alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 15 (Monday, January 24, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 3666]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-1656]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration


Boston University; Notice of Decision on Application for Duty-
Free Entry of Electron Microscope

    This is a decision pursuant to Section 6(c) of the Educational, 
Scientific, and Cultural Materials Importation Act of 1966 (Pub. L. 89-
651, 80 Stat. 897; 15 CFR part 301). Related records can be viewed 
between 8:30 A.M. and 5:00 P.M. in Room 4211, U.S. Department of 
Commerce, 14th and Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C.
    Docket Number: 99-026. Applicant: Boston University, Boston, MA 
02215. Instrument: Electron Microscope, Model JEM-2010. Manufacturer: 
JEOL Ltd., Japan. Intended Use: See notice at 64 FR 63788, November 22, 
1999. Order Date: May 24, 1999.
    Comments: None received. Decision: Approved. No instrument of 
equivalent scientific value to the foreign instrument, for such 
purposes as the instrument is intended to be used, was being 
manufactured in the United States at the time the instrument was 
ordered. Reasons: The foreign instrument is a conventional transmission 
electron microscope (CTEM) and is intended for research or scientific 
educational uses requiring a CTEM. We know of no CTEM, or any other 
instrument suited to these purposes, which was being manufactured in 
the United States at the time of order of the instrument.

Frank W. Creel,
Director, Statutory Import Programs Staff.
[FR Doc. 00-1656 Filed 1-21-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

 

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

IRONBURG INVENTIONS LTD.,

Appellant

v.

VALVE CORPORATION,

Cross-Appellant

______________________ 

2018-1432, 2018-1731, 2018-1783

______________________ 

Appeals from the United States Patent and Trademark 

Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in Nos. IPR2016-

00948, IPR2016-00949.

______________________ 

JUDGMENT

______________________ 

ROBERT DAVID BECKER, Manatt, Phelps, & Phillips, 

LLC, San Francisco, CA, argued for appellant. 

 SHARON A. ISRAEL, Shook, Hardy & Bacon, LLP, Houston, TX, argued for cross-appellant. Also represented by 

TANYA L. CHANEY, KYLE E. FRIESEN; PATRICK A. LUJIN,

BASIL TRENT WEBB, Kansas City, MO; JOSHUA CHARLES 

HARRISON, REYNALDO BARCELO, Barcelo, Harrison & 

Walker, LLP, Newport Beach, CA. 

 ______________________ 
THIS CAUSE having been heard and considered, it is 

ORDERED and ADJUDGED: 

 PER CURIAM (O’MALLEY, LINN, and HUGHES, Circuit 

Judges).

AFFIRMED. See Fed. Cir. R. 36.

 

 ENTERED BY ORDER OF THE COURT 

 

 July 15, 2019 /s/ Peter R. Marksteiner

 Date Peter R. Marksteiner

 Clerk of Court
#### § 301-71.104 Who must sign a travel authorization?

Your agency head or an official to whom such authority has been delegated. This authority may be delegated to any person(s) who is aware of how the authorized travel will support the agency's mission, who is knowledgeable of the employee's travel plans and/or responsible for the travel funds paying for the travel involved.
No. 11-9371.

#### Christensen *v.*Court of Appeals of Utah.

Sup. Ct. Utah. Certiorari denied.
EXHIBIT 31.2

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

I, Arthur V. Conover, III, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Environmental
Solutions Worldwide, Inc;

2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any untrue
statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary 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 quarterly
report;

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

4. The registrant's other Certifying Officer's and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and we have:

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

           b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure
controls and procedures as of a date within 90 days prior to the filing of this
annual report (the "Evaluation Date"); and


           c) presented in this quarterly report my conclusions about the
effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures based on our evaluation
as of the Evaluation Date;


5. The registrant's other Certifying Officer's and I have disclosed, based on
our most recent evaluation, to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee
of the registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent
function):


           a) all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of
internal controls which could adversely affect the registrant's ability to
record, process, summarize and report financial data and have identified for the
registrant's auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls; and


           b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or
other employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal
controls; and


6. The registrant's other Certifying Officer's and I have indicated in this
quarterly report whether or not there were significant changes in internal
controls or in other factors that could significantly affect internal controls
subsequent to the date of our most recent evaluation, including any corrective
actions with regard to significant deficiencies and material weaknesses.


Date: November 12, 2003

/S/ ARTHUR V. CONOVER, III
--------------------------
Arthur V. Conover, III
Controller



<PAGE>
###### Editorial Note on Part 1

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 1 appear at 63 FR 54077, Oct. 8, 1998.

#### § 1.1915 Exploration of compromise.

The Commission may attempt to effect compromise, preferably during the course of personal interviews, in accordance with the standards set forth in part 902 of the Federal Claims Collection Standards (31 CFR part 902). The Commission will also consider a request submitted by the debtor to compromise the debt. Such requests should be submitted in writing with full justification of the offer and addressing the bases for compromise at 31 CFR 902.2. Debtors will provide full financial information to support any request for compromise based on the debtor's inability to pay the debt. Unless otherwise provided by law, when the principal balance of a debt, exclusive of interest, penalties, and administrative costs, exceeds $100,000 or any higher amount authorized by the Attorney General, the authority to accept the compromise rests with the Department of Justice. The Commission will evaluate an offer, using the factors set forth in 31 CFR 902.2 and, as appropriate, refer the offer with the appropriate financial information to the Department of Justice. Department of Justice approval is not required if the Commission rejects a compromise offer.
46687.

#### GILBERT v. THE STATE.

(378 SE2d 683)

Clarke, Presiding Justice.

Christopher Gilbert was convicted of malice murder and sentenced to life imprisonment. He appeals, and we affirm.1

Jim Frazier, an engineer employed by Georgia Tech, was found dead on December 1, 1986 under the porch of his cabin in Lumpkin County. He had been killed by a shotgun blast to the head. The investigating officers found blood and tissue sprayed about on the porch above where the body was found and concluded that the body had been moved. There was no evidence of a struggle. Autopsy reports showed that Frazier had been shot at close range. Christopher Gilbert lived close to the Frazier cabin. After the body was discovered, he was questioned several times by the police and gave contradictory stories. He first claimed that he shot Frazier in a struggle for the gun. Later he said that he and Frazier were walking and the gun just “went off.” A shotgun found in his apartment was identified as the murder weapon.

Witnesses testified that Frazier had a brain tumor that made it difficult for him to walk and to see, so that it would have been nearly impossible for him to have engaged in a struggle with Gilbert. An expert witness also testified that the murder weapon had to be manually cocked and fired; it could not just “go off.”

In this appeal Gilbert asserts that the evidence did not support a verdict of murder, that the state’s evidence did not exclude all reasonable hypotheses except guilt, and that the court erred in failing to charge the jury pursuant to OCGA § 24-4-6 that the state must bear that burden.

After reviewing the record, we conclude that the evidence of appellant’s guilt of malice murder was sufficient so that “. . . any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.” *Jackson v. Virginia,*443 U. S. 307 (99 SC 2781, 61 LE2d 560) (1979). Further, there was ample direct evidence of guilt so that the court was not required to give the requested charge. *Patterson v. State,*258 Ga. 592 (372 SE2d 809) (1988). Moreover, even though the evidence relied upon was not wholly circumstantial, the state presented evidence that adequately excluded all reasonable hypotheses except guilt.

*212Decided May 4, 1989.

*William W. Woody,*for appellant.

*C. Andrew Fuller, District Attorney, C. David Turk III, Daniel A. Summer, Assistant District Attorneys, Michael J. Bowers, Attorney General, Leonora Grant,*for appellee.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*All the Justices concur.*

1

 The crime occurred between November 28, 1986 and December 1, 1986. Appellant was indicted on February 25, 1987. He was convicted of murder on December 3, 1987 and sentenced to life imprisonment the same day. Appellant filed a motion for new trial on December 31, 1987; the motion was heard on December 19, 1988 and was formally denied on January 26, 1989. The notice of appeal was filed January 24, 1989. The case was docketed in this court February 15, 1989. The case is ripe for decision following oral argument on April 11, 1989.
Hillsborough

No. 80-238

#### *In re*Raymond K.

June 18, 1980

*Ahlgren & Smith,*of Manchester *(Gregory J. Ahlgren*orally), for the plaintiff.

*Gregory H. Smith,*acting attorney general *(Betsy S. Westgate,*attorney, orally), for the State.

PER CURIAM.

This interlocutory transfer raises the question whether the statutory “speedy trial” sections of RSA 169-B (Supp. 1979), applicable to district courts, shall likewise apply in cases of de novo appeals by juveniles to superior court. *See In re Russell C.,*120 N.H. 260, 414 A.2d 934 (1980). We hold that they do not.

After delinquency proceedings in the Manchester District Court on two juvenile petitions, the juvenile was found delinquent and committed to the Youth Development Center for the term of his minority. Notices of appeal pursuant to RSA 169-B:29 (Supp. 1979) were filed in superior court on the respective juvenile petitions on February 12 and March 6, 1980. On April 22, 1980, the juvenile *457filed motions to dismiss the cases in superior court based upon a theory that the State’s failure to hold an adjudicatory hearing within twenty-one days violated his statutory right to a speedy trial. RSA 169-B:14 II (Supp. 1979); *see In re Russell C. supra. A*later motion was filed alleging failure to strictly comply with the seven-day arraignment section, RSA 169-B:7 I (Supp. 1979). Pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 9, *Pappagianis,*J., transferred both motions to this court without ruling.

RSA 169-B:2 I (Supp. 1979) defines the word “court” to mean “the district court, unless otherwise indicated.” When another court is involved in a step in the juvenile process, it is specifically mentioned. *See*RSA 169-B:22 (Supp. 1979) (probate court) and RSA 169-B:24, :25, :29 (Supp. 1979) (superior court). The time limit sections of the chapter, on which the juvenile relies, speak only of “courts”; they therefore impose statutory time limits only on district courts. *See*RSA 169-B:7 I, :14 II, :16 (Supp. 1979). RSA 169-B:29 (Supp. 1979) could be construed as imposing a time constraint on the superior court in that it provides that in cases of appeal to superior court the matter shall be given “priority on the court calendar.” No specific time period, however, is mentioned. In this case, the hearing in superior court was scheduled for May 5, 1980, and we are sure that the superior courts will expedite such matters.

We also conclude that there is no need in an RSA 169-B:29 (Supp. 1979) appeal to arraign the juvenile in superior court after a prior arraignment in district court has been timely held pursuant to RSA 169-B:13 (Supp. 1979). The function of bringing the accused juvenile before a judge to inform him of the basis for the charge is constitutionally served by the initial district court arraignment.

*Remanded.*
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 124 (Tuesday, June 27, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Pages 39620-39621]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-16251]


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

FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM


Sunshine Act Meeting

Agency Holding the Meeting: Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve 
System.

Time and Date: 10 a.m., Friday, June 30, 2000.

Place: Marriner S. Eccles Federal Reserve Board Building, 20th and C 
Streets, NW., Washington, DC 20551.

Status: Closed.

Matters to be Considered:   
    1. Personnel actions (appointments, promotions, assignments, 
reassignments, and salary actions) involving individual Federal Reserve 
System employees.
    2. Any matters carried forward from a previously announced meeting.

Contact Person for More Information: Lynn S. Fox, Assistant to the 
Board; 202-452-3204.

Supplementary Information: You may call 202-452-3206 beginning at 
approximately 5 p.m. two business days before the meeting for a 
recorded announcement of bank and bank

[[Page 39621]]

holding company applications scheduled for the meeting; or you may 
contact the Board's Web site at http://www.federalreserve.gov for an 
electronic announcement that not only lists applications, but also 
indicates procedural and other information about the meeting.

    Dated: June 22, 2000.
Jennifer J. Johnson,
Secretary of the Board.
[FR Doc. 00-16251 Filed 6-23-00; 3:16 pm]
BILLING CODE 6210-01-P
#### § 102-83.130 When is written justification for a delineated area in urban areas required?

If the delineated area identified is outside the CBA in a principal city, or differs from a GSA-recommended delineated area that has been developed in accordance with the guiding authorities in this part, an agency must demonstrate, in writing, that preference has been given to the CBA of a principal city or GSA's recommended delineated area, and that the agency considered the environmental and socioeconomic factors in subpart B, Location of Space, of this part. The agency justification also must address, at a minimum, the efficient performance of the mission(s) and program(s) of the agency, the nature and function of the facility or facilities involved, and the convenience of the public being served.
390P15

#### The Residences at Biltmore Condominium Owners’ Association, Inc. v. Power Development, LLC and Mountain Mortgage, Inc.

1. Defs’ PDR under N.C.G.S. § 7A-31 (COAI4-1222)

1. Denied

2. Pit’s Conditional PDR under N.C.G.S. § 7A-31

2. Dismissed as moot
#### § 60-741.64 [Reserved]
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit","provider_url":"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov","author_name":"25005pwpadmin","author_url":"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/author\/25005pwpadmin\/","title":"23-106: FLORES v. US [ORDER], Nonprecedential - U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"zb76MKToET\"><a href=\"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/03-01-2023-23-106-flores-v-us-order-23-106-order-3-1-2023_2088214\/\">23-106: FLORES v. US [ORDER], Nonprecedential<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/03-01-2023-23-106-flores-v-us-order-23-106-order-3-1-2023_2088214\/embed\/#?secret=zb76MKToET\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“23-106: FLORES v. US [ORDER], Nonprecedential” — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit\" data-secret=\"zb76MKToET\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script>\n\/*! This file is auto-generated *\/\n!function(d,l){\"use strict\";l.querySelector&&d.addEventListener&&\"undefined\"!=typeof URL&&(d.wp=d.wp||{},d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage||(d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if((t||t.secret||t.message||t.value)&&!\/[^a-zA-Z0-9]\/.test(t.secret)){for(var s,r,n,a=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),o=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),c=new RegExp(\"^https?:$\",\"i\"),i=0;i<o.length;i++)o[i].style.display=\"none\";for(i=0;i<a.length;i++)s=a[i],e.source===s.contentWindow&&(s.removeAttribute(\"style\"),\"height\"===t.message?(1e3<(r=parseInt(t.value,10))?r=1e3:~~r<200&&(r=200),s.height=r):\"link\"===t.message&&(r=new URL(s.getAttribute(\"src\")),n=new URL(t.value),c.test(n.protocol))&&n.host===r.host&&l.activeElement===s&&(d.top.location.href=t.value))}},d.addEventListener(\"message\",d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener(\"DOMContentLoaded\",function(){for(var e,t,s=l.querySelectorAll(\"iframe.wp-embedded-content\"),r=0;r<s.length;r++)(t=(e=s[r]).getAttribute(\"data-secret\"))||(t=Math.random().toString(36).substring(2,12),e.src+=\"#?secret=\"+t,e.setAttribute(\"data-secret\",t)),e.contentWindow.postMessage({message:\"ready\",secret:t},\"*\")},!1)))}(window,document);\n<\/script>\n","description":"ORDER Posted: FLORES v. US [ORDER](pdf) Appeal Number: 23-106 Origin: RIT Nonprecedential To see more opinions and orders, follow this link: Opinions and Orders."}
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit","provider_url":"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov","author_name":"25005pwpadmin","author_url":"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/author\/25005pwpadmin\/","title":"21-1070: NOVARTIS PHARMACEUTICALS v. ACCORD HEALTHCARE INC. [OPINION], Precedential - U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"izBxFFstr5\"><a href=\"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/01-03-2022-21-1070-novartis-pharmaceuticals-v-accord-healthcare-inc-opinion-21-1070-opinion-1-3-2022_1887614\/\">21-1070: NOVARTIS PHARMACEUTICALS v. ACCORD HEALTHCARE INC. [OPINION], Precedential<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/01-03-2022-21-1070-novartis-pharmaceuticals-v-accord-healthcare-inc-opinion-21-1070-opinion-1-3-2022_1887614\/embed\/#?secret=izBxFFstr5\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“21-1070: NOVARTIS PHARMACEUTICALS v. ACCORD HEALTHCARE INC. [OPINION], Precedential” — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit\" data-secret=\"izBxFFstr5\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script>\n\/*! This file is auto-generated *\/\n!function(d,l){\"use strict\";l.querySelector&&d.addEventListener&&\"undefined\"!=typeof URL&&(d.wp=d.wp||{},d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage||(d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if((t||t.secret||t.message||t.value)&&!\/[^a-zA-Z0-9]\/.test(t.secret)){for(var s,r,n,a=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),o=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),c=new RegExp(\"^https?:$\",\"i\"),i=0;i<o.length;i++)o[i].style.display=\"none\";for(i=0;i<a.length;i++)s=a[i],e.source===s.contentWindow&&(s.removeAttribute(\"style\"),\"height\"===t.message?(1e3<(r=parseInt(t.value,10))?r=1e3:~~r<200&&(r=200),s.height=r):\"link\"===t.message&&(r=new URL(s.getAttribute(\"src\")),n=new URL(t.value),c.test(n.protocol))&&n.host===r.host&&l.activeElement===s&&(d.top.location.href=t.value))}},d.addEventListener(\"message\",d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener(\"DOMContentLoaded\",function(){for(var e,t,s=l.querySelectorAll(\"iframe.wp-embedded-content\"),r=0;r<s.length;r++)(t=(e=s[r]).getAttribute(\"data-secret\"))||(t=Math.random().toString(36).substring(2,12),e.src+=\"#?secret=\"+t,e.setAttribute(\"data-secret\",t)),e.contentWindow.postMessage({message:\"ready\",secret:t},\"*\")},!1)))}(window,document);\n<\/script>\n","description":"OPINION Posted: NOVARTIS PHARMACEUTICALS v. ACCORD HEALTHCARE INC. [OPINION](pdf) Appeal Number: 21-1070 Origin: DCT Precedential To see more opinions and orders, follow this link: Opinions and Orders."}
I

103D CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 4396

To amend section 203 of the National Housing Act to increase the maximum

mortgage amount limitation under the single family housing mortgage

insurance program of the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development

for homes in nonhigh-cost areas.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

MAY 11, 1994

Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina introduced the following bill; which was

referred to the Committee on Banking, Finance and Urban Affairs

A BILL

To amend section 203 of the National Housing Act to increase the maximum mortgage amount limitation under

the single family housing mortgage insurance program

of the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development

for homes in nonhigh-cost areas.

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘FHA Mortgage Up5 grade Act’’.
2

•HR 4396 IH

1 SEC. 2. MAXIMUM DOLLAR AMOUNT LIMITATION.

2 Subparagraph (A) of the first sentence of section

3 203(b)(2) of the National Housing Act (12 U.S.C.

4 1709(b)(2)(A)) is amended by striking ‘‘the dollar amount

5 limitation in effect under this section for the area on May

6 12, 1992’’ and inserting the following: ‘‘$100,000 in the

7 case of property upon which there is located a dwelling

8 designed principally for a 1-family residence, $112,600 in

9 the case of a 2-family residence, $136,300 in the case of

10 a 3-family residence, $158,500 in the case of 4-family resi11 dence’’.

Æ
#### § 304-6.4 What form must we use to report payments received by the agency from non-Federal sources?

Your agency head or designee must submit Standard Form (SF) 326, Semiannual Report of Payments Accepted From a Non-Federal Source (fully completed) to report payments received from non-Federal sources. This applies to all payments that are more than $250 per event for an employee and accompanying spouse. For purposes of the $250 threshold, payments for an employee and accompanying spouse shall be aggregated. If you wish to use a form other than SF 326 to report such payments, you may seek permission to do so by contacting the Office of Government Ethics at United States Office of Government Ethics, 1201 New York Avenue, NW., Suite 500, Washington, DC 20005-3917.