alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS, THE CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS, AND THE
ACCOMPANYING NOTES TO THE CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS, AND IS QUALIFIED IN
ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                          20,259
<SECURITIES>                                   104,719
<RECEIVABLES>                                   36,317
<ALLOWANCES>                                       465
<INVENTORY>                                     26,032
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               199,052
<PP&E>                                          36,142
<DEPRECIATION>                                  19,750
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 230,133
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           26,629
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           205
<OTHER-SE>                                     199,529
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   230,133
<SALES>                                        150,035
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               150,035
<CGS>                                           86,409
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   86,409
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                27,029
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  45
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (12,988)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     2,949
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (15,937)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (15,937)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.86)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.86)


</TABLE>
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 10.2

                   FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE LICENSE AGREEMENT
                   ----------------------------------------

     THIS FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE LICENSE AGREEMENT dated March 26, 1998
(hereinafter referred to as "First Amendment") is made and entered into this 8th
day of January, 2001, by and between GEORGIA TECH RESEARCH CORPORATION, a non-
profit corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Georgia
and with offices at the Georgia Institute of Technology, 400 Tenth Street,
Atlanta, Georgia 30332-0415 (hereinafter "GTRC") and mPhase Technologies, Inc.,
a corporation existing under the laws of the State of New Jersey, and having its
principal offices at 587 Connecticut Avenue, Norwalk, CT  06854 (hereinafter
"LICENSEE").

                               W I T N E S E T H:

     WHEREAS, GTRC and LICENSEE entered into a License Agreement dated the 26th
day of March, 1998 (hereinafter "License Agreement"), for an invention entitled
"Digital Video and Data System", which is the subject of GTRC Invention
Disclosure Number 1941; and

     WHEREAS, GTRC and LICENSEE desire to amend the said License Agreement as
set forth below; and

     NOW THEREFORE, GTRC and LICENSEE in consideration of the foregoing and the
mutual promises contained herein and intending to be legally bound hereby agree
to amend the License Agreement as follows:


1.  Paragraph 10.2 of the License Agreement is hereby deleted in its entirety
and the following paragraph 10.2 shall be inserted in lieu thereof:

     "10.2  Should GTRC not receive at least Fifty Thousand U.S. Dollars
          ($50,000) in royalty payments from LICENSEE within Forty-eight (48)
          months from the Effective Date of this Agreement and should GTRC not
          receive at least One Hundred Thousand U.S. Dollars ($100,000) in
          royalty payments during each twelve (12) month period thereafter, GTRC
          shall have the option to terminate the license granted hereunder, to
          allow this Agreement to continue in full force and effect or to
          convert the license granted hereunder to a nonexclusive license upon
          written notice to LICENSEE."

2.  Except as amended by this First Amendment, the License Agreement shall
remain in full force and effect pursuant to the terms and conditions hereof.
<PAGE>

     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, GTRC and LICENSEE have caused this First Amendment to
be executed by their duly authorized officers on the day and year first written
above.



mPhase Technologies, Inc.               Georgia Tech Research Corporation


By:______________________________       By:___________________________________

Typed Name: Ronald A. Durando           Typed Name: Barry Rosenberg

Title: Chief Executive Officer          Title: Director, Technology Licensing

Date:  January 8, 2001                  Date: January 22, 2001
PARTITION — APPEAL AND ERROR.

[Hamilton Circuit Court,

January Term, 1894.]

Smith, Swing and Cox, JJ.

#### Jordan v. Jordan.

Judgment Ordering Partition the Only One from Which Appeal Lies.

In partition, the only final judgment from which an appea lies is that ordering the partition and ascertaining the shares. The subsequent proceedings and confirmations are to carry out the final order, and error only lies to them.

*JV. E.*Jordan, for plaintiff.

Harmon, *Colston, Goldsmith & Hoadly*and *J. IV. O’Hara,*for defendant.

Swing, J.

This was an action for partition, brought October 15, 1892. July 26, 1893, a decree was rendered in the court of common pleas, by consent of parties, wherein the court found that the plaintiff was entitled to four-ninths and the defendant to five-ninths of the property sought to be apportioned, and partition of the premises was ordered accordingly, and commissioners were appointed to make said partition. No exception was taken to this decree and no notice of appeal given by either party. On September 19, 1893, motion was made to confirm partition of commissioners, and on September 30th, a judgment was entered confirming the partition theretofore made and adjudging that the parties pay the costs in the proportion of four-ninths by plaintiff and five-ninths by defendant, including a counsel fee of $300 to N. E. Jordan for services as attorney. To this judgment defendant excepted and gave notice of appeal in the words following: “And the defendant, Elizabeth P. Jordan, objects and excepts to so much of the decree as allows a counsel fee to plaintiff, and hereby gives notice of appeal to the circuit court of this county, and the court fixes appeal bond at $50.” On October 6th, the defendant gave an appeal bond and the tause was brought into this court on appeal.

In our opinion the only matter attempted to be brought into this court by the appeal was the judgment of the court of September 30th, ordering the confirmation of commissioners in partition and adjudging the payment of the costs. The decree of partition rendered July 26th was by consent and was not appealed from. The judgment of September 30th was not appealable, while that of July 26th was. Error was the proper remedy on order of confirmation and payment of costs.

This cause, not being appealable, there is no jurisdiction in this court to render any judgment, and the court will, on its own motion, order the case stricken from .the docket.
#### § 650.6 Criminal referrals.

The rules at 12 CFR part 612, subpart B, regarding “Referral of Known or Suspected Criminal Violations” are applicable to the Corporation.
```

[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3340 Reported in Senate (RS)]

                                                       Calendar No. 664
108th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 3340

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                              July 7, 2004

  Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Governmental 
                                Affairs

                             July 22, 2004

               Reported by Ms. Collins, without amendment

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
   To redesignate the facilities of the United States Postal Service 
located at 7715 and 7748 S. Cottage Grove Avenue in Chicago, Illinois, 
  as the ``James E. Worsham Post Office'' and the ``James E. Worsham 
    Carrier Annex Building'', respectively, 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. JAMES E. WORSHAM POST OFFICE.

    (a) Redesignation.--The facility of the United States Postal 
Service located at 7715 S. Cottage Grove Avenue in Chicago, Illinois, 
shall be known and designated as the ``James E. Worsham Post Office''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in this section shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``James E. 
Worsham Post Office''.

SEC. 2. JAMES E. WORSHAM CARRIER ANNEX BUILDING.

    (a) Redesignation.--The facility of the United States Postal 
Service located at 7748 S. Cottage Grove Avenue in Chicago, Illinois, 
shall be known and designated as the ``James E. Worsham Carrier Annex 
Building''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in this section shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``James E. 
Worsham Carrier Annex Building''.

                                                       Calendar No. 664

108th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                               H. R. 3340

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

   To redesignate the facilities of the United States Postal Service 
located at 7715 and 7748 S. Cottage Grove Avenue in Chicago, Illinois, 
  as the ``James E. Worsham Post Office'' and the ``James E. Worsham 
    Carrier Annex Building'', respectively, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                             July 22, 2004

                       Reported without amendment
```
#### § 335.612 Statement of changes in beneficial ownership of securities (Form 4).

This form shall be filed in lieu of SEC Form 4 pursuant to SEC Rules for statements of changes in beneficial ownership of securities. The FDIC is authorized to solicit the information required by this form pursuant to sections 16(a) and 23(a) of the Exchange Act (15 U.S.C. 78p and 78w) and the rules and regulations thereunder. SEC regulations referenced in this form are codified at 17 CFR part 240.

[75 FR 73950, Nov. 30, 2010]
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 99-6014

KENNETH RAY NEAL, JR.,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF NORTH CAROLINA; STEPHEN D.

MULLER, Superintendent; MICHAEL F. EASLEY,

Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Durham. James A. Beaty, Jr., District

Judge. (CA-98-458-1)

Submitted: April 15, 1999 Decided: April 20, 1999

Before NIEMEYER and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Kenneth Ray Neal, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Clarence Joe DelForge,

III, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF NORTH CAROLINA, Raleigh,

North Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Kenneth Ray Neal, Jr., seeks to appeal the district court’s

order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254

(West 1994 & Supp. 1998). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a

certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. See Neal v. Attorney General of North

Carolina, No. CA-98-458-1 (M.D.N.C. Dec. 16, 1998). We dispense

with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are

adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument

would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
#### § 619.9155 Federal land credit association.

The term *Federal land credit association* refers to a Federal land bank association that has received a transfer of direct long-term real estate lending authority pursuant to section 7.6 of the Act.

[55 FR 24889, June 19, 1990]
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 99-7425

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

RUTH VANESSA WALKER,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

Maryland, at Baltimore. Andre M. Davis, District Judge. (CR-95-

455-AMD, CA-99-1821-AMD)

Submitted: February 10, 2000 Decided: February 15, 2000

Before WIDENER and NIEMEYER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Ruth Vanessa Walker, Appellant Pro Se. John Francis Purcell, Jr.,

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Baltimore, Maryland, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
* Although the district court’s order is marked as “filed” on

July 26, 1999, the district court’s records show that it was

entered on the docket sheet on July 27, 1999. Pursuant to Rules 58

and 79(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, it is the date

the order was entered on the docket sheet that we take as the

effective date of the district court’s decision. See Wilson v.

Murray, 806 F.2d 1232, 1234-35 (4th Cir. 1986).

2

PER CURIAM:

Ruth Vanessa Walker seeks to appeal the district court’s order

denying her Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion seeking reconsideration of

the district court’s dismissal of her motion filed under 28

U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 1999). We have reviewed the record and

the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. See United States v.

Walker, Nos. CR-95-455-AMD; CA-99-1821-AMD (D. Md. Jul. 27, 1999).*

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court

and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
# C_2021431EN.01005502.xml

| 25.10.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 431/55 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.10.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 431/55

---

Action brought on 10 September 2021 — Harbaoui v EUIPO — Google (GOOGLE CAR)

(Case T-569/21)

(2021/C 431/65)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Zoubier Harbaoui (Paris, France) (represented by: R. Ciullo, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Google LLC (Mountain View, California, United States)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Applicant before the General Court

Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union word mark GOOGLE CAR — Application for registration No 17 978 453

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 29 June 2021 in Case R 904/2020-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | order EUIPO and Google LLC to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO and Google LLC to pay the costs.

Plea in law

| — | Infringement of Article 8(5) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 8(5) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.

---
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5
<RESTATED>
<CIK> 0000902056 
<NAME> SAF T LOK INCORPORATED
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                          15,465
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   33,206
<ALLOWANCES>                                    24,500
<INVENTORY>                                    460,179
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               504,059
<PP&E>                                       1,237,551
<DEPRECIATION>                                 373,145
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,928,510
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          849,539
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        57,276
<OTHER-SE>                                   9,317,133
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,928,510
<SALES>                                         27,415
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                27,415
<CGS>                                           13,397
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  214,694
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                45,123
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (245,799)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (245,799)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (245,799)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.04)<F1>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.03)<F1>
<FN>
<F1> Restated to conform to SFAS No. 128. "EPS-PRIMARY" denotes Basic EPS.
</FN>
        



</TABLE>
#### Edwin Eugene BRUNS, Executor of the Estate of William J. LOTZ, Deceased *v.*Goldie LOTZ

73-56

496 S.W. 2d 376

Opinion delivered June 18, 1973

*Walls, McAllister, Wade ér Burke,*for appellant.

*D.avis, Reed & Douglas,*for appellee.

Lylf. Brown,' Justice.

The facts are brief and undisputed. In 1966 William J. Lotz, a single person, acquired title to real estate subject to an existing indebtedness secured by a mortgage to Fayetteville Building and ■ Loan Association. Mr. Lotz assumed that debt. He subsequently married appellee. Mr. Lotz died testate in 1969, at which time the balance due on the mortgage debt was $17,545. The decedent’s'estate was solvent. Building & Loan did not file a claim. The widow elected to take against the will. She petitioned that the mortgage debt be paid from the general assets of the estate and that she be allowed her full dower in the property that is subject to the mortgage. The trial court agreed with Mrs. Lotz. The correctness of that decision is the sole issue on appeal.

The trial court based its opinion on Ark. Stat. Ann. § 62-2908 (Repl. 1971) and on our holding in *Wilcox*v. *Brewer,*224 Ark. 546, 274 S.W. 2d 777 (1955). The cited statute and a significant portion of the committee comment are as follows:

> As between the distributees, secured debts shall be discharged out of the general assets of the estate, sub*702ject to the right of a decedent to provide otherwise by his will; provided nothing in this section shall preclude a secured creditor from having recourse to his security for satisfaction of the debt.

> Committee Comment. It is believed that the intention of a decedent \yho has incurred indebtedness secured by a mortgage or pledge is more likely to be accomplished by the discharge of the indebtedness out of the general estate as he would have done had he lived, than by requiring the indebtedness to be paid out of the mortgaged security.

In *Wilcox*we held that when the estate is solvent the widow, under § 62-2908, was entitled to take dower in full in pledged stock certificates after the debt had been discharged out of the general estate. With respect to a number of cases cited by appellant we quote a statement from *Wilcox*which is apropos here:

> There is no need to attempt to harmonize the cases cited by each side by pointing out (a) that some of these cases involved rights of a creditor to hold security against- the widow; (b) that some involved in solvent estates; and (c) that some contained broad statements without discussing the solvency of the estate, or rights of secured creditors as contra-distinguished from the right of widow to dower. The fact remains that § 167 of Act 140 of 1949 (the Probate Code Act), as now found in § 62-2908, has seeded the questions here posed.

Affirmed.
```

[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3389 Introduced in House (IH)]

108th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 3389

  To amend the Stevenson-Wydler Technology Innovation Act of 1980 to 
permit Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Awards to be made to nonprofit 
                             organizations.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            October 29, 2003

Mr. Miller of North Carolina (for himself and Ms. Hart) introduced the 
     following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Science

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To amend the Stevenson-Wydler Technology Innovation Act of 1980 to 
permit Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Awards to be made to nonprofit 
                             organizations.

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

SECTION 1. AMENDMENT.

    Section 17(c)(1) of the Stevenson-Wydler Technology Innovation Act 
of 1980 (15 U.S.C. 3711a(c)(1)) is amended by adding at the end the 
following:
            ``(F) Nonprofit organizations.''.
                                 <all>
```