alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Alliance Brokerage Corporation, Respondent, v. Harry Weinberg *&*Sons, Inc., et al., Appellants.

Order entered on September 15,1961, denying defendants’ motion for summary judgment and granting cross motion of plaintiff to strike out the defense of Statute of Frauds, unanimously affirmed, with $20 costs and disbursements to plaintiff-respondent. On the present state of the pleadings the affirmative defense based on the Statute of Frauds was properly stricken. It may be, however, if the proof should vary from the complaint with respect to the oral agreement made for the payment of premiums, that defendants will be entitled to raise the defense either by way of amendment to its pleading or even without such amendment. *(Fanger*v. *Caspary,*87 App. Div. 417; Anno. — Pleading Statute of Frauds, 158 A. L. R. 89, 134.) Concur — Breitel, J. P., Rabin, Valente, McNally and Stevens, JJ.
§ 35.32 Location of hearing. ( a ) The hearing may be held— ( 1 ) In any judicial district of the United States in which the defendant resides or transacts business;
( 2 ) In any judicial district of the United States in which the claim or statement in issue was made; or
( 3 ) In such other place within the United States as may be agreed upon by the defendant and the ALJ.
( b ) Each party shall have the opportunity to present argument with respect to the location of the hearing.
( c ) The hearing shall be held at the place and at the time ordered by the ALJ.
### §§3102, 3103. Omitted

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section 3102, Pub. L. 89–117, title VII, §702, Aug. 10, 1965, 79 Stat. 490; 1966 Reorg. Plan No. 2, eff. May 10, 1966, 31 F.R. 6857, 80 Stat. 1608; Pub. L. 90–19, §22(b), (g), May 25, 1967, 81 Stat. 26, 27; Pub. L. 90–448, title VI, §604, Aug. 1, 1968, 82 Stat. 534; Pub. L. 91–152, title III, §305(a), Dec. 24, 1969, 83 Stat. 391; Pub. L. 91–431, §3(c), Oct. 6, 1970, 84 Stat. 886; 1970 Reorg. Plan No. 3, §2(a)(1), eff. Dec. 2, 1970, 35 F.R. 15623, 84 Stat. 2087; Pub. L. 92–213, §6, Dec. 22, 1971, 85 Stat. 776; Pub. L. 92–335, §7, July 1, 1972, 86 Stat. 405; Pub. L. 93–117, §9, Oct. 2, 1973, 87 Stat. 423, which authorized grants for basic water and sewer facilities, was omitted pursuant to section 5316 of this title which terminated the authority to make grants or loans under this section after Jan. 1, 1975.

Section 3103, Pub. L. 89–117, title VII, §703, Aug. 10, 1965, 79 Stat. 491; Pub. L. 90–19, §22(b), May 25, 1967, 81 Stat. 26; Pub. L. 98–181, title I [title I, §126(b)(2)], Nov. 30, 1983, 97 Stat. 1175, which authorized grants for neighborhood facilities, was omitted pursuant to section 5316 of this title which terminated the authority to make grants or loans under this section after Jan. 1, 1975.
#### Theodore Rusoff, Appellant, v. Dennis Hannafey, Respondent.

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries suffered in an automobile accident, the plaintiff appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Bangs County, entered June 2, 1959, upon a decision awarding plaintiff $3,500, after trial by the court without a jury. Plaintiff contends that the amount is inadequate, in that no award was made for a mass of tissue present in plaintiff’s spinal cord which, it is contended, was caused by the accident. The medical witnesses differed as to whether this mass consisted of granulation tissue result*724ing from injury in the automobile accident or whether it was a growth unrelated to the accident. Judgment affirmed, without costs. No opinion. Nolan) P. J., Ughetta, Pette and Brennan, JJ., concur.
### §5197b. Use of existing facilities

In performing duties under this subchapter, the Administrator—

(1) shall cooperate with the various departments and agencies of the Federal Government;

(2) shall use, to the maximum extent, the existing facilities and resources of the Federal Government and, with their consent, the facilities and resources of the States and political subdivisions thereof, and of other organizations and agencies; and

(3) shall refrain from engaging in any form of activity which would duplicate or parallel activity of any other Federal department or agency unless the Administrator, with the written approval of the President, shall determine that such duplication is necessary to accomplish the purposes of this subchapter.

(Pub. L. 93–288, title VI, §623, as added Pub. L. 103–337, div. C, title XXXIV, §3411(a)(3), Oct. 5, 1994, 108 Stat. 3110; amended Pub. L. 111–351, §3(c)(2), Jan. 4, 2011, 124 Stat. 3864.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Prior Provisions

Provisions similar to those in this section were contained in section 2257 of the former Appendix to Title 50, War and National Defense, prior to repeal by Pub. L. 103–337, §3412(a).

#### Amendments

2011—Pub. L. 111–351 substituted "Administrator" for "Director" in introductory provisions and in par. (3).

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

#### Transfer of Functions

For transfer of all functions, personnel, assets, components, authorities, grant programs, and liabilities of the Federal Emergency Management Agency, including the functions of the Under Secretary for Federal Emergency Management relating thereto, to the Federal Emergency Management Agency, see section 315(a)(1) of Title 6, Domestic Security.

For transfer of functions, personnel, assets, and liabilities of the Federal Emergency Management Agency, including the functions of the Director of the Federal Emergency Management Agency relating thereto, to the Secretary of Homeland Security, and for treatment of related references, see former section 313(1) and sections 551(d), 552(d), and 557 of Title 6, Domestic Security, and the Department of Homeland Security Reorganization Plan of November 25, 2002, as modified, set out as a note under section 542 of Title 6.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Nuclear Regulatory Commission

# AGENCY:

Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

# ACTION:

Notice of renewal of the Charter of the Licensing Support Network Advisory Review Panel (LSNARP).

# SUMMARY:

The Licensing Support System Advisory Review Panel was established by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission as a Federal Advisory Committee in 1989. Its purpose was to provide advice on the fundamental issues of design and development of an electronic information management system to be used to store and retrieve documents relating to the licensing of a geologic repository for the disposal of high-level radioactive waste, and on the operation and maintenance of the system. This electronic information management system was known as the Licensing Support System (LSS). In November, 1998 the Commission approved amendments to 10 CFR Part 2 that renamed the Licensing Support System Advisory Review Panel as the Licensing Support Network Advisory Review Panel.

Membership on the Panel continues to be drawn from those interests that will be affected by the use of the LSN, including the Department of Energy, the NRC, the State of Nevada, the National Congress of American Indians, affected units of local governments in Nevada, the Nevada Nuclear Waste Task Force, and a coalition of nuclear industry groups. Federal agencies with expertise and experience in electronic information management systems may also participate on the Panel.

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has determined that renewal of the charter for the LSNARP until December 9, 2006 is in the public interest in connection with duties imposed on the Commission by law. This action is being taken in accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act after consultation with the Committee Management Secretariat, General Services Administration.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Andrew L. Bates, Office of the Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555: Telephone 301-504-1963.

Dated: December 13, 2004.

Andrew L. Bates,

Advisory Committee Management Officer.

[FR Doc. 04-27612 Filed 12-16-04; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
Exhibit 32(ii)



Certification



STATEMENT OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

OF ATMOSPHERIC GLOW TECHNOLOGIES, INC.

PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

§ 906 OF
THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with the
Quarterly Report of Atmospheric Glow Technologies, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-QSB for the period ended September 30, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), I, Thomas W. Reddoch, Chairman
and 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, to my knowledge:



| | 1) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities and 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: November 12, 2004



/s/ Thomas W. ReddochThomas W. Reddoch, Chairman/Chief Executive Officer




Date: November
12, 2004



/s/ Sharon L. DraperSharon L. Draper, Chief Accounting Officer




A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906 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. This certificate is being furnished
solely for purposes of Section 906 and is not being filed as part of the Report or as a separate disclosure document.
EXHIBIT
10.37

     

    Amendment
to License Agreement

     

    Effective
April 15, 2008, Superlattice Power, Inc. (“Superlattice”) entered into a License
Agreement (the “License Agreement”) with Li-ion Motors Corp. (formerly EV
Innovations, Inc., “Li-ion”), providing for Li-ion Motors Corp.’s license to
Superlattice of Li-ion’s patent applications and technologies for rechargeable
lithium-ion batteries for hybrid vehicles and other applications (“Licensed
Products”).

     

     Under
the License Agreement, Li-ion has the right to purchase its requirements of
lithium ion batteries from Superlattice and Li-ion’s requirements of lithium ion
batteries shall be supplied in preference to, and on a priority basis as
compared with, supply and delivery arrangements in effect for our other
customers. Li-ion’s cost for lithium ion batteries purchased from Superlattice
is the actual manufacturing costs for such batteries for the fiscal quarter in
which Li-ion’s purchase takes place.

     

    The
parties hereby confirm and agree that the above referenced License Agreement
does not limit Li-ion from granting additional licenses for Licensed Products to
other companies in other countries of the world. Li-ion will not grant other
license agreements to any companies other than Superlattice for commercial
exploitation within the United States of America and its territories and
possessions.

     

    Dated
this 25th day of
May 2010.

     

    
      
        
          
            
              	
                      SUPERLATTICE
      POWER, INC.

                    	 
      	
                      LI-ION
      MOTORS CORP.

                    	 
      
	 
      	 
      	 
      	 
      
	
                      /s/
      Ayaz Kassam

                    	 
      	
                      /s/
      Stacey Fling

                    	 
      
	 
      	 
      	 
      	 
      	 
      	 
      
	
                      By:

                    	 
      	 
      	
                      By:

                    	 
      	 
      
	 
      	 
      	 
      	 
      
	
                      Ayaz
      Kassam

                    	 
      	
                      Stacey
      Fling

                    	 
      
	 
      	 
      	 
      	 
      
	
                      President

                    	 
      	
                      President

                    	 
      
	 
      	 
      	 
      	 
      
	
                      Superlattice
      Power, Inc.

                    	 
      	
                      Li-ion
      Motors, Corp.
### §3339. Limitation on amount of grant

Grants made under section 3335 of this title for projects in any one State shall not exceed in the aggregate 15 per centum of the aggregate amount of funds authorized to be appropriated pursuant to section 3336(b) of this title.

(Pub. L. 89–754, title II, §209, Nov. 3, 1966, 80 Stat. 1266.)
§ 518.71 Closeout procedures. ( a ) Recipients shall submit, within 90 calendar days after the date of completion of the award, all financial, performance, and other reports as required by the terms and conditions of the award. The Federal awarding agency may approve extensions when requested by the recipient.
( b ) Unless the Federal awarding agency authorizes an extension, a recipient shall liquidate all obligations incurred under the award not later than 90 calendar days after the funding period or the date of completion as specified in the terms and conditions of the award or in agency implementing instructions.
( c ) The Federal awarding agency shall make prompt payments to a recipient for allowable reimbursable costs under the award being closed out.
( d ) The recipient shall promptly refund any balances of unobligated cash that the Federal awarding agency has advanced or paid and that is not authorized to be retained by the recipient for use in other projects. OMB Circular A-129 governs unreturned amounts that become delinquent debts.
( e ) When authorized by the terms and conditions of the award, the Federal awarding agency shall make a settlement for any upward or downward adjustments to the Federal share of costs after closeout reports are received.
( f ) The recipient shall account for any real and personal property acquired with Federal funds or received from the Federal Government in accordance with §§ 518.31 through 518.37.
( g ) In the event a final audit has not been performed prior to the closeout of an award, the Federal awarding agency shall retain the right to recover an appropriate amount after fully considering the recommendations on disallowing costs resulting from the final audit.
#### Robert L. Pirello, Plaintiff, and Robert Flynn, Appellant, v Rel-kin Export Corp., Also Known as Relkin Industries Corp., et al., Defendants, and P. S. Elevator, Inc., Respondent, (and Two Other Actions.)

Order, Supreme Court, New York County, entered on April 7, 1976, unanimously affirmed on the opinion of Fein, J., at Trial Term, without costs and without disbursements. Concur — Murphy, P. J., Kupferman, Evans, Capozzoli and Lane, JJ.
Editorial Note on Part 41
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 41 appear at 71 FR 34521 and 34522, June 15, 2006.

§ 41.84 Victims of trafficking in persons. ( a ) *Eligibility.* Under INA 101(a)(15)(T)(ii), an applicant accompanying, or following to join, may acquire derivative status as a parent, spouse, sibling or child (derivative family member) based on a relationship to an individual (the principal) who has applied for or who has been granted T-1 nonimmigrant status under INA 101(a)(15)(T)(i) or may acquire derivative status as an adult or minor child of the principal's derivative family member if the adult or minor child faces a present danger of retaliation as a result of the principal's escape from trafficking or cooperation with law enforcement. Such applicant will be eligible for a visa if: ( 1 ) The consular officer is satisfied that the applicant has the required relationship to an individual who has been granted status by the Secretary for Homeland Security under INA 101(a)(15)(T)(i); or the consular officer is satisfied that the applicant has the required relationship with a derivative family member;
( 2 ) The consular officer is satisfied that the applicant is otherwise admissible under the immigration laws of the United States; and
( 3 ) The consular officer has received a DHS-approved I-914, Supplement A, evidencing that the applicant has been granted derivative status.
( b ) *Visa validity.* A qualifying derivative family member may apply for a nonimmigrant visa under INA 101(a)(15)(T)(ii) only during the period in which the principal is in status under INA 101(a)(15)(T)(i). Any visa issued pursuant to such application shall be valid only for a period of three years or until the expiration of the principal's status as an individual classified under INA 101(a)(15)(T)(i), whichever is shorter.
[88 FR 45072, July 14, 2023]
# U ni te d S ta te s Co ur t of A pp ea ls For the Eig hth Circu it

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ No. 1 7- 37 03

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ Uni te d S ta te s o f Am eri ca
ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pla in ti

ff - App el le e

v.
Gas pa r Jo se Fran ci sc o
ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll lDefe nd

an t - Ap pe ll an t

__ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t fo r th e So ut he rn Dis tri ct of I owa - Des M oi ne s

__ __ __ __ __ __ Su bm it te d: Ju ly 18, 2 01 8 Fi le d: Ju ly 30, 2 01 8 [Un pu bl is he d]

__ __ __ __ __ __ Befo re LOKEN, COLLO TON, and BENTON, Circu it Ju dg es
.

__ __ __ __ __ __ PER CURI AM.

In th is di rect cri mi n a l ap pe al , Gaspar Francisco ch al le ng es th e se nt en ce th e di st ric t co ur t im

po se d aft er he pl ead ed gu il ty to en ti ci ng a m in or to en ga ge in se xu al 1

The Hon or ab le Reb ecca Ebi ng er, Uni te d St at es D ist ri ct Judg e fo r th e So ut he rn 1 Dis tri ct of I owa
.act iv it y
. His co un se l has m ov ed to wit hd raw an d su bm it te d a br ie f un de r And ers v.

Cal ifo rn ia , 38 6 U.S. 7 38 (19 67 ), arg ui ng th at th e se nt en ce was un reas on ab le

.
Afte r care fu l rev ie w, w e c o n c l ud e th at th e di st ric t co ur t di d no t im po se an
un reas on ab le se nt en ce, as t h e r e w a s no in di cat io n th at it ov erl oo ke d a rel ev an t 18 U.S.C. § 35 53 fact or , or co m m it te d a cl ear erro r of jud gm en t i n weig hi ng rel ev an t fact or s, se e Uni te d St at es v. Dav id , 68 2 F.3 d 10 74 , 10 77 (8 th Ci r. 20 12 ) (s ta nd ard of

rev ie w); Uni te d St at es v. W oh lm an , 65 1 F.3 d 8 7 8 , 8 8 7 (8 th Ci r. 20 11 ); an d th e
se nt e n c e w a s w it hi n th e Gui de li ne s ran ge , s ee Uni te d St at es v. Cal la way , 7 62 F.3 d 75 4, 7 6 0 (8 th Ci r. 20 14 ). Hav in g in de pe nd en tl y rev ie wed th e reco rd pu rs ua nt to Pen so n v. Ohi o, 48 8 U.S. 75 (1 98 8) , we fin d no no nf riv ol o us is su es fo r ap pe al

. Acco rd in gl y , we gra nt co un se l’s m ot io n t o wi th dr aw, an d a ffi rm
.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

-2

-
Editorial Note on Part 40
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 40 appear at 71 FR 34520 and 34521, June 15, 2006.

§ 40.92 Aliens unlawfully present. ( a ) *3-year bar.* An alien described in INA 212(a)(9)(B)(i)(I) shall be ineligible for a visa for 3 years following departure from the United States.
( b ) *10-year bar.* An alien described in INA 212(a)(9)(B)(i)(II) shall be ineligible for a visa for 10 years following departure from the United States.
( c ) *Waiver.* If a visa applicant is inadmissible under paragraph (a) or (b) of this section but appears to the consular officer to meet the prerequisites for seeking the benefits of INA 212(a)(9)(B)(v), the alien shall be informed of the procedure for applying to DHS for relief under that provision of law.
[62 FR 67568, Dec. 29, 1997]
11TH COURT OF APPEALS

EASTLAND, TEXAS

JUDGMENT

The State of Texas, * From the 220th District Court

of Comanche County

Trial Court No. 1319.

Vs. No. 11-17-00236-CR * August 30, 2019

Joe D. Bryan, * Memorandum Opinion by Wright, S.C.J.

(Panel consists of: Bailey, C.J.,

Stretcher, J., and Wright, S.C.J., 

sitting by assignment)

 (Willson, J., not participating)

This court has inspected the record in this cause and concludes that there 

is error in the order below. Therefore, in accordance with this court’s opinion, 

we vacate the trial court’s August 14, 2017 order granting Joe D. Bryan’s first 

motion for additional post-conviction forensic DNA testing, and we remand this 

cause to the trial court for further proceedings.
### §3797ff–4. Transferred

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section 3797ff–4 was editorially reclassified as section 10705 of Title 34, Crime Control and Law Enforcement.
#### § 92.92 Service of legal process under provisions of State law.

It may be found that a State statute purporting to regulate the service of process in foreign countries is so drawn as to mention service by an American consular officer or a person appointed by him, without mention of or provision for alternate methods of service. State laws of this description do not operate in derogation of the laws of the foreign jurisdiction wherein it may be sought to effect service of legal process, and such State laws do not serve to impose upon American consular officers duties or obligations which they are unauthorized to accept under Federal law, or require them to perform acts contrary to Federal regulations (see § 92.85).
#### Josephine Arouri, Appellant, v. Benjamin Schwartz et al., Doing Business as Cardillo Real Estate, Respondents.

In an action arising out of a sale of real property, in which the second amended complaint pleads 11 separate causes, the first cause of action being against all the defendants for the rescission of the contract of sale on the ground of fraud and deceit, and for a reconveyance of the property, the plaintiff appeals: (1) from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County, dated March 13, 1961, which, on motion of the defendant, Charles Cardillo, Jr., addressed to the entire second amended complaint, dismissed as against him the said complaint by reason of its patent insufficiency, with leave to replead; and (2) from so much of an order of the same court dated March 15, 1961, as, on the cross motion of the defendants Schwartz and Bass, addressed to all the causes of action against them, dismissed as to them the first 10 causes of action, with leave to replead. Order of March 13,1961, and order of March 15,1961 insofar as appealed from, reversed with one bill of $10 costs and disbursements, and motions denied. Defendants’ time to answer the second amended complaint is extended until 20 days after entry of the order hereon. In our opinion, the first cause of action alleged against all the defendants, in which the plaintiff seeks rescission and reconveyance on the ground of fraudulent misrepresentations, is legally sufficient *(Downey*v. *Mallinson,*232 App. Div. 703). Since the motions to dismiss were directed to the pleading as a whole, we need not now consider or pass upon the *825sufficiency of the remaining causes of action as against any one of the defendants *(Imperatrice*v. *Imperatrice,*298 N. Y. 549, 550). Beldock, P. J., Christ, Hill, Rabin and Hopkins, JJ., concur.