alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________

VENTRIA BIOSCIENCE INC.,

Appellant

v.

INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION,

Appellee

WUHAN HEALTHGEN BIOTECHNOLOGY

CORPORATION,

Intervenor

______________________

2023-1172

______________________

Appeal from the United States International Trade 

Commission in Investigation No. 337-TA-1238.

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

WUHAN HEALTHGEN BIOTECHNOLOGY CORP.,

Appellant

v.

INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION,

Appellee

VENTRIA BIOSCIENCE INC.,

Intervenor

Case: 23-1172 Document: 21 Page: 1 Filed: 03/14/2023
2 WUHAN HEALTHGEN BIOTECHNOLOGY CORP. v. ITC

______________________

2023-1389

______________________

Appeal from the United States International Trade 

Commission in Investigation No. 337-TA-1238

______________________

ON MOTION

______________________

O R D E R

Ventria Bioscience Inc. moves unopposed to voluntarily 

dismiss Appeal No. 2023-1172 pursuant to Federal Rule of 

Appellate Procedure 42(b) and the parties’ agreement as to 

the allocation of costs.

Upon consideration thereof,

IT IS ORDERED THAT:

(1) The motion is granted. Appeal No. 2023-1172 is 

dismissed.

(2) Each party shall bear its own costs for Appeal No. 

2023-1172.

(3) The revised official caption for Appeal No. 2023-

1389 is reflected in this order. 

(4) Wuhan Healthgen Biotechnology Corp.’s opening 

brief in Appeal No. 2023-1389 is due no later than 60 days 

Case: 23-1172 Document: 21 Page: 2 Filed: 03/14/2023
WUHAN HEALTHGEN BIOTECHNOLOGY CORP. v. ITC 3

from the date of filing of this order.

 March 14, 2023 

 Date

 FOR THE COURT

 /s/ Peter R. Marksteiner

 Peter R. Marksteiner

 Clerk of Court

ISSUED AS A MANDATE (for 2023-1172 only): 

March 14, 2023

Case: 23-1172 Document: 21 Page: 3 Filed: 03/14/2023
#### Martha Blau et al., Doing Business under the Name of Nu-Process Cleaning Co., Respondents, v. George T. Baird, Jr., et al., Individually and as Partners Doing Business under the Name of Commercial Trading Company, Appellants.

No opinion. Present — ■ Peck, P. J., Glennon, Dore, Cohn and Callahan, JJ.; Dore, J., dissents and votes to reverse.
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER UNDER 18 U.S.C. §1350

I, David H. Fleischman, Chief
Financial Officer of TradeStation Group, Inc., hereby certify, to my knowledge, that:

The Annual Report on Form 10-K of TradeStation Group,
Inc. for the year ended December 31, 2008 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the information contained in the Report fairly
presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of TradeStation Group, Inc.

The foregoing
certification is being furnished solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350 and is not being filed as part of the Report or as a separate disclosure document.



|               |  |  |  |                                                                 
|-------------- |  |  |  | ----------------------------------------------------------------
|March 12, 2009 |  |  |  | /s/ David H. Fleischman                                         
|Date           |  |  |  | David H. Fleischman                                             
|               |  |  |  | Chief Financial Officer, Vice President of Finance
and Treasurer
No: 13-096 November 13, 2013

CONTACT: Scott Burnell, 301-415-8200 

Atomic Safety and Licensing Board to Hold Hearing

Jan. 6, 2014, in Houston on Proposed New Reactors

The Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (ASLB) has rescheduled to Jan. 6, 2014, a hearing in 

Houston involving an application to build two new reactors at the South Texas Project site near Bay 

City, Texas. The ASLB is the independent body within the Nuclear Regulatory Commission that 

conducts adjudicatory hearings and renders decisions on legal challenges to licensing actions.

The hearing will start at 9:00 a.m. CST on Monday, January 6, in Room 425 of the Fourteenth 

Court of Appeals, 301 Fannin St. in Houston. The hearing will continue on January 7 until noon, if 

necessary. Members of the public and media are welcome to observe the evidentiary hearing, but 

participation in the hearing will be limited to the parties and their lawyers and witnesses. Those 

planning to attend the evidentiary hearing should arrive at least 15 minutes early to allow time for 

security screening, including searches of hand-carried items such as briefcases or backpacks. No signs 

will be permitted in the courtroom.

The hearing involves Nuclear Innovation North America’s application to build two Advanced

Boiling-Water Reactors at the South Texas Project site. The hearing will examine whether the 

applicant’s planned corporate governing structure and financing comply with the NRC’s rules 

prohibiting foreign ownership, control and domination.

The board continues to accept written comments from interested members of the public, known 

as limited appearance statements. These statements are not testimony or evidence, but they may aid the 

board and/or the parties in considering the issues in the hearing. Statements may be submitted via mail 

to:, Office of the Secretary Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 

Washington, D.C. 20555-0001; via fax to (301) 415-1101 or via e-mail to hearingdocket@nrc.gov. 

Copies of the statements should also be submitted to: Administrative Judge Michael M. Gibson, 

Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel, Mail Stop T-3F23, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 

Washington, D.C. 20555-0001; via fax to (301) 415-5599, or via email to carter.thurman@nrc.gov and 

michael.gibson@nrc.gov. 

Documents related to the South Texas Project application are available on the NRC website. 

Documents regarding this board’s proceeding are available on the NRC’s Electronic Hearing Docket by 

clicking on the folder entitled “South_Texas_52-012&013-COL” on the left side of the page. More 

information about the role of the ASLB in the licensing process is available on the NRC website.
### **CHAPTER 72—UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR VETERANS CLAIMS**

#### SUBCHAPTER I—ORGANIZATION AND JURISDICTION

Sec.
7251.
Status.
7252.
Jurisdiction; finality of decisions.
7253.
Composition.
7254.
Organization.
7255.
Offices, duty stations, and residences.
7256.
Times and places of sessions.
7257.
Recall of retired judges.

#### SUBCHAPTER II—PROCEDURE

7261.
Scope of review.
7262.
Fee for filing appeals.
7263.
Representation of parties; fee agreements.
7264.
Rules of practice and procedure.
7265.
Contempt authority; assistance to the Court.
7266.
Notice of appeal.
7267.
Decisions.
7268.
Availability of proceedings.
7269.
Publication of decisions.

#### SUBCHAPTER III—MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS

7281.
Employees.
7282.
Budget and expenditures.
7283.
Disposition of fees.
7284.
Fee for transcript of record.
7285.
Practice and registration fees.
7286.
Judicial Conference of the Court.
7287.
Administration.
7288.
Annual report.

#### SUBCHAPTER IV—DECISIONS AND REVIEW

7291.
Date when Court decision becomes final.
7292.
Review by United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.

#### SUBCHAPTER V—RETIREMENT AND SURVIVORS ANNUITIES

7296.
Retirement of judges.
7297.
Survivor annuities.
7298.
Retirement Fund.
7299.
Limitation on activities of retired judges.

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

**2013**—Pub. L. 112–260, title III, §302(a)(2), Jan. 10, 2013, 126 Stat. 2425, which directed amendment of the table of sections for chapter 72 by adding item 7255 and striking out former item 7255 "Offices", without specifying the Code title to be amended, was executed to the table of sections for this chapter, to reflect the probable intent of Congress.

**2008**—Pub. L. 110–389, title VI, §604(b), Oct. 10, 2008, 122 Stat. 4179, added item 7288.

**2001**—Pub. L. 107–103, title VI, §§604(c)(2), 605(b), Dec. 27, 2001, 115 Stat. 1000, substituted "Practice and registration fees" for "Practice fee" in item 7285 and added item 7287.

**1999**—Pub. L. 106–117, title X, §§1021(b), 1024(b), Nov. 30, 1999, 113 Stat. 1592, 1594, added items 7257 and 7299.

**1998**—Pub. L. 105–368, title V, §512(a)(3), (4)(A), Nov. 11, 1998, 112 Stat. 3341, substituted "APPEALS FOR VETERANS CLAIMS" for "VETERANS APPEALS" in chapter heading, struck out "of Veterans Appeals" after "Court" in item 7286, substituted "Court decision" for "United States Court of Veterans Appeals decision" in item 7291, and struck out "Court of Veterans Appeals" before "Retirement Fund" in item 7298.

**1991**—Pub. L. 102–82, §2(b), Aug. 6, 1991, 105 Stat. 375, added item 7286.

Pub. L. 102–40, title IV, §402(c)(1), May 7, 1991, 105 Stat. 239, renumbered items 4051 to 4098 as 7251 to 7298, respectively.

**1989**—Pub. L. 101–94, title I, §101(b), Aug. 16, 1989, 103 Stat. 625, added subchapter V heading and items 4096 to 4098.
### Part A—Utility Program
HomeNRC LibraryDocument CollectionsNUREG-Series PublicationsPublications Prepared by NRC Staff

# Generic  Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants  (NUREG-1437)

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Tuesday, September 17, 2024
#### § 0.9 Organization structure.

The Federal Trade Commission includes the following principal units: Office of the Executive Director; Office of the General Counsel; Office of the Secretary; Office of the Inspector General; Office of Administrative Law Judges; Bureau of Competition; Bureau of Consumer Protection; Bureau of Economics; and Office of International Affairs.

[86 FR 38546, July 22, 2021]
#### In the Matter of Fred F. French and Another.

Motion granted, with ten dollars costs. Present—Clarke, P. J., Laughlin, Scott, Dowling and Page, JJ.
#### Allcity Insurance Company, Respondent, v Joseph Fisch, Appellant, and Emmanuel Crespo, Respondent, et al., Defendant.

[820 NYS2d 107]

In an action for a judgment declaring that the plaintiff is not obligated to defend and indemnify the defendant Joseph Fisch in an underlying action entitled *Crespo v Fisch,*pending in the Supreme Court, Kings County, under index No. 43714/99, (1) the plaintiff appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Schmidt, J.), dated May 26, 2005, as denied its motion for summary judgment declaring that it is not obligated to defend and indemnify Joseph Fisch in the underlying action and granted those branches of the separate cross motions of the defendants Emmanuel Crespo and Joseph Fisch which were for summary judgment declaring that it is obligated to defend Joseph Fisch in the underlying action, and (2) the defendant Joseph Fisch cross-appeals from so much of the same order as denied, as premature, that branch of his cross motion which was for summary judgment declaring that the plaintiff is obligated to indemnify him in the underlying action.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The duty to defend is broader than the duty to indemnify and arises “whenever the allegations in a complaint state a cause of action that gives rise to the reasonable possibility of recovery under the policy” *(Town of Massena v Healthcare Underwriters*
      *408
      *Mut. Ins. Co.,*98 NY2d 435, 443 [2002], quoting *Fitzpatrick v American Honda Motor Co., 78*NY2d 61, 65 [1991]; *see Seaboard Sur. Co. v Gillette Co.,*64 NY2d 304, 310 [1984]; *Labate v Liberty Mut. Fire Ins. Co.,*19 AD3d 652, 653 [2005]). Here, the allegations of the complaint in the underlying negligence action fall within the scope of risks covered by the subject policy *(see Cepeda v Varveris,*234 AD2d 497 [1996]; *General Acc. Ins. Co. of Am. v IDBAR Realty Corp.,*229 AD2d 515 [1996]; *United States Liab. Ins. Co. v Farley,*215 AD2d 371 [1995]). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted those branches of the separate cross motions of the defendants Emmanuel Crespo and Joseph Fisch which were for summary judgment declaring that the plaintiff had a duty to defend Fisch.

However, because it could not be determined on the record before the Supreme Court whether any injury occurred during the policy period, the Supreme Court properly determined that a declaration that the plaintiff had a duty to indemnify Fisch was premature *(see Cepeda v Varveris,*239 AD2d 536 [1997]; *GA Ins. Co. of N.Y. v Naimberg Realty Assoc.,*233 AD2d 363 [1996]; *General Acc. Ins. Co. of Am. v IDBAR Realty Corp., supra; United States Liab. Ins. Co. v Farley, supra).*Luciano, J.P., Rivera, Lifson and Covello, JJ., concur.
#### James W. Tate, Respondent, v. Walker Memorial Baptist Church et al., Appellants.

Orders unanimously affirmed, with $20 costs and disbursements to the respondent. No opinion. Present — Peek, P. J., Glennon, Cohn, Breitel and Botein, JJ.
Certification of the Chief Financial Officer

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 Worldwide Manufacturing USA, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-KSB for the year ended December 31, 2005, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), John Ballard, the Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certifies, 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 results of operations of the Company.







/s/ John Ballard

Chief Financial Officer

Date:  April 14, 2006
Exhibit
32.1
 
 **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 **SENSOR SYSTEM SOLUTIONS, INC.** (the
"Company") on Form 10-KSB for the year ended December 31, 2004 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date here of (the "report"), I,
Michael Young, Chief Executive 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 this Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
 
 Dated
this 18th day of May, 2005.
 ****By:
    /s/Michael
      YoungMichael
      YoungChief
      Executive Officer
### §8121. Improper appropriation of streets

(a) Authority.—The Secretary of the Interior shall—

(1) prevent the improper appropriation or occupation of any public street, avenue, square, or reservation in the District of Columbia that belongs to the Federal Government;

(2) reclaim the street, avenue, square, or reservation if unlawfully appropriated;

(3) prevent the erection of any permanent building on property reserved to or for the use of the Government, unless plainly authorized by law; and

(4) report to Congress at the beginning of each session on the Secretary's proceedings in the premises, together with a full statement of all property described in this subsection, and how, and by what authority, the property is occupied or claimed.

(b) Application.—This section does not interfere with the temporary and proper occupation of any part of the property described in subsection (a), by lawful authority, for the legitimate purposes of the Government.

(Pub. L. 107–217, Aug. 21, 2002, 116 Stat. 1206.)

| Revised Section | Source (U.S. Code) | Source (Statutes at Large) |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 8121 | 40:66. | R.S. §1818. |

Section

In subsection (a)(1), the words "the District of Columbia" are substituted for "the city of Washington" for consistency in the revised title and with other titles of the United States Code.

In subsection (a)(3), the word "particularly" is omitted as unnecessary.
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3501 Enrolled Bill (ENR)]

        H.R.3501

                      One Hundred Twelfth Congress

                                 of the

                        United States of America

                          AT THE SECOND SESSION

          Begun and held at the City of Washington on Tuesday,
            the third day of January, two thousand and twelve

                                 An Act

 
To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 
   125 Kerr Avenue in Rome City, Indiana, as the ``SPC Nicholas Scott 
                          Hartge Post Office''.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SPC NICHOLAS SCOTT HARTGE POST OFFICE.
    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 125 Kerr Avenue in Rome City, Indiana, shall be known and 
designated as the ``SPC Nicholas Scott Hartge Post Office''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``SPC 
Nicholas Scott Hartge Post Office''.

                               Speaker of the House of Representatives.

                            Vice President of the United States and    
                                               President of the Senate.
```
### **CHAPTER 52—INTERGOVERNMENTAL COOPERATION**
§ 971.211 Consultation and cooperation with Federal agencies. ( a ) Promptly after receipt of an application that the Administrator has determined pursuant to § 971.210 is complete, the Administrator will distribute a copy of the application to every Federal agency or department which, pursuant to section 103(e) of the Act, has identified programs or activities within its statutory responsibilities which would be affected by the activities proposed in the application (e.g., the Departments of State, Transportation, Justice, Interior, Defense, Treasury and Labor, as well as the Environmental Protection Agency, Federal Trade Commission, International Trade Administration and National Science Foundation). Based on its legal responsibilities and authorities, each such agency or department may, not later than 60 days after it receives a copy of the application, recommend certification of the application, issuance or transfer of the permit, or denial of such certification, issuance or transfer. The advice or recommendation by the Attorney General or Federal Trade Commission on antitrust review, pursuant to section 103(d) of the Act, must be submitted within 90 days after their receipt of a copy of the application.
( b ) NOAA will use this process of consultation and cooperation to facilitate necessary Federal decisions on proposed commercial recovery activities, pursuant to the mandate of section 103(e) of the Act to reduce the number of separate actions required to satisfy Federal agencies' statutory responsibilities. The Administrator will not issue or transfer the permit during the 90 day period after receipt by the Attorney General and the Federal Trade Commission except upon written confirmation of the Attorney General and the Federal Trade Commission that neither intends to submit further comments or recommendations with respect to the application.
( c ) In any case in which a Federal agency or department recommends a denial, it must set forth in detail the manner in which the application does not comply with any law or regulation within its area of responsibility and how the application may be amended, or how TCRs might be added to the permit, to assure compliance with such law or regulation.
( d ) NOAA will cooperate with such agencies and with the applicant with the goal of resolving any concerns raised and satisfying the statutory responsibilities of these agencies.
( e ) If the Administrator decides to issue or transfer a permit with respect to which denial of the issuance or transfer has been recommended by the Attorney General or the Federal Trade Commission, or to issue or transfer a permit without imposing TCRs recommended by the Attorney General or the Federal Trade Commission, as appropriate, the Administrator will, before or at issuance or transfer of the permit, notify the Attorney General and the Federal Trade Commission of the reasons for his decision.
§ 970.209 Substantial compliance with application requirements. ( a ) Priority of right for the issuance of licenses to new entrants will be established on the basis of the chronological order in which license applications which are in substantial compliance with the requirements established under this subpart are filed with the Administrator pursuant to § 970.200.
( b ) In order for an application to be in substantial compliance with the requirements of this subpart, it must include information specifically identifiable with and materially responsive to each requirement contained in §§ 970.201 through 970.208. A determination on substantial compliance relates only to whether the application contains the required information, and does not constitute a determination on certification of the application, or on issuance or transfer of a license.
( c ) The Administrator will make a determination as to whether the application is in substantial compliance. Within 30 days after receipt of an application and the opening of coordinates describing the application area, he will issue written notice to the applicant regarding such determination. The notice will identify, if applicable, in what respects the application is not in either full or substantial compliance. If the application is in substantial but not full compliance, the notice will specify the information which the applicant must submit in order to bring it into full compliance, and why the additional information is necessary.
[46 FR 45898, Sept. 15, 1981, as amended at 47 FR 11513, Mar. 17, 1982]
### SUBCHAPTER III–A—SUBSTANCE ABUSE AND MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES ADMINISTRATION
#### In the Matter of President and Directors of the Manhattan Company, as Executor and Trustee of Mabel H. Green, Deceased, et al., Petitioners, against Charles S. Colden et al., as Justices of the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Tenth Judicial District, et al., Respondents.

Present — Carswell, Acting P. J., Johnston, Wenzel and MacCrate, JJ. Adel, J., not voting. Motion to resettle order denied, without costs. Present- — -Nolan, P. J., Carswell, Johnston, Sneed and Wenzel, JJ. [See *ante,*p. 604; *post,*p. 745.]
<PAGE>
Item 99.1


                             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 Lafayette Community Bancorp (the
"Company") on Form 10-KSB for the period ending December 31, 2002 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
David R. Zimmerman, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to
18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 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.


/s/ David R. Zimmerman
---------------------------
David R. Zimmerman
Chief Executive Officer
March 27, 2003


The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to 18
U.S.C.ss.1350 and not for any other purpose, and is subject to the knowledge
standard contained in 18 U.S.C.ss.1350.