alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
###### Editorial Note on Part 1

#### Editorial Notes:

1. In Patent and Trademark Office publications and usage the part number is omitted from the numbers of §§ 1.1 to 1.352 and the numbers to the right of the decimal point correspond with the respective rule numbers.

2. For nomenclature changes to part 1, see 68 FR 14335, Mar. 25, 2003; 87 FR 68904, Nov. 17, 2022.

#### § 1.997 Issuance and publication of *inter partes* reexamination certificate concludes *inter partes* reexamination proceeding.

(a) To conclude an *inter partes* reexamination proceeding, the Director will issue and publish an *inter partes* reexamination certificate in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 316 setting forth the results of the *inter partes* reexamination proceeding and the content of the patent following the *inter partes* reexamination proceeding.

(b) A certificate will be issued and published in each patent in which an *inter partes* reexamination proceeding has been ordered under § 1.931. Any statutory disclaimer filed by the patent owner will be made part of the certificate.

(c) The certificate will be sent to the patent owner at the address as provided for in § 1.33(c). A copy of the certificate will also be sent to the third party requester of the *inter partes* reexamination proceeding.

(d) If a certificate has been issued and published which cancels all of the claims of the patent, no further Office proceedings will be conducted with that patent or any reissue applications or any reexamination requests relating thereto.

(e) If the *inter partes* reexamination proceeding is terminated by the grant of a reissued patent as provided in § 1.991, the reissued patent will constitute the reexamination certificate required by this section and 35 U.S.C. 316.

(f) A notice of the issuance of each certificate under this section will be published in the *Official Gazette.*

[65 FR 76777, Dec. 7, 2000, as amended at 72 FR 18907, Apr. 16, 2007]

###### 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.
#### Michael C. Varanelli *v.*Mary E. Sullivan Luddy

Maetbie, C. J., Brown, Jennings, Eels and Dickenson, Js.

Argued November 4

decided December 3, 1947

*192
      *U. G. Church,*for the appellant (defendant).

*Harry M. Albert,*with whom was *Michael V. Blansfield,*for the appellee (plaintiff).

Per Curiam.

There have been two previous appeals in this case. The facts are fully stated in *Varanelli*v. *Luddy,*130 Conn. 74, 32 A. 2d 61, and 132 Conn. 113, 42 A. 2d 656. The plaintiff sought a judgment quieting title to certain land, and the crucial issue in the case is the right of the defendant to have a correction made in the file of a judgment under which the plaintiff claimed. We briefly discuss only the issues which have arisen subsequent to the second appeal. The trial court issued an alternative writ of mandamus directing that the correction be made. The plaintiff raised the decisive issue of res adjudicata in his return. Complicated pleadings ensued. The court refused to issue a peremptory writ and thereafter tried de novo the issues as to the right of the plaintiff to have the title quieted in him. It rendered judgment for the plaintiff, and again the defendant has appealed.

We decided the basic issues of the case in our first opinion, where we held that the judgment rendered in the City Court in the action based on the lien was in fact one for its foreclosure; that the error in the judgment file was a clerical one which the City Court should have corrected, but that the judgment file was conclusive evidence of the judgment rendered unless and until, it was corrected; and that the denial of a motion in the City Court to have the judgment corrected, from which no appeal was taken, was a proper basis for a plea of res adjudicata as regards the defendant’s right to *193have the correction made. The plea was properly made and sustained upon the third trial and a peremptory writ refused. The judgment file continued to he conclusive evidence of the judgment rendered.

The defendant now claims that she does not need to secure a correction of the judgment file because the plaintiff admitted in his pleadings in the mandamus proceedings that there was a valid judgment of foreclosure, that the judgment file erroneously omitted it and that the file should have been corrected by the City Court. The pleading stated that the admissions were made because of our decision as set forth above. The admissions do not go to the crux of the matter. The defendant ignores the basic fact that she could not prevail unless she secured a correction of the judgment file and that she sacrificed her right to that by failing to appeal from the denial of her motion to have it made. The trial court correctly decided that the admissions were insufficient to avoid the effect of our previous decision, and judgment for the plaintiff followed as a matter of course.

The defendant has assigned error in a ruling which admitted the judgment file of the City Court in evidence. The objection was that it was immaterial and contradicted the admissions made by the plaintiff. It follows from what we have said that the ruling was proper.

There is no error.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                                                 <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                     9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                           OCT-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                              MAY-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                JUL-31-2000
<CASH>                                          888,234
<SECURITIES>                                          0
<RECEIVABLES>                                         0
<ALLOWANCES>                                          0
<INVENTORY>                                           0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                888,234
<PP&E>                                                0
<DEPRECIATION>                                        0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  888,234
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                 0
<BONDS>                                               0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                 0
<PREFERRED>                                           0
<COMMON>                                          7,506
<OTHER-SE>                                      880,728
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    888,234
<SALES>                                               0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 11,583
<CGS>                                                 0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                         0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 20,449
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                      0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                    0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  (8,866)
<INCOME-TAX>                                          0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              (8,866)
<DISCONTINUED>                                        0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                       0
<CHANGES>                                             0
<NET-INCOME>                                     (8,866)
<EPS-BASIC>                                           0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                         0



</TABLE>
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 182 (Tuesday, September 22, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Pages 48261-48262]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-22706]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER09-1645-000]


Devonshire Energy LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial Market-
Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204 
Authorization

September 15, 2009.
    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of 
Devonshire Energy, LLC's application for market-based rate authority, 
with an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such application includes 
a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future 
issuances of securities and assumptions of liability.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the 
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., 
Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the 
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 
385.214). Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a 
copy of that document on the Applicant.
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with 
regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18 
CFR part 34, of

[[Page 48262]]

future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability, is October 
5, 2009.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and 
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet 
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an 
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the 
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the 
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 
14 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 888 First St., NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    The filings in the above-referenced proceeding are accessible in 
the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in 
the above list. They are also available for review in the Commission's 
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link 
on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail notification 
when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with 
any FERC Online service, please e-mail <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#ce888b9c8d81a0a2a7a0ab9dbbbebea1bcba8ea8abbcade0a9a1b8"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="0d4b485f4e4263616463685e787d7d627f794d6b687f6e236a627b">[email protected]</span></a>, or 
call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-22706 Filed 9-21-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
|   | (i) | the      quarterly report of the Company on Form 10-Q for the period ended      July 3, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the      “Report”), fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d),      whichever is applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,      and |
|--------|-----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | (ii) | the      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material      respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company      at the dates and for the periodsindicated. |
|--------|------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Dated:  August      9, 2010 |   |   | /s/PHILLIP A. KAGEL                                      |
|---------------------------------------|--------|--------|----------------------------------------------------------|
|                                  |   |   | Phillip      A. Kagel                                    |
|                                  |   |   | Vice      President, Finance and Chief Financial Officer |
|                                  |   |   | (Principal      Financial and Accounting Officer)        |
Electronically Filed

Intermediate Court of Appeals

CAAP-13-0003877

28-APR-2014

08:54 AM
**
**Exhibit 31.3**

**CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER**

**PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

I, Richard L. Peteka, Chief Financial Officer of SLR HC BDC LLC, certify that: 

1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of SLR HC BDC LLC; 

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material factnecessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report; 

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present inall material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report; 

4. The registrant’s other certifying officers and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controlsand procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have: 

(a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed underour supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared; 

(b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report ourconclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and 

(c) disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred duringthe registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting; and 

5. The registrant’s other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions): 

(a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financialreporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and 

(b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting. 

Dated this 1st day of March, 2022 

 

/s/ Richard L. Peteka
**Richard L. Peteka****
41892.

#### GORMAN v. EMPLOYERS MUTUAL LIABILITY INSURANCE COMPANY et al.

Felton, Chief Judge.

1. An agreement to pay and receive compensation for temporary total disability, signed by the employee and employer and approved by the State Board of Workmen’s Compensation, is res judicata as to the condition of the employee on the date of the agreement and cannot be questioned or affected by the opinion of a physician that he examined the employee two days prior to the agreement and that he at that time thought that the employee could return to work. There being no other evidence that the employee’s physical condition had improved to the extent that he was able to return to work, the employer failed to carry its burden of proving a change in condition and the board correctly so ruled.

2. The purpose of the hearing in. this case was to decide whether there had been a change in condition on the employer’s application and whether the employee was entitled to further medical payments, on his application. In finding in favor of additional medical payments for the employee, the board was authorized to find from the evidence that the employee suffered an additional injury, to wit, one to his back, in the accident, even though the compensation agreement stated that the injury was to his stomach. *Automatic Sprinkler Corp. v. Rucker,*87 Ga. App. 375, 381 (73 SE2d 609); *General Motors Corp. v. Bowman,*107 Ga. App. 335 (130 SE2d 163); *U. S. Cas. Co. v. Truett, 108*Ga. App. 322 (132 SE2d 789). If there could be said to be any competent evidence that the employee was able to return to work, insofar as the stomach injury was concerned, the evidence as to an injury to the back, though not discovered at the time *501■ of the agreement, was sufficient to authorize the finding of the board that the burden of proving a change in the employee’s condition for the better had not been carried by the employer.

Argued April 6, 1966

Decided April 19, 1966.

*George & George, William V. George,*for appellant.

*Swift, Currie, McGhee & Hiers, James B. Hiers, Jr.,*for appellees.

3. The finding of the board was authorized and the reversal of the award of the full board on the theory that the agreement showed injury to the stomach alone and that the board could consider whether the employee’s condition had improved only insofar as the injuries to the stomach were concerned, was erroneous. In such a case the burden is on the employer to prove a change for the better as to all injuries received by the employee by reason of the accident for which compensation was due.

The court erred in reversing the award of the board and in remanding the case.

*Judgment reversed.*

*Frankum and Pannell, JJ., concur.*
#### § 13.270 Creditors' claims.

Under 38 U.S.C. 5301(a)(1), VA benefit payments are exempt, both before and after receipt by the beneficiary, from the claims of creditors and taxation. The fiduciary should invoke this defense in applicable circumstances. If the fiduciary does not do so, the Hub Manager may refer the matter to the District Counsel for evaluation and appropriate legal action.

(Authority: 38 U.S.C. 501, 512, 5301)
§ 1.489 Audit and evaluation activities. Subject to the provisions of 38 U.S.C. 5701, 38 CFR 1.500-1.527, the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. 552a), 38 CFR 1.575-1.584, and the following paragraphs, patient medical records covered by §§ 1.460 through 1.499 of this part may be disclosed outside VA for the purposes of conducting audit and evaluation activities. ( a ) *Records not copies.* If patient records covered by §§ 1.460 through 1.499 of this part are not copied, patient identifying information may be disclosed in the course of a review of records on VA facility premises to any person who agrees in writing to comply with the limitations on redisclosure and use in paragraph (d) of this section and: ( 1 ) Where audit or evaluation functions are performed by a State or Federal governmental agency on behalf of VA; or
( 2 ) Who is determined by the VA facility director to be qualified to conduct the audit or evaluation activities.
( b ) *Copying of records.* Records containing patient identifying information may be copied by any person who: ( 1 ) Agrees in writing to: ( i ) Maintain the patient identifying information in accordance with the security requirements provided in § 1.466 of this part (or more stringent requirements);
( ii ) Destroy all the patient identifying information upon completion of the audit or evaluation; and
( iii ) Comply with the limitations on disclosure and use in paragraph (d) of this section.
( 2 ) The VA medical facility director determines to be qualified to conduct the audit or evaluation activities.
( c ) *Congressional oversight.* Records subject to §§ 1.460 through 1.499 of this part upon written request may be released to congressional committees or subcommittees for program oversight and evaluation if such records pertain to any matter within the jurisdiction of such committee or subcommittee.
( d ) *Limitation on disclosure and use.* Records containing patient identifying information disclosed under this section may be disclosed only back to VA and used only to carry out an audit or evaluation purpose, or, to investigate or prosecute criminal or other activities as authorized by a court order entered under § 1.494 of this part.
[60 FR 63929, Dec. 13, 1995, as amended at 85 FR 64043, Oct. 9, 2020]
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 Repligen Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
the date hereof (the Report), the undersigned officers of the Company hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the undersigneds
knowledge, 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.
|--- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                       |  |  |  |     |  |                                             
|---------------------- |  |  |  | --- |  | --------------------------------------------
|Date: November 2, 2010 |  |  |  | By: |  | /s/ Walter C. Herlihy                       
|                       |  |  |  |     |  | Walter C. Herlihy                           
|                       |  |  |  |     |  | Chief Executive Officer and President       
|                       |  |  |  |     |  | (Principal executive officer)               
|                       |  |  | 
|Date: November 2, 2010 |  |  |  | By: |  | /s/ William J. Kelly                        
|                       |  |  |  |     |  | William J. Kelly                            
|                       |  |  |  |     |  | Chief Financial Officer                     
|                       |  |  |  |     |  | (Principal financial and accounting officer)