alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________

UTTO INC., 

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

METROTECH CORP., aka Vivax-Metrotech, 

Defendant-Appellee

______________________

2023-1435

______________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the 

Northern District of California in No. 3:22-cv-01904-WHO,

Judge William H. Orrick, III.

______________________

O R D E R

The appellant having failed to pay the docketing fee 

required by Federal Circuit Rule 52(a)(1) within the time 

permitted by the rules, it is 

ORDERED that the notice of appeal be, and the same 

Case: 23-1435 Document: 8 Page: 1 Filed: 03/13/2023
2 UTTO INC. V. METROTECH CORP.

hereby is, DISMISSED, for failure to prosecute in 

accordance with the rules. 

FOR THE COURT

March 13, 2023

Date /s/ Peter R. Marksteiner

Peter R. Marksteiner 

Clerk of Court

ISSUED AS A MANDATE: March 13, 2023

Case: 23-1435 Document: 8 Page: 2 Filed: 03/13/2023
H. R. 882

One Hundred Sixth Congress

of the

United States of America

AT THE FIRST SESSION

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Wednesday,

the sixth day of January, one thousand nine hundred and ninety-nine

An Act

To nullify any reservation of funds during fiscal year 1999 for guaranteed loans

under the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act for qualified beginning

farmers or ranchers, 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. NULLIFICATION OF RESERVATION OF FUNDS DURING FISCAL YEAR 1999 FOR GUARANTEED LOANS UNDER THE

CONSOLIDATED FARM AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT ACT

FOR QUALIFIED BEGINNING FARMERS OR RANCHERS.

Amounts shall be made available pursuant to section

346(b)(1)(D) of the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act

for guaranteed loans, without regard to any reservation under section 346(b)(2)(B) of such Act.

SEC. 2. QUALIFIED BEGINNING FARMERS AND RANCHERS TO BE GIVEN

PRIORITY IN MAKING GUARANTEED LOANS UNDER THE

CONSOLIDATED FARM AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT ACT

FROM SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL

YEAR 1999.

In making guaranteed loans under the Consolidated Farm and

Rural Development Act from funds made available pursuant to

any Act making supplemental appropriations for fiscal year 1999,

the Secretary of Agriculture shall, to the extent practicable, give

priority to making such loans to qualified beginning farmers and

ranchers (as defined in section 343(a)(11) of such Act).

Speaker of the House of Representatives.

Vice President of the United States and

President of the Senate.
#### § 105-72.100 Purpose.

This part establishes uniform administrative requirements for Federal grants and agreements awarded to institutions of higher education, hospitals, and other non-profit organizations. Federal awarding agencies shall not impose additional or inconsistent requirements, except as provided in §§ 105-72.103, and 105-72.204 or unless specifically required by Federal statute or executive order. Non-profit organizations that implement Federal programs for the States are also subject to State requirements.
No. 11-7794.

#### Taylor *v.*Delaware.

Sup. Ct. Del. Certiorari denied.
#### § 302-8.401 How should we administer the authorization and payment of extended storage of HHG?

You should limit payment of extended storage of HHG to only those expenses that are necessary and in the interest of the Government.
Submitted on record and briefs September 28,

reversed and remanded for new trial December 14, 1994

#### STATE OF OREGON, *Respondent, v.*JOHNNY THEODOOR LOKE, *Appellant.*

(92-1394; CA A80578)

886 P2d 507

Sally L. Avera, Public Defender, and Irene B. Taylor, Deputy Public Defender, filed the brief for appellant.

Theodore R. Kulongoski, Attorney General, Virgina L. Linder, Solicitor General, and Janet A. Klapstein, Assistant Attorney General, filed the brief for respondent.

Before Richardson, Chief Judge, and Deits and Riggs, Judges.

PER CURIAM

*752PER CURIAM

Defendant appeals his conviction for delivery of a controlled substance, marijuana, ORS 475.992, after trial by a 12-person jury. He contends that the trial court erred by restricting his *voir dire*of the jury panel to 32 minutes and denying his request for additional time. The court erred. The state does not argue otherwise. Defendant is entitled to a new trial.

We must, however, address defendant’s other assignment that the court erred by denying his motion for judgment of acquittal on the ground that there was insufficient evidence to submit the case to the jury. If the court erred by denying the motion, then defendant is entitled to a judgment of acquittal, not just a new trial. We conclude that there was sufficient evidence for the jury to find defendant guilty of delivery of marijuana under the definition of “delivery” in ORS 475.005(8).

Reversed and remanded for new trial.
No. 92-8136.

#### Bryan *v.*United States.

C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.
Sullivan

No. 79-465

#### The State of New Hampshire v. Stephen Foster

September 26, 1980

*Gregory H. Smith,*acting attorney general, and *Michael A. Pignatelli,*attorney, by brief for the State.

*Elliott & Jasper,*of Newport, by brief for the defendant.

Memorandum Opinion

The State charged the defendant with possessing a mop handle fashioned with a metal prong at each end in violation of RSA 642:7 *655II, which prohibits a person in official custody from possessing anything which “may facilitate escape.” At trial, the defendant moved to dismiss on the ground that the statute was unconstitutionally vague on its face and as applied to him. The motion was denied by *DiClerieo,*J. The jury found the defendant guilty, and he appealed.

In *State v. Hewitt,*116 N.H. 711, 366 A.2d 487 (1976), *aff'd sub nom Bisson v. New Hampshire,*429 U.S. 1081 (1977), we held that this statute was not unconstitutionally vague on its face. We see no reason to disturb that holding. We also reject the defendant’s claim that the statute is vague as applied to him. RSA 642:7 II provides that a person is guilty of a class B felony if “being a person in official custody, ... he knowingly procures, makes or possesses anything which may facilitate escape.”

Although it is desirable that penal statutes be expressed in language as specific as the subject will permit, some crimes do not lend themselves to detailed specificity. *State v. Thurston,*112 N.H. 288, 290, 293 A.2d 770, 771 (1972). This is such a crime. The number and kind of things which prisoners can invent to facilitate escape are unlimited. To require that the legislature anticipate and describe each possibility would be unreasonable. There may be cases where the statute would be vague as applied, but this is not such a case. The mop handle had been fashioned into a double-ended spear or fighting stick by the addition of metal prongs at both ends. The statute would inform any reasonable person that possession of the mop handle, modified as it was, would be prohibited.

*Appeal dismissed.*
§ 51-3.3 Assignment of commodity or service. ( a ) The central nonprofit agencies shall determine by mutual agreement the assignment to one of them of a commodity or service for the purpose of evaluating its potential for possible future addition to the Procurement List, except that the Committee shall initially assign a commodity to National Industries for the Blind when NISH has expressed an interest in the commodity and National Industries for the Blind has exercised the blind priority.
( b ) NISH shall provide National Industries for the Blind with procurement information necessary for a decision to exercise or waive the blind priority when it requests a decision. National Industries for the Blind shall normally notify NISH of its decision within 30 days, but not later than 60 days after receipt of the procurement information, unless the two central nonprofit agencies agree to an extension of time for the decision. Disagreements on extensions shall be referred to the Committee for resolution.
( c ) If National Industries for the Blind exercises the blind priority for a commodity, it shall immediately notify the Committee and NISH and shall submit to the Committee a proposal to add the commodity to the Procurement List within nine months of the notification, unless the Committee extends the assignment period because of delays beyond the control of National Industries for the Blind. Upon expiration of the assignment period, the Committee shall reassign the commodity to NISH.
( d ) The central nonprofit agency assigned a commodity shall obtain a decision from Federal Prison Industries on the exercise or waiver of its priority and shall submit the procurement information required by Federal Prison Industries when it requests the decision. Federal Prison Industries shall normally notify the central nonprofit agency of its decision within 30 days, but not later than 60 days after receipt of the procurement information, unless it agrees with the central nonprofit agency on an extension of time for the decision. The central nonprofit agency shall refer a disagreement over an extension to the Committee for resolution with Federal Prison Industries.
( e ) The central nonprofit agency shall provide the Committee the decision of Federal Prison Industries on the waiver or exercise of its priority when it requests the addition of the commodity to the Procurement List. NISH shall also provide the decision of National Industries for the Blind waiving its priority.
[59 FR 59342, Nov. 16, 1994]
#### SAMUEL G. BEACH, Respondent, *v.*JACOB SKILLMAN, Impleaded with JOHN HAY, Appellant.

*Motion for new trial on minutes in County Court.*

Appeal from a judgment entered upon a verdict for plaintiff in tbe Monroe County Court, and from, an order denying a motion for a new trial on tbe minutes. >

Tbe case originated in a Justice’s Court, being appealed by defendant and be demanding a new trial. After verdict in tbe County Court tbe defendant moved for a new trial upon tbe minutes, wbicb was denied. A case witb exceptions was tben made, but no further motion for new trial.

Upon tbe case coming on at tbe General Term it was insisted that tbe appeal should be dismissed for tbe reason that no motion for a new trial upon tbe case and exceptions bad been made.

"With reference to this tbe court at General Term said“ Tbe respondent claims tbe appeal should be dismissed and tbe judgment affirmed, for tbe reason that no motion was made in tbe County Court for a new trial *upon a case and exceptions ;*that such motion on tbe minutes was not enough. In none of tbe cases cited by respondent *{Dahash*v. *Flanders,*2 N. Y. S. C. [T. & C.], 445 ; *Lester*v. *P. P. Co.,*id., 672; *Mu/rrayv. Yamdeveer,*6 Hun, 302; *TallmamY. Express Co.,*6 id., 377; *Quin*v. *Weed,*5 id., 350 ; *Shear*v. *Yam Dyke,*4 N. Y. *~W.*Dig., 348) does it appear that a motion for a new trial was made on tbe minutes, so that tbe operation of such a motion was not considered. In some of tbe cases it is said tbe bill of exceptions must be first considered by tbe County Court; in others that a motion for a new trial must be first made there. By section 366 of the Code (sub. 6) motions for new trials on tbe minutes are author *298ized in cases like tbe present, and'the practice is assimilated to that in the Supreme Court. The appeal was from the order, as well as the judgment. The County Court has passed upon the exceptions, the same as if incorporated in a case. I think the appeal should not be dismissed.”

*J. É. Roe,*for the appellant.

*J. M. Dunning,*for the respondent. i

Opinion by

Merwin, J.

Present — Talcott, P. J., Smith and Merwin, JJ.

Judgment and order affirmed, without .prejudice to motion in court below to make judgment conform to verdict.
No. 11-9348.

#### Thanh Van Tran *v.*Varano, Superintendent, State Correctional Institution at Coal Township, et al.

C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.
Exhibit 31.2

CERTIFICATION

I,
Philip M. McDermott, certify that:

1.     I
have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2009 of AltiGen Communications, Inc.;

2.     Based
on my knowledge, this 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 report;

3.     Based
on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this 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 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-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f))
for the registrant and have:



5.     The
registrant's other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation 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):



Date:
December 28, 2009

By:

/s/ PHILIP M. MCDERMOTT Philip M. McDermott Chief Financial Officer


---



QuickLinks
# Comments on: 2023-1058: SmartSky Networks, LLC v. Gogo Business Aviation, LLC
Editorial Note on Part 1
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 1 appear at 63 FR 54077, Oct. 8, 1998.

§ 1.1403 Duty to provide access; modifications; notice of removal, increase or modification; petition for temporary stay; and cable operator notice. ( a ) A utility shall provide a cable television system or any telecommunications carrier with nondiscriminatory access to any pole, duct, conduit, or right-of-way owned or controlled by it. Notwithstanding this obligation, a utility may deny a cable television system or any telecommunications carrier access to its poles, ducts, conduits, or rights-of-way, on a non-discriminatory basis where there is insufficient capacity or for reasons of safety, reliability and generally applicable engineering purposes.
( b ) Requests for access to a utility's poles, ducts, conduits or rights-of-way by a telecommunications carrier or cable operator must be in writing. If access is not granted within 45 days of the request for access, the utility must confirm the denial in writing by the 45th day. The utility's denial of access shall be specific, shall include all relevant evidence and information supporting its denial, and shall explain how such evidence and information relate to a denial of access for reasons of lack of capacity, safety, reliability or engineering standards.
( c ) A utility shall provide a cable television system or telecommunications carrier no less than 60 days written notice prior to: ( 1 ) Removal of facilities or termination of any service to those facilities, such removal or termination arising out of a rate, term or condition of the cable television system operator's or telecommunications carrier's pole attachment agreement;
( 2 ) Any increase in pole attachment rates; or
( 3 ) Any modification of facilities by the utility other than make-ready noticed pursuant to § 1.1411(e), routine maintenance, or modification in response to emergencies.
( d ) A cable television system operator or telecommunications carrier may file a “Petition for Temporary Stay” of the action contained in a notice received pursuant to paragraph (c) of this section within 15 days of receipt of such notice. Such submission shall not be considered unless it includes, in concise terms, the relief sought, the reasons for such relief, including a showing of irreparable harm and likely cessation of cable television service or telecommunication service, a copy of the notice, and certification of service as required by § 1.1404(b). The named may file an answer within 7 days of the date the Petition for Temporary Stay was filed. No further filings under this section will be considered unless requested or authorized by the Commission and no extensions of time will be granted unless justified pursuant to § 1.46.
( e ) Cable operators must notify pole owners upon offering telecommunications services.
[61 FR 45618, Aug. 29, 1996, as amended at 63 FR 12025, Mar. 12, 1998; 79 FR 73847, Dec. 12, 2014; 83 FR 44839, Sept. 4, 2018; 83 FR 46836, Sept. 14, 2018]
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Environmental Protection Agency

          - [FRL-6726-9] 

# AGENCY:

Environmental Protection Agency. 

# ACTION:

Notice of proposed settlement. 

# SUMMARY:

                        Under sections 104, 106(a), 107 and 122 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), Agrico Chemical Company and PCS Joint Venture, Ltd. (Respondents) entered into an Administrative Order on Consent (AOC) with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), whereby Respondents agreed to perform response activities at the Landia Chemical Company Site (Site) located in Lakeland, Florida. Section VII of the AOC provides for the reimbursement of EPA's past response costs by Respondents. Under the terms of the AOC, section VII is subject to section 122(i) of CERCLA, which requires EPA to publish notice of the proposed settlement in the                         **Federal Register**                         for a thirty (30) day public comment period. EPA will consider public comments on section VII of the AOC for thirty days. EPA may withhold consent to all or part of section VII of the AOC if comments received disclose facts or considerations which indicate that section VII of the AOC is inappropriate, improper, or inadequate. Copies of the proposed settlement are available from: Ms. Paula V. Batchelor, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IV, CERCLA Program Services Branch, Waste Management Division, 61 Forsyth Street, SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303, (404) 562-8887.                     

Written comment may be submitted to Mr. Greg Armstrong at the above address within 30 days of the date of publication. 

Dated: June 15, 2000. 

Franklin E. Hill, 

Chief, CERCLA Program Services Branch, Waste Management Division. 

[FR Doc. 00-16518 Filed 6-28-00; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
471P14

#### John Price v. State of N.C. Office of the State Auditor

1. State's PDR Under N.C.G.S. § 7A-3I (COA14-375)

1. Denied

2. State’s Motion for Consolidation

2. Denied 04/09/2015

3. Petitioner’s Motion to Dismiss PDR

3. Dismissed as moot

4. Respondent’s Motion for Leave to File Reply Brief to Response to Motion to Dismiss

4. Dismissed as moot

6. Motion to Appear

5. Denied 08/20/2015

Ervin, J.,

recused
{"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":"23-1186: JAZZ PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. v. AVADEL CNS PHARMACEUTICALS, LLC [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=\"VoxzOhIGya\"><a href=\"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/02-24-2023-23-1186-jazz-pharmaceuticals-inc-v-avadel-cns-pharmaceuticals-llc-opinion-23-1186-opinion-2-24-2023_2085825\/\">23-1186: JAZZ PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. v. AVADEL CNS PHARMACEUTICALS, LLC [OPINION], Precedential<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/02-24-2023-23-1186-jazz-pharmaceuticals-inc-v-avadel-cns-pharmaceuticals-llc-opinion-23-1186-opinion-2-24-2023_2085825\/embed\/#?secret=VoxzOhIGya\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“23-1186: JAZZ PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. v. AVADEL CNS PHARMACEUTICALS, LLC [OPINION], Precedential” — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit\" data-secret=\"VoxzOhIGya\" 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: JAZZ PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. v. AVADEL CNS PHARMACEUTICALS, LLC [OPINION](pdf) Appeal Number: 23-1186 Origin: DCT Precedential To see more opinions and orders, follow this link: Opinions and Orders."}