alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 128 (Monday, July 3, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 41124]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-16707]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Surface Transportation Board


Notice of Public Information Collection Submitted to OMB for 
Review

AGENCY: Surface Transportation Board, DOT.

ACTION: Extension of a currently approved collection.

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

SUMMARY: The Surface Transportation Board has submitted to the Office 
of Management and Budget for review and approval the following proposal 
for collection of information as required by the Paperwork Reduction 
Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35).
    Title: Maps To Be Submitted in Abandonment Exemption Proceedings.
    OMB Form Number: 2140-0003
    No. of Respondents: 84.
    Total Burden Hours: 84.

DATES: Persons wishing to comment on this information collection should 
submit comments by July 31, 2000.

ADDRESSES: Direct all comments to Case Control, Surface Transportation 
Board, Room 705, 1925 K Street, NW, Washington, DC 20423. When 
submitting comments refer to the OMB number and title of the 
information collection.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Charles L. Renninger, 202 565-1631. 
Requests for copies of the information collection may be obtained by 
contacting Ellen R. Keys (202) 565-1654.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Surface Transportation Board is, by 
statute, responsible for the economic regulation of surface 
transportation carriers operating in interstate and foreign commerce. 
The ICC Termination Act of 1995, Public Law 104-88, 109 Stat. 803 
(1995), which took effect on January 1, 1996 abolished the Interstate 
Commerce Commission and transferred the responsibility for regulating 
rail transportation, including the proposed abandonment and 
discontinuance of rail lines, to the Surface Transportation Board. The 
Board needs, in each abandonment exemption proceeding, a detailed map 
of the rail line, depicting its relation to other rail lines, roads, 
water routes, and population centers. The Board will use this 
information in processing abandonment exemption proceedings. Review of 
the map often assists in determining the precise location of the rail 
line, which helps in determining the scope of the transaction or 
service, and to some degree the impact of the proposed transaction on 
shippers or receivers on the line.

    Dated: June 22, 2000.
Vernon A. Williams,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 00-16707 Filed 6-30-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4915-00-U
Exhibit 32

                    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 Anticline Uranium, Inc.
(the "Registrant") on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended June 30, 2003, as
filed with the Commission on the date hereof (the "Quarterly Report"), we,
Kenneth P. Hamik, President and officer, and Kristy Hamik, Chief Operating
Officer and a director of the Registrant, 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 Quarterly 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 Quarterly Report fairly presents, in
all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the
Registrant.

Dated: August 19, 2003                      /s/Kenneth P. Hamik
      ----------------                      -------------------------------
                                            Kenneth P. Hamik
                                            President and director


Dated: August 19, 2003                      /s/Kristy Hamik
      ----------------                      -------------------------------
                                            Kristy Hamik
                                            Chief Operating Officer and
                                            director
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

 

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

APPLE INC.,

Appellant

v.

UNIVERSAL SECURE REGISTRY LLC,

Appellee

______________________ 

2020-1330

______________________ 

Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark 

Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in No. IPR2018-

00812.

______________________ 

Decided: August 27, 2021 

______________________ 

BRITTANY BLUEITT AMADI, Wilmer Cutler Pickering 

Hale and Dorr LLP, Washington, DC, argued for appellant. 

Also represented by KEITH T. HOWELL; MONICA GREWAL, 

Boston, MA; MARK D. SELWYN, Palo Alto, CA.

 CHRISTOPHER MATHEWS, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & 

Sullivan, LLP, Los Angeles, CA, argued for appellee. Also 

represented by TIGRAN GULEDJIAN. 

 ______________________ 

Case: 20-1330 Document: 50 Page: 1 Filed: 08/27/2021
2 APPLE INC. v. UNIVERSAL SECURE REGISTRY LLC

Before NEWMAN, PROST*, and TARANTO, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM. 

The patent at issue in this appeal is U.S. Patent No. 

8,856,539, owned by Universal Secure Registry LLC (USR). 

Apple filed a petition for an inter partes review, challenging several claims of the ’539 patent before the Patent Trial 

and Appeal Board, which instituted the requested review 

and eventually issued a final written decision that Apple 

had not shown the challenged claims to be unpatentable. 

In another case, we have affirmed a district court’s judgment that all claims of the ’539 patent are patent ineligible. 

Universal Secure Registry LLC v. Apple Inc., No. 20-2044 

(Fed. Cir. Aug. 26, 2021). Therefore, as the parties agreed 

at oral argument, this appeal involving the ’539 patent is

now moot. Apple Inc. v. Voip-Pal.com, Inc., 976 F.3d 1316, 

1321 (Fed. Cir. 2020); Oral Arg. at 7:00–7:55, 25:00–26:40. 

We vacate the Board’s final written decision and remand 

for the Board to dismiss Apple’s petition. See Apple, 976 

F.3d at 1321 (citing United States v. Munsingwear, Inc., 

340 U.S. 36, 39–41 (1950)).

No costs. 

VACATED AND REMANDED

* Circuit Judge Sharon Prost vacated the position of 

Chief Judge on May 21, 2021.

Case: 20-1330 Document: 50 Page: 2 Filed: 08/27/2021
S89A0422.

#### THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OF RICHMOND COUNTY v. COOPER.

(387 SE2d 138)

Clarke, Chief Justice.

Appellee Cooper, the owner of an establishment known as Norman’s Electric Galaxy, Inc., applied for an on-premises beer and wine license. His application was denied by the Board of Commissioners. Cooper sought a writ of mandamus in the Richmond Superior Court. The trial court, finding the denial of the license arbitrary, capricious, and unreasonable, granted mandamus. The county issued the license and appealed the ruling. Cooper moves to dismiss the appeal as moot since the county did not obtain an injunction pending appeal and the license has been granted.

> It is a rather fundamental rule of both equitable jurisprudence and appellate procedure, that if the thing sought to be enjoined in fact takes place, the grant or denial of the injunction becomes moot. See *Padgett v. Cowart,*232 Ga. 633 (208 SE2d 455) (1974). To prevent such an appeal from becoming moot the appealing party must obtain a supersedeas. *[Adams v. Smith,*240 Ga. 436, 437 (241 SE2d 1) (1978).]

See also *Citizens to Save Paulding County v. City of Atlanta,*236 Ga. 125 (223 SE2d 101) (1976); *Padgett v. Cowart,*232 Ga., supra; *Clarke v. City of Atlanta,*231 Ga. 84 (200 SE2d 264) (1973); Georgia Appellate Practice Handbook, § 5.2.4.,

Appellants argue that although the license has been issued to appellee the case is not moot until the period of the license has expired. In other words, the license could be recalled. We do not agree. In *Douglas County v. Hasty,*237 Ga. 646 (229 SE2d 435) (1976), the county appealed from an order declaring a zoning ordinance unconstitutional. After the judgment, the county adopted a new zoning ordinance and map, alleging that this action was necessary to avoid being placed in contempt. This court granted appellee’s motion to dismiss the appeal as moot. In the present case the license has been issued and the *issuance*of the license cannot be undone without revoking the license. The decision to revoke is entirely different from the decision to issue or not to issue a license.

It was the responsibility of appellants to obtain a supersedeas in the trial court. If the application for supersedeas was denied in the trial court appellants should have applied to this court for supersedeas. No supersedeas was obtained in the trial court or sought in this court, and the license in question was issued. Because the license has been issued, the appeal is moot.

*786Decided January 19, 1990.

*Burnside, Wall & Daniel, Robert C. Daniel, Jr.,*for appellant.

*Alston & Bird, G. Conley Ingram, Christopher G. Nicholson,*for appellee.

*Appeal dismissed as moot.*

*All the Justices concur, except Weltner, J., who concurs in the judgment only.*
Exhibit 10.18


 


AMENDMENT NO. 1


TO


EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT


 


This AMENDMENT NO.I TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT
(the “Amendment”), dated as of September 28, 2016, by and between TurnPoint Medical Devices, Inc., a Delaware corporation
(the “Company”) and John R. Toedtman (the “Executive”) , each of which are sometimes referred to as a “Party”
and collectively as the “Parties”.


 


BACKGROUND:


 


WHEREAS, the Company and Executive
executed and delivered a certain Employment Agreement, dated November 10, 2015 (the “Employment Agreement”) which contains
a clause that both parties agree should be deleted, and;


 


WHEREAS, the parties desire to execute
and deliver this Amendment which shall delete certain specific portions of the Employment Agreement.


 


NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration
of the mutual promises made to each other, the Parties agree as follows:


 


1.     The
Amendment. (A). The Parties agree to amend the Employment Agreement by deleting the last sentence of Paragraph 4 (d) on
Page 2 thereof which reads as follows:


 


As a condition to receiving the Initial Options Award,
Executive shall if requested, execute and deliver a letter in a form approved by the Company’s underwriters agreeing not to sell
any shares of Company common stock during a customary period following the completion of an initial public offering of the Company’s
common stock.


 


(B).        The Parties further agree to amend the Employment Agreement
by deleting Section IO(d)(i) on Page 10 thereof which reads as follows:


 


(i)          Release
of Claims. The Company shall commence payment of Severance 30 days after the date of the
Executive’s termination of employment, provided that the Executive has signed and not revoked a general release and separation
agreement, in form and substance as set forth on Exhibit B to this Agreement.


 


(C).        The Parties further agree to amend the Employment Agreement
by deleting Exhibit B, entitled ,, “Form of Release Agreement” in its entirety.


 


2.     Confirmation
of all Other Terms and Provisions. Except for the sentence deleted by this Amendment, the Parties hereby reconfirm and
ratify all of the other terms and provisions of the Employment Agreement not expressly modified by this Amendment and further confirm
their validity and enforceability under applicable law.


 


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties
have executed and delivered this Amendment as of the date first above written.


 


COMPANY: TurnPoint Medical Devices,
Inc.


 


	By: 	/s/ Joerg H. Klaube	 
	 	Joerg H. Klaube, Chief Financial Officer	 
	 	 	 
	EXECUTIVE: John R. Toedtman	 
	 	 	 
	 	/s/ John R. Toedman	 
	 	John R. Toedman
NOTE: This order is nonprecedential. 

 

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

In re: BAYERISCHE MOTOREN WERKE AG, BMW 

OF NORTH AMERICA LLC,

Petitioners

______________________ 

2019-108

______________________ 

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus to the United 

States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas in 

No. 2:17-cv-00418-JRG, Judge J. Rodney Gilstrap.

______________________ 

ON PETITION

______________________ 

Before MOORE, WALLACH, and CHEN, Circuit Judges. 

WALLACH, Circuit Judge. 

O R D E R

Bayerische Motoren Werke AG and BMW of North 

America LLC (collectively “BMW”) submit a petition for a 

writ of mandamus seeking an order reversing the United 

States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas’s 

denial of their motion to dismiss for improper venue and 

lack of personal jurisdiction. 

In May 2017, Blitzsafe Texas, LLC filed a patent 

infringement claim against BMW in the underlying 

district court action. BMW filed a motion to dismiss for 
2 IN RE BAYERISCHE MOTOREN WERKE AG

lack of personal jurisdiction or improper venue or, in the 

alternative, to transfer. The district court subsequently 

stayed the case pending this court’s ruling in In re ZTE, 

890 F.3d 1008 (Fed. Cir. 2018). On September 6, 2018, 

the district court denied the motion. BMW moved for 

reconsideration on September 20, 2018, and that motion 

remains pending before the district court.*

Under the circumstances, the court deems it the 

proper course here to deny mandamus without prejudice 

to seeking mandamus if and when the district court 

denies reconsideration.

Upon consideration thereof,

 IT IS ORDERED THAT: 

The petition for a writ of mandamus is denied.

 FOR THE COURT

 Nov. 30, 2018 /s/ Peter R. Marksteiner

 Date Peter R. Marksteiner

 Clerk of Court

s25

 

* The district court lifted the stay on October 17, 

2018.
###### Editorial Note on Part 1

#### Editorial Note:

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

#### § 1.795 Reports regarding interstate rates of return.

Carriers shall file reports regarding interstate rates of return on FCC Form 492 as required by part 65 of this chapter.

[52 FR 274, Jan. 5, 1987]
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4398 Introduced in House (IH)]

103d CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4398

                  For the relief of Lester J. Reschly.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 11, 1994

 Mr. Volkmer introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                       Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
                  For the relief of Lester J. Reschly.

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

SECTION 1. CLASSIFICATION OF TRANSFER FOR PURPOSES OF RELOCATION 
              EXPENSES.

    The transfer of Lester J. Reschly from Ottumwa, Iowa to Columbia, 
Missouri in March 1992, by the Food Safety and Inspection Service of 
the Department of Agriculture shall be considered to be a transfer in 
the interest of the Government from one official duty station to 
another for permanent duty, for the purpose of entitling Lester J. 
Reschly to reimbursement, under sections 5724 and 5724a of title 5, 
United States Code, for the unreimbursed expenses associated with the 
transfer and relocation of Lester J. Reschly from Medford, Oregon to 
Ottumwa, Iowa in October 1991, and from Ottumwa, Iowa to Columbia, 
Missouri in March 1992, while employed by the Food Safety and 
Inspection Service of the Department of Agriculture.

                                 <all>
```
086A16

#### In the Matter of Kay Frances Redmond, by and through Linda Nichols, Administratrix of the Estate of Kay Frances Redmond, Claim for Compensation Under the North Carolina Eugenics Asexualization and Sterilization Compensation Program

1. Claimant’s Notice of Appeal Based Upon a Dissent (COA15-763)

1.—

2. Claimant’s PDR as to Additional Issues

2. Denied

3. Claimant’s Motion to Consolidate Appeals

3. Allowed

4. State’s Notice of Appeal Based Upon a Dissent

4.—

5. State’s PDR as to Additional Issues

5. Allowed

6. State’s Motion to Consolidate Appeals

6. Allowed
### IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA DA 24

- 0069

_________________ APRIL MYERS, JAMES MYERS, DARRYL WHITCANACK, PATRICIA MILLER, EVERETT WESTERMAN, PATRICIA WESTERMAN, JAMES STEVENSON, LONNIE BEKEL, and CINDY BEKEL,

Plaintiffs and Appellants,

v. JOSEPH KLEINHANS and AMANDA KLEINHANS,

Defendants and Appellees. O R D E R

_________________ Pursuant to the Internal Operating Rules of this Court, this cause is classified for submission on briefs t o a five

- justice panel of this Court. The Clerk is directed to provide a copy hereof to all counsel of record and to the Honorable Matthew J. Wald , District Judge

. For the Court,

Electronically signed by: Mike McGrath Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

July 24 2024

07/24/2024

Case Number: DA 24-0069
JARRETT B. PERLOW

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT

717 MADISON PLACE, N.W. 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20439

CLERK’S OFFICE

CLERK OF COURT 202-275-8000

December 1, 2023

Fee Schedule

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has adopted the following fees consistent 

with the Court of Appeals Miscellaneous Fee Schedule established by the Judicial 

Conference of the United States. Unless otherwise specified, all fees are payable to the 

Clerk of Court, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.

Attorney 

Fees

Attorney admission fee $300

(includes a local $101 court fee)

Certificate of good standing $21

Duplicate certificate of admission $50

(includes a local $29 court fee)

Filing 

Fees

Docketing fee for petition for review and 

petition for mandamus $600

Docketing and filing fee for appeal from a 

district court

$605

to district court clerk

Docketing appeal from U.S. Court of Appeals 

for Veterans Claims

$600

to veterans claims court clerk

Copy 

and 

Records 

Fees

Copy fee for documents printed from the 

courthouse electronic public access terminal $.10 per page

Copy fee for documents sent by mail $.50 per page

PACER fees for electronic documents Electronic Public Access Fee Schedule

Search of court records $34

Certification of any document or paper $12

Issuance of apostille $50

Reproduction of oral argument recordings $34

(available online without charge)

Reproduction of electronic record not stored 

in CM/ECF or available on PACER $33

Reproduction of the record in any appeal in 

which no appendix is required $94

Box retrieval of court records from FRC $70 (first box)

$43 (each additional box)

Electronic copy of court records from 

NARA/FRC (SmartScan service)

$20.90 plus $.65/page

(100-page limit)

Other Fee for insufficient payment/returned check or 

credit card chargeback

$53

Changes noted in italics.
### NEMA Proposal for Efficiency Levels fo r Medium-Voltage Dry Type Transformers

Design Line NEMA DL 9 (3 ph, 15 - 750 KvA, 20-45 kV BIL) 1.5 initially/no new proposal in 12/14 telcon DL 10 (3 ph, 750-2500 KvA, 20-45 kV BIL) 2.0 initially/no new proposal in 12/14 telcon DL 11 (3 ph, 15 – 750 KvA, 46 –95 kV BIL) 2.0 initially/no new proposal in 12/14 telcon DL 12 (3 ph, 750-2500 KvA, 46-95 kV BIL) 3.0 initially but agreed to 2.0 in 12/14 telcon DL 13 (3 ph, 225 – 2500 KvA, > 95 kV BIL) 10 % more losses than DL 12 equivalent
EC 5 (1 ph, 15 - 833 KvA, 20-45 kV BIL) Increase allowable loss by 30% compared to 3 ph equivalent
EC 7 (1 ph, 15 - 833 KvA, 46–95 kV BIL) Increase allowable loss by 30% compared to 3 ph equivalent
EC 9 (1 ph, 75 – 833 KvA, > 95 kV BIL) Increase allowable loss by 30% compared to 3 ph equivalent

Advocates agreed to 2.0 for DL 12 with “appropr iate adjustments” for other design lines.
322P15-4

#### Raymond Griffin v. Debora Shandler, Assistant District Attorney of Wake County and Donald W. Stephens, Senior Resident Superior Court Judge

Petitioner’s *Pro Se*Petition for *Writ of Mandamus*

Dismissed 06/07/2016
No. 11-9133.

#### Ogundipe *v.*Maryland.

Ct. App. Md. Certiorari denied.
#### Carol E. Levy, Appellant, v Shelly Friedman et al., Respondents.

[628 NYS2d 265]

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Beatrice Shainswit, J.), entered April 13, 1994, which granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing plaintiff’s complaint, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Plaintiff’s right to real estate brokerage commissions was defined by the terms of the May 25, 1993 brokerage agreement *(Tankers Intl. Nav. Corp. v National Shipping & Trading Corp.,*116 AD2d 40, 43; *see also, Schlesinger & Co. v Delson & Gordon,*184 AD2d 393, *lv denied*80 NY2d 761), which provided that plaintiff’s commission "will not be deemed earned or due or payable until and unless title actually closes pursuant to a signed written contract.” It is undisputed that the defendant sellers never executed the proposed contract as modified and executed by plaintiff’s principals. Accordingly, the condition precedent to plaintiff’s right to obtain commissions never occurred, and plaintiff’s claim of willful default has no merit in the absence of a binding agreement which defendants may be said to have willfully breached *(see, Friedland Realty v Modern Cabinets Corp.,*194 AD2d 657; *Graff v Billet,*64 NY2d 899, *affg*101 AD2d 355). Plaintiff’s additional argument that payment of the $1,000 by Elissa Myers constituted part payment is also without merit since, according to plaintiff’s own statements, such payment was intended by Myers to be outside the scope of the brokerage agreement. Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Rosenberger, Wallach, Ross and Mazzarelli, JJ.
###### Editorial Note on Part 1

#### Editorial Note:

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

#### § 1.20001 Scope.

The definitions included in 47 CFR 1.20002 shall be used solely for the purpose of implementing CALEA requirements.