alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
N OTE : This disposition is nonprecedential. 

# United States **Court of Appeals**  **for the Federal Circuit**

______________________ RADWARE, LTD., RADWA RE, INC., Plaintiffs

- Appellants

v.

F5 NETWORKS, INC., Defendant

- Cross

- Appellant

______________________

2017

- 1212, 2017

- 1248

______________________ Appeals from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California in No. 5:13

- cv

- 02024

- RMW, Senior Judge Ronald M. Whyte.

______________________
JUDGMENT

______________________
F ABIO E. M ARINO , McDermott, Will & Emery LLP, Menlo Park, CA, argued for plaintiffs

- appellants. Also represented by N ITIN G AMBHIR ; J OSHUA D AVID R OGACZEWSKI , Washington, DC.

R AMSEY M. A L -S ALAM , Perkins Coie, LLP, Seattle, WA, argued for defendant

- cross

- appellant. Also repr esented by C HRISTINA J ORDAN M C C ULLOUGH , S TEVAN R. S TARK , J R

.

______________________T HIS C AUSE having been heard and considered, it is

O RDERED and A DJUDGED :

P ER C URIAM (N EWMAN , D YK , and T ARANTO , Circuit Judges ).
AFFIRMED

. See Fed. Cir. R. 36.

E NTERED BY O RDER OF THE C OURT

September 18, 2017 /s/ Peter R. Marksteiner Date Peter R. Marksteiner Clerk of Court
§ 301.80-7 Attachment and disposition of certificates or permits. ( a ) If a certificate or permit is required for the interstate movement of regulated articles, the certificates or permit shall be securely attached to the outside of the container in which such articles are moved except that, where the certificate or permit is attached to the waybill or other shipping document, and the regulated articles are adequately described on the certificate, permit or shipping document, the attachment of the certificate or permit to each container of the articles is not required.
( b ) In all cases, certificates or permits shall be furnished by the carrier to the consignee at the destination of the shipment.
[35 FR 10553, June 30, 1970, as amended at 36 FR 24917, Dec. 24, 1971]
113TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2383 

AN ACT 

To designate the new Interstate Route 70 bridge over the 

Mississippi River connecting St. Louis, Missouri, and 

southwestern Illinois as the ‘‘Stan Musial Veterans Memorial Bridge’’. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 
2 

•HR 2383 EH

1 SECTION 1. STAN MUSIAL VETERANS MEMORIAL BRIDGE. 

2 (a) DESIGNATION.—The new Interstate Route 70 

3 bridge over the Mississippi River that connects St. Louis, 

4 Missouri, to southwestern Illinois shall be known and des5 ignated as the ‘‘Stan Musial Veterans Memorial Bridge’’. 

6 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, reg7 ulation, document, paper, or other record of the United 

8 States to the bridge referred to in subsection (a) shall be 

9 deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘Stan Musial Veterans 

10 Memorial Bridge’’. 

Passed the House of Representatives June 25, 2013. 

Attest: 

Clerk. 

113TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2383 

AN ACT 

To designate the new Interstate Route 70 bridge 

Musial Veterans Memorial Bridge’’. Missouri, and southwestern Illinois as the ‘‘Stan over the Mississippi River connecting St. Louis,
Searched for **https://www.ssa.gov/pubs/ES-05-10964.pdf**

 

19961997199819992000200120022003200420052006200720082009201020112012201320142015201620172018201920202021202220232024

*Note:* This calendar view maps the number of captures of **https://www.ssa.gov/pubs/ES-05-10964.pdf**, *not* how many times the site was actually updated.

Look Up URL in general Internet Archive web collection.
###### Editorial Note on Part 3406

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 3406 appear at 76 FR 4809, Jan. 27, 2011.

#### § 3406.19 Proposal review—research.

The proposal evaluation process includes both internal staff review and merit evaluation by peer review panels comprised of scientists, educators, business representatives, and Government officials who are highly qualified to render expert advice in the areas supported. Peer review panels will be selected and structured to provide optimum expertise and objective judgment in the evaluation of proposals.
#### Sandra Stier, Respondent, v William Weissman et al., Appellants.

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, entered December 6, 1978 in Sullivan County, upon a verdict rendered at a Trial Term, in favor of plaintiff. Plaintiff was injured on January 2, 1976 while riding as a passenger in defendants’ automobile. The only issue raised on this appeal is the amount of money awarded to plaintiff by the jury. Her injuries consisted of a fracture of the right ankle and fractures of three vertebrae of the back, with assorted bruises and contusions. She was confined to the hospital for 10 days, and bedridden at home for five weeks thereafter. She was unable to return to work until July 26, 1976. The attending medical witness produced by plaintiff testified that the injuries and pain suffered by plaintiff would persist and would worsen as she grew older. At the time of the accident she was 42 years of age. The jury awarded her the sum of $150,000. In our view, this record will support the verdict of the jury. The testimony of plaintiff’s attending physician was uncontradicted. We note that in describing the fractures of her back, he testified the damaged bones would remain crushed and the expected long-term effects would include arthritic changes resulting in continuing pain, discomfort and weakness, limiting her activities. Defendant produced no medical evidence to the contrary and, in fact, never requested a prior physical examination of plaintiff. Under all the circumstances, the verdict was not so excessive as to shock the conscience of the court *(Stark v Poulein,*57 AD2d 645). Judgment affirmed, with costs. Greenblott, J. P., Kane, Main, Mikoll and Herlihy, JJ., concur.
#### In the Matter of 312 Tavern Corp., Petitioner, v New York State Liquor Authority, Respondent.

pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the respondent, the New York State Liquor Authority, dated March 19, 1979, which, after a hearing, *inter alia,*revoked the petitioner’s on-premises liquor license on the ground that the petitioner had suffered or permitted the premises to become disorderly "in that it suffered or permitted contraband to be kept and maintained therein”. Petition granted, determination annulled, on the law, without costs or disbursements, and charges dismissed. In this case, the authority presented evidence of an isolated instance in which contraband had been found on petitioner’s premises. The evidence reveals that at or about 4:16 a.m. on the morning of December 21, 1977, police officers responding to an anonymous "tip” regarding a "man with a gun” arrived at petitioner’s premises and, from the outside, observed a customer (Pacheco) fitting the description of the *626alleged gunman walk over to the ice machine (which was located in the *public*area of the bar) and then return to where he had been standing. Upon entering, the officers observed a "bulge” in one of Pacheco’s outside pockets and, believing it to be a weapon, frisked him and found instead a quantity of narcotics. The ice machine was thereafter searched and two loaded handguns were discovered inside. A further search of the premises disclosed another quantity of narcotics in a bag belonging to a second customer, which was found on the floor near the street entrance to the tavern. Petitioner’s principal disavowed any knowledge of the contraband and stated that the ice machine was around a bend and was not visible from behind the bar. In our view, the evidence adduced at the hearing was totally insufficient to establish that the petitioner’s principal knew or should have known that the disorderly condition prevailed. Accordingly, the determination of the authority must be annulled (see *Matter of Migliaccio v O’Connell,*307 NY 566). Damiani, J. P., Gulotta, Hargett and Gibbons, JJ., concur.
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2449 Introduced in House (IH)]

113th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2449

  To authorize the President to extend the term of the Agreement for 
Cooperation between the Government of the United States of America and 
   the Government of the Republic of Korea Concerning Civil Uses of 
       Nuclear Energy for a period not to exceed March 19, 2016.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             June 20, 2013

 Mr. Royce (for himself, Mr. Engel, Mr. Chabot, Mr. Faleomavaega, Mr. 
 Poe of Texas, Mr. Kinzinger of Illinois, and Mr. Collins of Georgia) 
 introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on 
                            Foreign Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To authorize the President to extend the term of the Agreement for 
Cooperation between the Government of the United States of America and 
   the Government of the Republic of Korea Concerning Civil Uses of 
       Nuclear Energy for a period not to exceed March 19, 2016.

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

SECTION 1. AUTHORITY TO EXTEND THE UNITED STATES-REPUBLIC OF KOREA 
              NUCLEAR COOPERATION AGREEMENT.

    The President is authorized to extend the term of the Agreement for 
Cooperation between the Government of the United States of America and 
the Government of the Republic of Korea Concerning Civil Uses of 
Nuclear Energy for a period not to exceed March 19, 2016, 
notwithstanding any other provision of law.
                                 <all>
```
**Exhibit 32.2**

 

Certification of Principal Financial OfficerPursuant toSection 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350)

 

In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Qfor the quarter ended June 30, 2008 (the “Report”) of ATS Corporation (the“Registrant”), as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the datehereof, I, Pamela A. Little, Chief Financial Officer of the Registrant, herebycertify that:

 

(1) The Report fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

 

(2) The information contained in the Reportfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and resultsof operations of the Registrant.

 
| Date: August 8, 2008 |       | By:        | /s/ Pamela A. Little               |
|---------------------------|------------|------------|------------------------------------|
|                      | ** ** | ** ** | **Pamela  A. Little**              |
|                      | ** ** | ** ** | **Chief  Financial Officer**       |
|                      | ** ** | ** ** | **(Principal  Financial Officer)** |

 

----
CERTIFICATE OF AMENDMENT

                                       OF

                              HELMSTAR GROUP, INC.

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

It is hereby certified that:

     1.   The name of the corporation  (hereinafter called the "corporation") is
          Helmstar Group, Inc.

     2.   The certificate of  incorporation of the corporation is hereby amended
          by striking out Article  First hereof and by  substituting  in lieu of
          said Article First the following new Article First:

          "FIRST: The name of the corporation is CareerEngine Network, Inc."

     3.   The amendment of the certificate of incorporation herein certified has
          been duly adopted in accordance with the provisions of Section 228 and
          242 of the General  Corporation  Law of the State of Delaware.  Prompt
          written notice of the adoption of the amendment  herein  certified has
          been given to those  stockholders  who have not  consented  in writing
          thereto,  as provided in Section 228 of the General Corporation Law of
          the State of Delaware.

Signed and attested to on March 23, 2000.


                                                HELMSTAR GROUP, INC.



                                                By: /s/ George W. Benoit
                                                   ---------------------------
                                                   George W. Benoit
                                                   Chairman of the Board
§ 3201.117 Intermediates—Personal Care Product Components. ( a ) *Definition.* Intermediates—Personal Care Product Components are ingredients used to formulate finished personal care products. Examples of Intermediates—Personal Care Product Components include surfactants, oils, humectants, emollients, or emulsifiers.
( b ) *Minimum biobased content.* The Federal preferred procurement product must have a minimum biobased content of at least 62 percent, which shall be based on the amount of qualifying biobased carbon in the product as a percent of the weight (mass) of the total organic carbon in the finished product.
( c ) *Preference compliance date.* No later than July 10, 2019, procuring agencies, in accordance with this part, will give a procurement preference for qualifying biobased Intermediates—Personal Care Product Components. By that date, Federal agencies responsible for drafting or reviewing specifications for products to be procured shall ensure that the relevant specifications require the use of biobased Intermediates—Personal Care Product Components.
[83 FR 31848, July 10, 2018]
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2526 Introduced in House (IH)]

113th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2526

   To amend title 28, United States Code, to add a Federal defender 
 representative as a nonvoting member of the United States Sentencing 
                  Commission, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             June 26, 2013

Mr. Scott of Virginia introduced the following bill; which was referred 
                   to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To amend title 28, United States Code, to add a Federal defender 
 representative as a nonvoting member of the United States Sentencing 
                  Commission, and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. FEDERAL DEFENDER REPRESENTATIVE AS A NONVOTING MEMBER OF 
              U.S. SENTENCING COMMISSION.

    Subsection (a) of section 991 of title 28, United States Code, is 
amended--
            (1) by striking ``one nonvoting member.'' at the end of the 
        first sentence and inserting ``two nonvoting members.''; and
            (2) by inserting before the last sentence the following: 
        ``A Federal defender representative designated by the Judicial 
        Conference of the United States shall be a nonvoting member of 
        the Commission.''.

SEC. 2. CONFORMING AMENDMENT.

    The final sentence of section 235(b)(5) of the Comprehensive Crime 
Control Act of 1984 (18 U.S.C. 3551 note) is amended by striking ``nine 
members, including two ex officio, nonvoting members'' and inserting 
``ten members, including three nonvoting members''.
                                 <all>
```
2006-0310.

#### Olynyk v. Andrish.

Cuyahoga App. No. 86009, 2005-Ohio-6632. Reported at 109 Ohio St.3d 1427, 2006-Ohio-1967, 846 N.E.2d 535. On motion for reconsideration. Motion for reconsideration granted to the following extent:

The discretionary appeal is accepted and the cause is consolidated with 2006-0235, *Olynyk v. Andrish,*Cuyahoga App. No. 86009, 2005-Ohio-6632.

Pfeifer, J., dissents.
98-1251.

#### State ex rel. Schnell v. McGimpsey.

In Mandamus. On motion to dismiss. Motion to dismiss sustained. Cause dismissed.

Moyer, C.J., Douglas, Resnick, F.E. Sweeney, Pfeifer, Cook and Lundberg Stratton, JJ., concur.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ANDREW QUONAH JONES, 

Petitioner, 

 v. 

JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney 

General, 

Respondent.

No. 16-70018 

Agency No. A040-207-744 

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted May 24, 2017**

Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, and SILVERMAN and RAWLINSON, 

Circuit Judges.

Andrew Quonah Jones, a native and citizen of Liberia, and a citizen of The 

Netherlands, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) 

order denying his motion to reconsider and reopen removal proceedings. Our 

jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the 

 

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision 

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

FILED

JUN 2 2017

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 16-70018 

denial of a motion to reconsider and reopen. Cano-Merida v. INS, 311 F.3d 960, 

964 (9th Cir. 2002). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Jones’s motion to reconsider 

as untimely, where he filed it more than 30 days after the final order of removal.

See 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(6); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(b)(2).

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to reopen, where 

the evidence, including evidence regarding Jones’s efforts to marry, was not 

previously unavailable and did not establish prima facie eligibility for relief. See 8

U.S.C. § 1229a(C)(7); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(1); Bhasin v. Gonzales, 423 F.3d 977, 

987 (9th Cir. 2005) (new evidence in support of a motion to reopen must not have 

been available at the time of the hearing). 

Contrary to Jones’s contentions, the BIA did not ignore or improperly 

analyze his contentions regarding his conviction for solicitation to possess 

marijuana for sale. See Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 990 (9th Cir. 2010); 

Olivas-Motta v. Holder, 716 F.3d 1199, 1200 (9th Cir. 2013) (the agency is 

confined to the record of conviction in determining whether an alien has been 

convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude).

We lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s denial of Jones’s motion to the 

extent it concerns the same hardship grounds as his original application for 

cancellation of removal. See Fernandez v. Gonzales, 439 F.3d 592, 600-01 (9th 
3 16-70018 

Cir. 2006) (8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i) bars jurisdiction over a motion to reopen 

where the question presented is essentially the same discretionary issue originally 

decided on the merits).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
# L_2020304EN.01000401.xml

| 18.9.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 304/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.9.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 304/4

---

COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) 2020/1299

of 11 September 2020

entering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications (‘Szilvásváradi pisztráng’ (PGI))

THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,

Having regard to Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 November 2012 on quality schemes for agricultural products and foodstuffs (1), and in particular Article 52(2) thereof,

Whereas:

| (1) | Pursuant to Article 50(2)(a) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012, Hungary’s application to register the name ‘Szilvásváradi pisztráng’ was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2). |
| --- | --- |

(1)

Pursuant to Article 50(2)(a) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012, Hungary’s application to register the name ‘Szilvásváradi pisztráng’ was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2).

| (2) | As no statement of objection under Article 51 of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 has been received by the Commission, the name ‘Szilvásváradi pisztráng’ should therefore be entered in the register, |
| --- | --- |

(2)

As no statement of objection under Article 51 of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 has been received by the Commission, the name ‘Szilvásváradi pisztráng’ should therefore be entered in the register,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

The name ‘Szilvásváradi pisztráng’ (PGI) is hereby entered in the register.

The name specified in the first paragraph denotes a product in Class 1.7. Fresh fish, molluscs and crustaceans and products derived therefrom, as listed in Annex XI to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 668/2014 (3).

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 11 September 2020.

For the Commission,

On behalf of the President,

Janusz WOJCIECHOWSKI

Member of the Commission

---

(1)  
  OJ L 343, 14.12.2012, p. 1.

1

(2)  
  OJ C 171, 19.5.2020, p. 26.

2

(3)  Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 668/2014 of 13 June 2014 laying down rules for the application of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council on quality schemes for agricultural products and foodstuffs (OJ L 179, 19.6.2014, p. 36).

3

---
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 

PANAMA CITY DIVISION 

IN THE MATTER OF THE SEARCH 

OF 4068 FAIRBANKS DRIVE, 

CHIPLEY, FLORIDA 32428 

Case No. 5:20-mj-44-MJF 

Filed Under Seal 

MOTION REQUESTING AN ORDER SEALING THE 

SEARCH AND SEIZURE WARRANT, APPLICATION AND ALL 

RELATED DOCUMENTS 

The United States of America requests this Court to issue an Order 

sealing the SEARCH AND SEIZURE WARRANT, APPLICATION AND 

ALL RELATED DOCUMENTS in this case, and in support of this motion 

states as follows: 

 1. The Search Warrant, Application and all related documents 

concern an ongoing criminal investigation and the public revelation of the 

documents could severely hamper law enforcement’s ability to continue its 

investigation. 

 2. The United States further moves the Court that the Search 

Warrant, Application and all related documents in this case shall remain 

sealed until May 6, 2021, unless otherwise extended by the Court upon the 

government’s motion. The Clerk of the Court, however, shall provide one 

Case 5:20-mj-00044-MJF Document 5 Filed 05/06/20 Page 1 of 2
certified copy of the Search Warrant, application and all related documents to 

the United States Attorney for the Northern District of Florida. 

 LAWRENCE KEEFE 

 United States Attorney 

 __s//Michelle Daffin___________ 

Michelle Daffin 

Assistant United States Attorney 

Florida Bar No. 0640761 

1001 East Business Hwy 98, Ste 2 

Panama City, FL 32401 

(850) 767-5006 

michelle.daffin@usdoj.gov 

ORDER 

The government’s motion is GRANTED.

SO ORDERED this 6th day of May, 2020. 

 

/s/ Michael J. Frank 

 Michael J. Frank 

 United States Magistrate Judge 

Case 5:20-mj-00044-MJF Document 5 Filed 05/06/20 Page 2 of 2