alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Lillian Lynn v. Jay J. Lynn.

Present — Peck, P. J., Dore, Cohn, Van Yoorhis and Shientag, JJ. [See *ante,*p. 269.]
EXHIBIT 10.3  


ASSIGNMENT  


        For valuable consideration, ITN Energy Systems, Inc., a Colorado corporation, hereby assigns to Ascent Solar Technologies, Inc., a Delaware
corporation having a place of business at 8120 Shaffer Parkway, Littleton, CO 80127 and its successors and assigns (collectively hereinafter called "the Assignee"), its entire right, title and
interest throughout the world in the inventions and improvements which are subject of an application for United States Patent signed by us this day, entitled "Apparatus and
Method of Production of Thin Film Photovoltaic Cell" filed on July 19, 2002 at the Untied States Patent and Trademark Office, Serial No.: 10/197,813. We authorize and
request the attorneys appointed in said application to hereafter complete this assignment by inserting above the filing date and serial number of said application when known; this assignment including
said application, any and all United States and foreign patents, utility models, and design registrations granted for any of said inventions or improvements, and the right to claim priority based on
the filing date of said application under the International Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property, the Patent Cooperation Treaty, the European Patent Convention, and all other treaties
of like purposes; and we authorize the Assignee to apply in all countries in our name or in its own name for patents, utility models, design registrations and like rights of exclusion and for
inventors' certificates for said inventions and improvements; and we agree for ourselves and our respective heirs, legal representatives and assigns, without further compensation to perform such
lawful acts and to sign such further applications, assignments, Preliminary Statements and other lawful documents as the Assignee may reasonably request to effectuate fully this assignment. 



	IN WITNESS WHEREOF:	 	 	 	 
	

Dated January 17, 2006.	
 	

 	
 	

 
	

ITN ENERGY SYSTEMS, INC.	
 	

 	
 	

 
	

/s/ Ashutosh Misra
 Ashutosh Misra, Vice President	
 	

 	
 	

 
	







State of Colorado:	 	 	 	 
	 	 	:ss.	 	 
	County of Jefferson:	 	 	 	 





        Before me this 17th day of January, 2006 personally appeared Ashutosh Misra, known to me to be the person whose name is subscribed to the foregoing
Assignment and acknowledged that he executed the same as his free act and deed for the purposes therein contained. 



	 	 	/s/
 Notary Public



My Commission Expires: 10/22/2009
###### Editorial Note on Part 260

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 260 appear at 57 FR 36501, Aug. 13, 1992, and 57 FR 47409, Oct. 16, 1992.

#### § 260.7a-24 Words relating to periods of time in the past.

Unless the context clearly shows otherwise, wherever any fixed period of time in the past is indicated, such period shall be computed from the date of filing with the Commission.
§ 300.301 Contracts to be closed out or completed. An open contractual commitment shall be closed out or completed if: ( a ) The open contractual commitment: ( 1 ) Arises from a transaction in which a customer (as defined in § 300.300) of the other broker or dealer had an interest. For the purposes of this rule a customer is deemed to have an interest in a transaction if ( i ) the other broker was acting as agent for the customer or
( ii ) the other dealer was not a market maker in the security involved, to the extent such other dealer held a firm order from the customer and in connection therewith: In the case of a buy order, prior to executing such customer's order purchased as principal the same number of shares or purchased shares to accumulate the number of shares necessary to complete the order; or in the case of a sell order, prior to executing such customer's order sold the same number of shares or a portion thereof; and
( 2 ) ( i ) Had a settlement date on or within 30 calendar days prior to the filing date and the respective obligations of the parties remained outstanding on the filing date or had a settlement date which occurs on or within three business days subsequent to the filing date; and
( ii ) Had a trade date on or within three business days prior to such settlement date; and
( b ) The other broker or dealer can establish to the satisfaction of the trustee through appropriate documentation that: ( 1 ) In the case of a broker or dealer who maintains his records on a specific identification basis: ( i ) The open contractual commitment arose out of a transaction in which his customer had such an interest, and
( ii ) In the case of a failed to deliver of the debtor, as of the filing date such broker's or dealer's customer's interest had not been sold to such broker or dealer; or
( 2 ) In the case of a broker or dealer who maintains his records other than on a specific identification basis, he has determined that a customer had such an interest in a manner consistent with that used by such broker or dealer prior to the filing date to allocate fails to receive and fails to deliver in computing the special reserve bank account requirement pursuant to the provisions of Rule 15c3-3 under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (17 CFR 240.15c3-3); or
( 3 ) In the case of a broker or dealer not described in paragraph (b)(1) or (2) of this section, he has made the determination in a manner which the trustee finds to be fair and equitable.
[44 FR 21211, Apr. 9, 1979, as amended at 62 FR 10451, Mar. 7, 1997]
#### In the Matter of the Arbitration between Solomon Marchak, Doing Business as Marchak Diesel Locomotives Co., Appellant, and Republic of France et al., Respondents.

No opinion. Present — -Peck, P. J., Dore,

Callahan, Van Voorhis and Shientag, JJ. [See *post,*p. 1026.]
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 quarterly report of Medical Media Television, Inc.
(the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending September 30, 2005, as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 21, 2005 (the
"Report"), I, Philip M. Cohen, 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/ Philip M. Cohen
--------------------------------------
Philip M. Cohen
Chief Executive Officer
November 21, 2005


A signed original of this certification has been provided to the Company and
will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission or its staff upon request.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Jason GIL, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 07-50130

Summary Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Sept. 19, 2007.

Joseph H. Gay, Jr., Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office Western District of Texas, San Antonio, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Jason Gil, Bastrop, TX, pro se.

Before REAVLEY, SMITH, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Jason Gil, federal prisoner # 12794-180, moves this court for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) on appeal following the district court’s denial of his motion seeking to re-open his direct appeal period. The district court determined that Gil’s motion was unauthorized and untimely.

Pursuant to Fed. R.App. P. 24(a), this court may entertain a motion to proceed IFP when the litigant has been denied leave to proceed IFP by the district court. To proceed IFP, Gil must demonstrate financial eligibility and a nonfrivolous issue for appeal. Fed. R.App. P. 24(a); *Carson v. Polley,*689 F.2d 562, 586 (5th Cir.1982).

Gil has filed a brief addressing the merits of various claims relating to the validity of his conviction and sentence. He has not, however, briefed the basis for the district court’s denial of his motion, and that issue is therefore abandoned. *See Yohey v. Collins,*985 F.2d 222, 224-25 (5th Cir.1993); *Brinkmann v. Dallas County Deputy Sheriff Abner,*813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir.1987). Because Gil fails to show that he will raise a nonfrivolous issue on appeal, his motion to proceed IFP is denied. *See*Rule 24(a); *Carson,*689 F.2d at 586. The appeal is without merit and is dismissed as frivolous. *See Howard v. King,*707 F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th Cir.1983); 5th Cir. R. 42.2.

MOTION FOR IFP DENIED; APPEAL DISMISSED.

*

 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.
[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 234 (Tuesday, December 7, 2004)]
[Notices]
[Pages 70711-70712]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-26826]


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

NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION


Notice of Permit Application Received Under the Antarctic 
Conservation Act of 1978

AGENCY: National Science Foundation.

ACTION: Notice of permit applications received under the Antarctic 
Conservation Act.

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

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that the National Science Foundation 
(NSF) has received a waste management permit application for operation 
of remote field camps during a helicopter flight from Patriot Hills to 
South Pole and return. The application is submitted to NSF pursuant to 
regulations issued under the Antarctic Conservation Act of 1978.

DATES: Interested parties are invited to submit written data, comments, 
or views with respect to this permit application by January 6, 2005. 
Permit applications may be inspected by interested parties at the 
Permit Office, address below.

ADDRESSES: Comments should be addressed to Permit Office, Room 755, 
Office of Polar Programs, National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson 
Boulevard, Arlington, Virginia 22230.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Nadene Kennedy at the above address or 
(703) 292-8030.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: NSF's Antarctic Waste Regulation, 45 CFR 
Part 671, requires all U.S. citizens and entities to obtain a permit 
for the use or release of a designated pollutant in Antarctica, and for 
the release of waste in Antarctica. NSF has received a permit 
application under this Regulation for the operation of an expedition to 
Antarctica. Pole-to-Pole plans for two pilots to fly a Robinson R44 
Raven II Helicopter from Ushuaia, Argentina to the South Pole and 
return to Patriot Hills, where the helicopter will be

[[Page 70712]]

loaded onto an Illyushin IL-76 for the return flight to Punta Arenas, 
Chile. The Illyushin is operated by Antarctic Logistics and Expeditions 
(ALE). Refueling operations will take place at pre-existing fuel 
caches.
    Application for the permit is made by: Steve Brooks, Pole-To-Pole, 
1202 Pierce 100 Street, Clearwater, Florida, 96161.
    Location: Patriot Hills, and South Geographic Pole.
    Dates: January 1, 2005 to January 31, 2005.

Nadene G. Kennedy,
Permit Officer.
[FR Doc. 04-26826 Filed 12-6-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7555-01-M
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Mary Doyle, Appellant.

Motion for an extension of time within which to perfect appeal. Motion granted and time is extended to the January 1961 Term of this court.
COACHMEN
INDUSTRIES, INC.
 2831
Dexter Drive • P.O. Box 3300 • Elkhart, Indiana 46514 • 574/266-2500 • Fax
574/266-2559
 
 NEWS
RELEASE
 
 For
immediate release Tuesday, March 10, 2009
 
 COACHMEN
ANNOUNCES TEMPORARY PLANT CLOSURE
 
 Elkhart,
IN-Coachmen Industries, Inc. (NYSE: COA) announced today that, in a cost
savings move, it intends to temporarily close its Rutherfordton, North Carolina
production facility until the regional housing market strengthens.
 
 The
plant, operating under the brand name All American Homes of North Carolina, will
continue current operations until all production orders are completed and
shipped. Future orders will be fulfilled at the Company’s nearby Rocky Mount,
Virginia facility.  The Company is making adjustments to accommodate
the needs of all of its Builders during this consolidation
period.  Approximately ninety employees will be affected.
 
 If
additional orders are obtained to continue production at acceptable levels
before the current orders are completed, operations may extend
longer.  All American Homes is not leaving the Middle Atlantic market
and expects no interruption in its service levels to its Builder
clients.  When the market recovers and demand is sufficient, the
Company fully intends to re-open its Rutherfordton facility, but timing depends
on market conditions.
 
 Coachmen
Industries, Inc. is one of America's premier systems-built construction
companies under the ALL AMERICAN HOMES® and MOD-U-KRAF® brands, as well as a
manufacturer of specialty vehicles. Coachmen Industries, Inc. is a publicly held
company with stock listed on the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE) under the ticker
COA.
 
 This
release contains forward-looking statements within the meaning of the Private
Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. Investors are cautioned not to place
undue reliance on forward-looking statements, which are inherently uncertain.
Actual results may differ materially from that projected or suggested due to
certain risks and uncertainties including, but not limited to, the potential
fluctuations in the Company's operating results, price volatility of raw
materials used in production, the availability and cost of real estate for
residential housing, the supply of existing homes within the company's markets,
government regulations, dependence on significant customers within certain
product types, consolidation of distribution channels, consumer confidence,
uncertainties of matters in litigation, and other risks identified in the
Company's SEC filings.
 
 For
      product information:
              
              For
      investor or financial information:Mike
      Donley
              
              Thomas
      GehlDirector
      of Marketing and Communications
              
              Director
      of Investor Relations574-266-2533
              
              574-266-2531
### §16985. Transferred

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section 16985 was editorially reclassified as section 20985 of Title 34, Crime Control and Law Enforcement.
### §12645c. Limitation on program grant costs

#### (a) Limitation on grant amounts

Except as otherwise provided by this section, the amount of funds approved by the Corporation for a grant to operate a program authorized under the national service laws, for supporting individuals serving in approved national service positions, may not exceed $18,000 per full-time equivalent position.

#### (b) Costs subject to limitation

The limitation under subsection (a), and the increased limitation under subsection (e)(1), shall apply to the Corporation's share of the member support costs, staff costs, and other costs to operate a program authorized under the national service laws incurred,1 by the recipient of the grant.

#### (c) Costs not subject to limitation

The limitation under subsection (a), and the increased limitation under subsection (e)(1), shall not apply to expenses under a grant authorized under the national service laws to operate a program that are not included in the grant award for operating the program.

#### (d) Adjustments for inflation

The amounts specified in subsections (a) and (e)(1) shall be adjusted each year after 2008 for inflation as measured by the Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers published by the Secretary of Labor.

#### (e) Waiver authority and reporting requirement

#### (1) Waiver

The Chief Executive Officer may increase the limitation under subsection (a) to not more than $19,500 per full-time equivalent position if necessary to meet the compelling needs of a particular program, such as—

(A) exceptional training needs for a program serving disadvantaged youth;

(B) the need to pay for increased costs relating to the participation of individuals with disabilities;

(C) the needs of tribal programs or programs located in the territories; and

(D) the need to pay for start-up costs associated with a first-time recipient of assistance under a program of the national service laws.

#### (2) Reports

The Chief Executive Officer shall report to the authorizing committees annually on all limitations increased under this subsection, with an explanation of the compelling needs justifying such increases.

(Pub. L. 101–610, title I, §189, as added Pub. L. 111–13, title I, §1612, Apr. 21, 2009, 123 Stat. 1539.)

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

#### Effective Date

Section effective Oct. 1, 2009, see section 6101(a) of Pub. L. 111–13, set out as an Effective Date of 2009 Amendment note under section 4950 of this title.

1 So in original. The comma probably should not appear.
#### Lambert Hubbell, Appellant, v. Mary Frances Hardy, Respondent.

—Order affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements. Ho opinion. Present — Clarke, P. J., Laughlin, Dowling, Smith and Davis, JJ.
QuickLinks
 -- Click here to rapidly navigate through this document

 
 

Exhibit 10.60    
    


 
 

Summary Sheet for Named Executive Officers for Fiscal 2006    
    



	Named Executive Officer
 
	 	Annual

Base Salary
	 	Bonus*
	 	Performance Shares**

	William P. Sullivan	 	$	925,000	 	110	%	71,200 shares
	

Adrian T. Dillon	
 	
$	

700,000	
 	

75	
%	

36,000 shares
	

Patrick J. Byrne	
 	
$	

500,000	
 	

70	
%	

31,500 shares
	

Thomas E. White	
 	
$	

470,000	
 	

70	
%	

14,150 shares
	

Chris van Ingen	
 	
$	

450,000	
 	

70	
%	

28,350 shares
	

D. Craig Nordlund	
 	
$	

425,000	
 	

60	
%	

11,000 shares
	

Jean M. Halloran	
 	
$	

400,000	
 	

60	
%	

11,800 shares






	*
	Target
percentage of base salary paid for the two six-month periods beginning November 1, 2005 and ending April 30, 2006 and beginning May 1, 2006 and
ending October 31, 2006.



	**
	Target
award for the three-year performance period beginning November 1, 2005 and ending October 31, 2008. 











QuickLinks



Exhibit 10.60


Summary Sheet for Named Executive Officers for Fiscal 2006
**From:** Forte, Reynaldo **Sent:** Wednesday, May 07, 2014 2:45 PM **To:** Eddinger, Jim **Cc:** Kokopeli, Peter; Schreifels, Jeremy **Subject:** FW: starts for industrial units Jim – Peter Kokopeli was able to do a brief analysis of the time it takes some industrial boilers to have their controls reducing emissions. Don’t know how helpful this will be to you since the number of units is limited. Let me know if you’d like any follow up. Rey **From:** Kokopeli, Peter **Sent:** Wednesday, May 07, 2014 12:58 PM **To:** Forte, Reyn aldo **Cc:** Schreifels, Jeremy **Subject:** FW: starts for industrial units Rey: The graphic below summarizes starts at 156 industrial CAMD units between 2003 and 2012. The chart shows the average NOx or SO 2 rate in the hour after the start of generation. The re sults are generally consistent with the SSM TSD including Wet Lime (FGD) which we believe runs from start of generation. This analysis only includes the starts for units reporting load in MWH (as opposed to steam) and that have the controls indic ated. On ly starts that occurred after the control install date are included (with the exception of SNCR). The 10
-year time span is needed because industrial have far fewer starts per year than EGUs. Note that the unit counts are quite low. We could expand this a nalysis to include the majority of industrial units reporting steam load but would not be able to complete it before June at the earliest due to competing priorities.

- peter- Peter
### §16135. Outreach and incentives

#### (a) Definition of eligible technology

In this section, the term "eligible technology" means—

(1) a verified technology; or

(2) an emerging technology.

#### (b) Technology transfer program

#### (1) In general

The Administrator shall establish a program under which the Administrator—

(A) informs stakeholders of the benefits of eligible technologies; and

(B) develops nonfinancial incentives to promote the use of eligible technologies.

#### (2) Eligible stakeholders

Eligible stakeholders under this section include—

(A) equipment owners and operators;

(B) emission and pollution control technology manufacturers;

(C) engine and equipment manufacturers;

(D) State and local officials responsible for air quality management;

(E) community organizations; and

(F) public health, educational, and environmental organizations.

#### (c) State implementation plans

The Administrator shall develop appropriate guidance to provide credit to a State for emission reductions in the State created by the use of eligible technologies through a State implementation plan under section 7410 of this title.

#### (d) International markets

The Administrator, in coordination with the Department of Commerce and industry stakeholders, shall inform foreign countries with air quality problems of the potential of technology developed or used in the United States to provide emission reductions in those countries.

(Pub. L. 109–58, title VII, §795, Aug. 8, 2005, 119 Stat. 843.)
#### § 274.130 [Reserved]
### §16323. Science and engineering education pilot program

#### (a) Establishment of pilot program

The Secretary shall award a grant to a Southeastern United States consortium of major research universities that currently advances science and education by partnering with National Laboratories, to establish a regional pilot program of its SEEK–16 program for enhancing scientific, technological, engineering, and mathematical literacy, creativity, and decision-making. The consortium shall include leading research universities, one or more universities that train substantial numbers of elementary and secondary school teachers, and (where appropriate) National Laboratories.

#### (b) Program elements

The regional pilot program shall include—

(1) expanding strategic, formal partnerships among universities with strength in research, universities that train substantial numbers of elementary and secondary school teachers, and the private sector;

(2) combining Department expertise with one or more National Aeronautics and Space Administration Educator Resource Centers;

(3) developing programs to permit current and future teachers to participate in ongoing research projects at National Laboratories and research universities and to adapt lessons learned to the classroom;

(4) designing and implementing course work;

(5) designing and implementing a strategy for measuring and assessing progress under the program; and

(6) developing models for transferring knowledge gained under the pilot program to other institutions and areas of the United States.

#### (c) Categorization

A grant under this section shall be considered an authorized activity under section 7381b of this title.

(Pub. L. 109–58, title IX, §983, Aug. 8, 2005, 119 Stat. 907; Pub. L. 113–188, title VI, §601(a), Nov. 26, 2014, 128 Stat. 2019.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

2014—Subsec. (d). Pub. L. 113–188 struck out subsec. (d). Text read as follows: "No later than 2 years after the award of the grant, the Secretary shall transmit to Congress a report outlining lessons learned and, if determined appropriate by the Secretary, containing a plan for expanding the program throughout the United States."