alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-6123
CLYDE RONALD LUMBARD, III, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus HARNETT COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA; EFFIE B. WOODARD; CARON STEWART, Defendants - Appellees.Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, Chief District Judge. (CA-97-690-5-BO) Submitted: May 28, 1998 Decided: June 10, 1998 Before ERVIN, LUTTIG, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Clyde Ronald Lumbard, III, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Clyde Ronald Lumbard, III, filed an untimely notice of appeal. We dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. The time periods for filing notices of appeal are governed by Fed. R. App. P. 4. These periods are "mandatory and jurisdictional." Browder v. Director, Dep't of Corrections , 434 U.S. 257, 264 (1978) (quoting United States v. Robinson , 361 U.S. 220, 229 (1960)). Parties to civil actions have thirty days within which to file in the district court notices of appeal from judgments or final orders. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1). The only exceptions to the appeal period are when the district court extends the time to appeal under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5) or reopens the appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6). The district court entered its order on October 9, 1997; Lumbard's notice of appeal was filed on January 12, 1998, which is beyond the thirty-day appeal period. Lumbard's failure to note a timely appeal or obtain an extension of the appeal period leaves this court without jurisdiction to consider the merits of Lumbard's appeal. We therefore dismiss the appeal. We deny Lumbard's motionsfor a copy of the record on appeal, to appoint counsel, and to substitute a party. We also deny his motion for oral argument becausethe facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAY-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JUN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               NOV-30-1997
<CASH>                                         520,997
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,247,247
<ALLOWANCES>                                   271,535
<INVENTORY>                                  5,827,892
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             8,575,044
<PP&E>                                       7,454,515
<DEPRECIATION>                               2,007,651
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              19,026,352
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       13,608,426
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                 12,231,000
<COMMON>                                       464,683
<OTHER-SE>                                 (7,277,757)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                19,026,352
<SALES>                                      1,495,630
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,829,813
<CGS>                                          932,444
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,379,861
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             9,201,114
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               186,911
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             226,830
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (8,934,637)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (8,934,637)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (8,934,637)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.24)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
HomeBriefings – Foreign Press Centers...U.S.-EU Trade and Technology Council (TTC)

# 									U.S.-EU Trade and Technology Council (TTC)							

FPC Reporting Tour

Tuesday, September 28 - Wednesday, September 29, 2021  

Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

September 28, 2021

Secretary Antony J. Blinken traveled to Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, September 29-30, where he co-chaired the inaugural meeting of the U.S.-EU Trade and Technology Council (TTC) with Secretary of Commerce Gina Raimondo, United States Trade Representative Katherine Tai, and European Commission Executive Vice Presidents Margrethe Vestager and Valdis Dombrovskis.  They explored mechanisms to expand and deepen transatlantic trade and investment.  They ~~will~~also discussed ways to update the rules for the 21st century economy to ensure trade and technology policies support broad-based growth in both economies and are consistent with our shared democratic values.

The United States-European Union Trade and Technology Council – United States Department of State

Foreign correspondents from seven leading political and financial news outlets in France, Germany, Italy, Spain, the UK, and Hong Kong participated in a two-day FPC reporting tour to Pittsburgh, to cover the TTC meeting. The participants reported on remarks by the senior U.S. and EU and participated in a press gaggle with them on the 29th at the meeting venue (Hazelwood Mill) and with Secretary Blinken on the 30th at a local labor union. They also interviewed innovation leaders from Pittsburgh Robotics and Innovate PGH, visited Argo AI, a self-driving technology company, and toured the University of Pittsburgh’s Center for Vaccine Research before returning to Washington. Journalists from *Les Echos*, ARD, *La Stampa*, TVE, *Financial Times*, and *South China Morning Post* took part.

Tags

District of ColumbiaEconomic Prosperity and Trade PolicyForeign Press CentersForeign Press CentersPennsylvaniaScience, Technology, and InnovationTechnologyU.S.-EU Trade and Technology Council

Back to Top
Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I
Editorial Note: Part 2 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to trademarks regulations.

Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I
Editorial Note: Part 6 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to trademarks regulations.

Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I
Editorial Note: Part 7 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to trademarks regulations.

Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I
Editorial Note: Part 1 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to patents regulations.

Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I
Editorial Note: Part 3 pertaining to both patents and trademarks is placed in the grouping pertaining to patents regulations.

Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I
Editorial Note: Part 4 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to patents regulations.

Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I
Editorial Note: Part 5 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to patents regulations.

§ 7.28 Replacement of U.S. registration by registered extension of protection. ( a ) A registered extension of protection affords the same rights as those afforded to a previously issued U.S. registration if: ( 1 ) Both registrations are owned by the same person and identify the same mark; and
( 2 ) All the goods and/or services listed in the U.S. registration are also listed in the registered extension of protection.
( b ) The holder of an international registration with a registered extension of protection to the United States that meets the requirements of paragraph (a) of this section may file a request to note replacement of the U.S. registration with the extension of protection. If the request contains all of the following, the Office will take note of the replacement in its automated records: ( 1 ) The serial number or registration number of the extension of protection;
( 2 ) The registration number of the replaced U.S. registration; and
( 3 ) The fee required by § 7.6.
( c ) If the request to note replacement is denied, the Office will notify the holder of the reason(s) for refusal.
AFS-14-190-E

June 13, 2014

 Exemption No. 10177D

 Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2010-0970

Mr. Garry Foss

President/ Chief Executive Officer

Seaborne Virgin Islands, Inc., d/b/a Seaborne Airlines

World Plaza Building, 9th Floor

268 Avenida Luis Munoz Rivera

San Juan, PR 00918

Dear Mr. Foss:

This letter is to inform you that we have granted a 120 day extension for your petition to extend 

Exemption No. 10177, as amended. It explains the basis for our decision, describes its effect, and 

lists the conditions and limitations.

The Basis for Our Decision

By letter dated March 1, 2014, you petitioned the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) on behalf 

of Seaborne Virgin Islands, Inc., d/b/a Seaborne Airlines (Seaborne Airlines) for an extension of 

Exemption No. 10177, as amended. That exemption from part 121, appendix K, paragraph 5a of 

Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) allows Seaborne Airlines to continue to operate 

DHC-6-300 float-equipped airplanes after the December 20, 2010, effective date without meeting 

certain aircraft performance requirements.

In your petition, you indicate that there has been no change in the conditions and reasons relative to 

public interest and safety that were the basis for granting the original exemption.

The FAA has determined that good cause exists for not publishing a summary of the petition in the 

Federal Register because the requested extension of the exemption would not set a precedent, and 

any delay in acting on this petition would be detrimental Seaborne Airlines.
2

The FAA is requiring Seaborne Airlines to develop a permanent solution showing an equivalent level 

of safety from 14 CFR part 121, appendix K, paragraph 5a. In addition Seaborne Airlines must 

submit to the FAA prior to the expiration of Exemption No. 10177, any documentation1showing 

when Seaborne Airlines operates their aircraft, a safety risk assessment is accomplished to ensure it 

is free of any hazard for take-off, the route to be flown, and landing.

Our Decision

The FAA has determined that the justification for the issuance of Exemption No. 10177, as 

amended, remains valid with respect to this exemption and is in the public interest. Therefore, under 

the authority provided by 49 U.S.C. §§ 106(f), 40113, and 44701, which the FAA Administrator 

has delegated to me, Seaborne Virgin Islands, Inc., d/b/a Seaborne Airlines is granted an extension 

to its exemption from 14 CFR part 121, appendix K, paragraph 5a, which allows Seaborne Airlines 

to continue to operate DHC-6-300 float-equipped airplanes after the December 20, 2010, effective 

date without meeting certain aircraft performance requirements.

The FAA has determined a 120 day extension of Exemption No. 10177 will allow Seaborne Airlines

ample time to provide the required documentation as outlined above to the FAA.

This exemption terminates on October 31, 2014, unless sooner superseded or rescinded.

Sincerely,

/S/

John Barbagallo

Acting Deputy Director, Flight Standards Service

 

1 This includes pilot checklists, policy, and procedures.
**Exhibit 99.2**

 

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

 

 

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Illini Corporation (the“Company”) on Form 10-QSB for the period ended March 31, 2003 as filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission on the hereof (the “Report”), I George A.Rosenbaum, Jr., Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18U.S.C. section 1350, as adopted pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-OxleyAct of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge:

 

(1)                                  The Report fullycomplies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934; and

(2)                                  The informationcontained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

 
| /s/ George  A. Rosenbaum, Jr. |   |
|-------------------------------|--------|
|                          |
| George A.  Rosenbaum, Jr.     |
| Chief  Financial Officer      |
| May 14, 2003                  |

 

----
§ 1.966 Scope of waiver decisions. ( a ) Decisions will be based on the evidence of record. A hearing may be held at the request of the claimant or his/her representative. No expenses incurred by a claimant, his representative, or any witness incident to a hearing will be paid by the Department of Veterans Affairs.
( b ) A regional office Committee may: ( 1 ) Waive recovery as to certain persons and decline to waive as to other persons whose claims are based on the same veteran's service.
( 2 ) Waive or decline to waive recovery from specific benefits or sources, except that: ( i ) There shall be no waiver of recovery out of insurance of an indebtedness secured thereby; *i.e.*, an insurance overpayment to an insured. However, recovery may be waived of any or all of such indebtedness out of benefits other than insurance then or thereafter payable to the insured.
(Authority: 38 U.S.C. 501, 5302)
[39 FR 26400, July 19, 1974, as amended at 44 FR 59907, Oct. 17, 1979; 48 FR 1056, Jan. 10, 1983; 69 FR 62202, Oct. 25, 2004]
99–008

107TH CONGRESS REPORT " ! HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 2d Session 107–374

PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 2146, TWO

STRIKES AND YOU’RE OUT CHILD PROTECTION ACT

MARCH 12, 2002.—Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed

Mr. DIAZ-BALART, from the Committee on Rules,

submitted the following

R E P O R T

[To accompany H. Res. 366]

The Committee on Rules, having had under consideration House

Resolution 366, by a nonrecord vote, report the same to the House

with the recommendation that the resolution be adopted.

SUMMARY OF PROVISIONS OF THE RESOLUTION

The resolution provides for the consideration of H.R. 2146, to

amend title 18 of the United States Code to provide life imprisonment for repeat offenders who commit sex offenses against children, under an open rule. The rule provides one hour of general debate equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking

minority member of the Committee on the Judiciary. The rule

waives all points of order against consideration of the bill.

The rule provides that the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on the Judiciary now printed in the bill shall be considered as an original bill for the purpose

of amendment. The rule provides that the amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be considered open to amendment at any

point. The rule authorizes the Chairman of the Committee of the

Whole to accord priority in recognition to Members who have

preprinted their amendments in the Congressional Record. Finally,

the rule provides one motion to recommit with or without instructions.

The waiver of all points of order includes a waiver of clause 4(a)

of rule XIII (requiring a three-day layover of the committee report),

which is needed because the committee report was not filed until

2

Tuesday, March 12 and the bill may be considered by the House

as early as Thursday, March 14.

Æ
```

[Federal Register: January 28, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 18)]
[Notices]               
[Page 4545]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr28ja10-37]                         

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

 
Proposed Subsequent Arrangement

AGENCY: Office of International Regimes and Agreements, Department of 
Energy.

ACTION: Subsequent arrangement.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: This notice has been issued under the authority of Section 131 
of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2160). The 
Department is providing notice of a proposed subsequent arrangement 
under the Agreement for Cooperation between the United States of 
America and the Government of Canada Concerning Peaceful Uses of 
Nuclear Energy and the Agreement for Cooperation in the Peaceful Uses 
of Nuclear Energy between the United States and the European Atomic 
Energy Community (EURATOM).
    This subsequent arrangement concerns the retransfer of 229,290 kg 
of U.S.-origin natural uranium hexafluoride (67.6%), 155,000 kg of 
which is uranium, from Cameco in Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, Canada to 
Urenco in Capenhurst Works, Chester, United Kingdom. The material, 
which is currently located at Cameco, Blind River, will be transferred 
to Urenco for toll enrichment at their Capenhurst UK facility. The 
natural uranium hexafluoride was originally obtained by Cameco from 
Crowe Butte Resources Inc. pursuant to export license XSOU8798.
    In accordance with Section 131 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as 
amended, we have determined that this subsequent arrangement will not 
be inimical to the common defense and security.
    This subsequent arrangement will take effect no sooner than fifteen 
days after the date of publication of this notice.

    Dated: January 21, 2010.

    For the Department of Energy.
Richard Goorevich,
Director, Office of International Regimes and Agreements.
[FR Doc. 2010-1754 Filed 1-27-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
```
§ 68.7 How are applicants selected to participate in the NIH LRPs? The NIH LRP awards are competitive. To be selected for participation in an NIH LRP, applicants must satisfy the following requirements: ( a ) Applicants must meet the eligibility requirements specified in §§ 68.3 and 68.4 of this part.
( b ) Applicants must not be ineligible for participation as specified in § 68.5 of this part.
( c ) Upon receipt, applications for any of the NIH LRPs will be reviewed for eligibility and completeness by the NIH Division of Loan Repayment. Incomplete or ineligible applications will not be processed or reviewed further.
( d ) ( 1 ) Applications for the Intramural LRPs that are deemed eligible and complete are submitted to the Loan Repayment Committee (LRC), which reviews, ranks, and approves/disapproves LRP awards. The LRC is composed of senior intramural scientists, including basic (bench) and clinical researchers and science policy administrators. Since LRP participation in the Intramural programs is contingent upon NIH employment, applicants must be recommended by the employing IC of the NIH to be considered by the LRC.
( 2 ) Applications for the Extramural LRPs that are deemed eligible and complete will be referred by the NIH Center for Scientific Review (CSR) to an appropriate NIH IC for peer review. In evaluating the application, reviewers are directed to consider the following components and how they relate to the likelihood that the applicant will continue in a research career: ( i ) Applicant's potential to pursue a career in research as defined by the appropriate LRP: ( A ) Appropriateness of the applicant's previous training and experience to prepare for a research career.
( B ) Appropriateness of the proposed research activities during the LRP contract to foster a career in research.
( C ) Commitment to a research career, as reflected by the personal statement of long-term career goals and plan to achieve those goals.
( D ) Strength of the letters of recommendations attesting to the applicant's potential for a successful career in research.
( ii ) Quality of the overall environment to prepare the applicant for a research career: ( A ) Quality and availability of appropriate scientific mentors and colleagues to help achieve or enhance the applicant's research independence, including the mentors' record in mentoring researchers, funding history, and research productivity.
( B ) Quality and appropriateness of institutional resources and facilities.
( iii ) For the Health Disparities Research subcategory, at least 50 percent of the contracts are required by statute to be for appropriately qualified health professionals who are members of a health disparity population.
[78 FR 20468, Apr. 5, 2013, as amended at 88 FR 4739, Jan. 25, 2023]
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 Bel Fuse Inc (the "Company") on Form
      10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2008 filed with the Securities and
      Exchange Commission (the "Report"), I, Daniel Bernstein, President 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:





(1)
      The
      Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities
      Exchange Act of 1934; and





(2)
      The
      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
      the consolidated financial condition of the Company as of the dates presented
      and consolidated result of operations of the Company for the periods presented.





Dated:
      November 7, 2008





By:
            /s/
                Daniel BernsteinDaniel
                Bernstein, Presidentand
                Chief Executive Officer
#### David Bussel, Respondent, v. James Sagor, Appellant.

Appeal from a judgment in favor of plaintiff entered upon a verdict from an order denying a motion for a new trial.'

Max D. Steuer (A. S. Levy, of counsel), for respondent.

Eugene I. Yuells (Jacob Barnett, of counsel),® for appellant:

Hascall, J.

This appeal brings up for review a judgment entered upon a verdict -and an order denying a motion for a new trial.

Plaintiff brought his action against defendant to recover for the alleged value of goods and material sold, furnished and delivered, to a friend of defendant, upon his, defendant’s, request, and had a verdict for the sum of $118.82. .

*811We think the judgment and order appealed from should he reversed. There is no evidence to support the verdict, except as to the sum of $35, and as to the rest the verdict is against the. weight of evidence.

The only possible recovery, justified under the evidence, would be the sum of $35, and the right to have even that, being denied by defendant, and plaintiff not having charged to Sagor the goods furnished to Cooper, the transaction was not taken out of the control of the Statute of Frauds, and was void. If this were not so, and the statute did not apply, still the verdict was against or not supported by the weight of evidence and would have to be set aside. 11 Misc. Rep. 340; 138 N. Y. 517; 145 N. Y. 408.

Judgment and order appealed from .reversed and new trial' ordered, with costs to appellant to abide the event.

Fitzsimons, Ch. J., and McCarthy, J., concur.

Judgment and order reversed and new trial ordered, with costs to appellant to abide event.