, 186

(5th Cir. 1986).

Davis’ appeal is without arguable merit and thus frivolous. See Howard v. King, 707 F.2d.

215, 219-20 (5th Cir. 1983). Because the appeal is frivolous, it is DISMISSED. See 5th Cir. R.

42.2. The motion to file supplemental briefs is DENIED.
Presidential Documents

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 218 / Friday, November 12, 2004 / Presidential Documents 65513

Notice of November 9, 2004

Continuation of the National Emergency With Respect to Iran 

On November 14, 1979, by Executive Order 12170, the President declared 

a national emergency with respect to Iran pursuant to the International 

Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1701–1706) to deal with the 

unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security, foreign policy, 

and economy of the United States constituted by the situation in Iran. 

Because our relations with Iran have not yet returned to normal, and the 

process of implementing the January 19, 1981, agreements with Iran is 

still underway, the national emergency declared on November 14, 1979, 

must continue in effect beyond November 14, 2004. Therefore, consistent 

with section 202(d) of the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1622(d)), 

I am continuing for 1 year this national emergency with respect to Iran. 

This notice shall be published in the Federal Register and transmitted 

[FR Doc. 04–25368

Filed 11–10–04; 9:46 am] 

Billing code 3195–01–P 

to the Congress.

THE WHITE HOUSE, 

November 9, 2004. 

W
SCHEDULE TO EXHIBIT 10.22.2


 


 


AMENDMENTS TO WGI RETENTION AGREEMENTS

WITH NAMED EXECUTIVES


 


 


EACH DATED AS OF AUGUST 20, 2002


 


Stephen M. Johnson


George H. Juetten


Ambrose L. Schwallie


Thomas H. Zarges


 


 


NOTE:  The Amendment to Mr. Johnson’s Retention Agreement is identical
in all materials terms to those entered into with Messrs Juetten, Schwallie and
Zarges, with the exception that his Retention Bonus is prorated to allow for
the time during early 2001 when he was not in the Company’s employ.  Mr. Johnson returned to the employ of the
Company on November 12, 2001.
§ 838.711 Maximum former spouse survivor annuity. ( a ) Under CSRS, payments under a court order may not exceed the amount provided in § 831.641 of this chapter.
( b ) Under FERS, payments under a court order may not exceed amount provided in § 842.613 of this chapter plus the basic employee death benefit as defined in § 843.102 of this chapter.
[57 FR 33574, July 29, 1992, as amended at 58 FR 52882, Oct. 13, 1993]
### SUBCHAPTER I—PURPOSE; DEFINITIONS
**Exhibit
      32.2**








**CERTIFICATIONS
      PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350 AS ADDED BY**


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








In
      connection with the Quarterly Report
      of East Penn Financial Corporation (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period
      ending March 31, 2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
      (the
“Report”), I, **Theresa M. Wasko**, Treasurer and 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:





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





·
            To
                my knowledge, the information contained in the Report fairly presents,
                in
                all material respects, the Company’s consolidated financial condition and
                results of operations of the Company as of the dates and for the
                periods
                presented in the Report.














/s/
      Theresa M.
      Wasko


**Theresa
      M. Wasko**, Treasurer and Chief Financial Officer





Dated:   May
      9, 2007






Page
      29
Exhibit 31.2
I, Glen R Gilbert, Chief Financial Officer of Levitt Corporation, certify that:
1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Levitt Corporation; 2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any untruestatement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary tomake the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which suchstatements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered bythis quarterly report; 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financialinformation included in this quarterly report, fairly present in allmaterial respects the financial condition, results of operations and cashflows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in thisquarterly report; 4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (asdefined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrantand have:
a. Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused suchdisclosure controls and procedures to be designed under oursupervision, to ensure that material information relating to theregistrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known tous by others within those entities, particularly during the period inwhich this quarterly report is being prepared; b. Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controlsand procedures and presented in this quarterly report our conclusionsabout the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, asof the end of the period covered by this quarterly report based on suchevaluation; and c. Disclosed in this quarterly report any change in the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting that occurred during theregistrant’s most recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected,or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting; and
5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based onour most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting,to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’sboard of directors (or persons performing the equivalent function):
a. All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the designor operation of internal control over financial reporting which arereasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability torecord, process, summarize and report financial information; and b. Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management orother employees who have a significant role in the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting.
Date: May 14, 2004   By: /s/Glen R. Gilbert   Glen R. Gilbert, Chief Financial Officer
```

[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 215 Introduced in House (IH)]

108th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 215

            To extend the national flood insurance program.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 7, 2003

  Mr. Vitter introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                    Committee on Financial Services

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
            To extend the national flood insurance program.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Flood Insurance for American 
Homeowners Act of 2003''.

SEC. 2. EXTENSION OF NATIONAL FLOOD INSURANCE PROGRAM.

    (a) Extension.--The National Flood Insurance Act of 1968 is 
amended--
            (1) in section 1309(a)(2) (42 U.S.C. 4016(a)(2)), by 
        striking ``December 31, 2002'' and inserting ``December 31, 
        2004'';
            (2) in section 1319 (42 U.S.C. 4026), by striking ``after'' 
        and all that follows through the period at the end and 
        inserting ``after December 31, 2004.'';
            (3) in section 1336(a) (42 U.S.C. 4056(a)), by striking 
        ``ending'' and all that follows through ``in'' and inserting 
        ``ending December 31, 2004, in''; and
            (4) in section 1376(c) (42 U.S.C. 4127), by striking 
        ``December 31, 2002'' and inserting ``December 31, 2004''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section shall be 
considered to have taken effect on December 31, 2002.
                                 <all>
```
**FREEDOM
      BANCSHARES, INC.**


**AND
      SUBSIDIARY**





**EXHIBIT
      32.2**




**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 accompanying quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Freedom
      Bancshares, Inc. (the “ Company ”)
      for
      the quarterly period ended September 30, 2006 (the “ Periodic
      Report ”),
      the
      undersigned hereby certifies, pursuant to Title 18, Section 1350 United States
      Code, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
      to
      the best of his knowledge and belief, that the Periodic Report fully complies
      with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange
      Act
      of 1934 and that the information contained in the Periodic Report fairly
      presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
      operations of the Company.





November
      14, 2006








/s/
                Clyde A. McArthurClyde
                A. McArthurChief
                Financial Officer








A
      signed
      original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided
      to
      Freedom Bancshares, Inc. and will be retained by Freedom Bancshares, Inc. and
      furnished to the SEC or its staff upon request.





The
      information in this Exhibit 32.2 shall not be deemed “filed” for purposes of
      Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
No. IV-08-023 

Contact: Victor Dricks 

Phone: (817) 860-8128 

 

 May 20, 2008 

 E-Mail: opa4@nrc.gov

NRC TO DISCUSS 2007 PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT 

 FOR COOPER NUCLEAR PLANT 

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff will meet in Brownville, Neb., on June 2, with 

representatives of the Nebraska Public Power District, to discuss the agency=s assessment of 

safety performance for last year at the Cooper nuclear plant. 

The meeting, which will be open to the public, is scheduled to begin at 4 p.m. at the 

Brownville Concert Hall, Atlantic Avenue and Second St., Brownville. 

In addition to the performance assessment, the NRC staff will be available to answer 

questions from the public on the safety performance of Cooper, as well as the NRC=s role in 

ensuring safe plant operation. 

 AThe NRC continually reviews the performance of Cooper and the nation=s other 

commercial nuclear power facilities,@ NRC Region IV Administrator Elmo E. Collins said. AThis 

meeting will provide an opportunity for a discussion of our annual assessment of safety 

performance with the company and with local officials and residents who live near the plant.@

A letter sent from the NRC Region IV office to plant officials addresses the performance 

of the plant during 2007 and will serve as the basis for the meeting discussion. It is available on 

the NRC web site at: 

http://www.nrc.gov/NRR/OVERSIGHT/ASSESS/LETTERS/cns_2007q4.pdf . 

The NRC utilizes color-coded inspection findings and performance indicators to assess 

nuclear power plant performance. The colors start with "green" and then increase to "white," 

"yellow" or "red," commensurate with the safety significance of the issues involved. 

The NRC said Cooper operated safely during 2007. However, there were 14 inspection 

findings during 2007 associated with human performance. While there have been some 

NRC NEWS

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

Office of Public Affairs Region IV 

 612 E. Lamar Blvd., Suite 400 

 Arlington, TX 76011-4125 

Telephone: (817) 860-8128 
improvements in human performance work practices corrective actions have not yet proven fully 

effective. As a result, NRC will continue to focus attention on this area through its baseline, or 

routine inspection program. 

Routine inspections are performed by two NRC Resident Inspectors assigned to the plant 

and by inspection specialists from the Region IV Office in Arlington, Texas. 

Current performance information for Cooper is available on the NRC web site at: 

http://www.nrc.gov/NRR/OVERSIGHT/ASSESS/CNS/cns_chart.html . 

 ### 

 

 NRC news releases are available through a free list serve subscription at the following Web address: 

http://www.nrc.gov/public-involve/listserver.html . The NRC homepage at www.nrc.gov also offers a SUBSCRIBE 

link. E-mail notifications are sent to subscribers when news releases are posted to NRC's Web site.
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. 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 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 97-30469

(Summary Calendar)

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

DAVID HAMPTON,

Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Louisiana

(USDC No. 95-CV-4297)

- - - - - - - - - -

November 25, 1997

Before WIENER, BARKSDALE, and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

David Hampton, federal prisoner #23890-034 I-D-2, appeals from

the denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion to vacate, correct, or

set aside sentence following this court’s remand as to Hampton’s

ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim.

We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. The

district court did not abuse its discretion in not conducting an

evidentiary hearing. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons

adopted by the district court. United States v. Hampton, No. 95-

CV-4297 (E.D. La. Apr. 17, 1997).

AFFIRMED.