alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Skip to main content (Press Enter).
 Toggle navigation
            
            College of Information and Cyberspace
                    National Defense University
                CIC
        Search
                    Search CIC:
                        Search
                Search CIC:
                    Search
    Home

    About 
        Mission & Vision

    Faculty & Staff

    Fact Sheet

    Alumni

    Internships

    FAQ

    Admissions 
        Eligibility Requirements

    Admissions Calendar

    Application Instructions

    Apply Online

    International Students

    Academics 
        Graduate Catalog

    M.S. in Strategic Information and Cyberspace Studies
        
        JPME Master's Degree

    Cyber Workforce Master's Degree (Part Time)

    Leadership Development Programs

    Graduate Certificates

    Academic Partners

    Current Students 
        JPME II  Incoming Students

    LDP Incoming Students

    Student Registration

    Bring Your Own Device

    IA Compliance

    Completion Procedures / Order Transcripts

    Student Services and Resources

    Events
    
        Cyber Beacon

    Cyber PME Colloquium

    Hopper Award

    Lecture Series

    CYBERCOM Symposium

    NEWS

    UC2
    
        About

    Events

    Work With Us

    Center for Cybersecurity
    
        About

    Cybersecurity Center POC

    Cybersecurity Supporting Faculty

    CAE-CDE CISO Certificate Program

    Cybersecurity Trending News

    Cyber Labs
        
        Ethical Hacking

    Critical Infrastructure - SCADA

    Cyber Exercises
        
        Tabletop Exercise

    Cyber Competitions

    Cyber Resources and Awareness

    Stakeholder / Industry Advisory Council

    Contact 
        Contact Us

    Directions

    Access to Ft. McNair

    Map of Ft. McNair  Home
  NEWS
  News & Announcements
 News & Announcements News
 German Cyber Security Council visits iCollege
 
 SHARE
 PRINT
 National Defense University


College of Information and Cyberspace

300 Fifth Ave., Bldg. 62
Fort Lesley J. McNair
Washington, DC 20319-5066

202-685-6300
                    Stay Connected
                
                
                DOD Privacy & Security
 DOD Links Disclaimer
 DOD Social Media Policy
 DOD Web Policy
 FOIA
 NDU System of Records Notice
 NDU Privacy & Security Notice
 No FEAR Act
 Open GOV
 Plain Writing Act
 Section 508
 Small Business Act
 USA.gov
            

Hosted by Defense Media Activity - WEB.mil
<PAGE>


                                   EXHIBIT 23
                                   ----------

                         CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS
                         -------------------------------



      We consent to the  incorporation  by reference in this Annual Report (Form
10-K) of Toys "R" Us, Inc. and  subsidiaries of our report dated March 12, 1997,
included  in the 1996 Annual  Report to  Stockholders  of Toys "R" Us, Inc.  and
subsidiaries.

      We  also  consent  to  the  incorporation  by  reference  in  Registration
Statements  (Form S-4 Number  33-56303  and 33-8863  Form S-3  Numbers  2-87794,
33-23264,  33-34273,  33-42237, 33-51359 and 33-64315; Form S-8 Numbers 2-64887,
2-91834, 33-42627,  333-11861,  333-15511,  333-23441 and 333-20385) of Toys "R"
Us, Inc. and  subsidiaries  of our report dated March 12, 1997,  with respect to
the consolidated financial statements incorporated herein by reference.



                                        /s/ Ernst & Young LLP

New York, New York,
April 25, 1997



<PAGE>
Blueprint





 






 Exhibit 10.16



 


AMENDMENT
NO. 1 TO



6% CONVERTIBLE NOTE


THIS
AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO 6% CONVERTIBLE NOTE, dated as of March 25, 2016
(this “Amendment”), between Adgero Biopharmaceuticals, Inc., a
Delaware corporation (the “Company”) and Robert F. Hendrickson (the
“Investor”).



W I T N E S S E T H


WHEREAS, the
Company previously issued to Investor its 6% Convertible Note in
the principal amount of $25,000, dated October 6, 2015 (the
“Note”); and


WHEREAS, the
Company and Investor wish to amend the Note to extend the Maturity
Date of the Note.


NOW,
THEREFORE, the parties hereto, in consideration of the mutual
promises herein contained and for other good and valuable
consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby
acknowledged, hereby agree to amend the Note as
follows:


1
1. Definitions;
References; Continuation of Agreement. Unless otherwise
specified herein, each term used herein that is defined in the Note
shall have the meaning assigned to such term in the Note. Each
reference to “hereof,” “hereto,”
“hereunder,” “herein” and
“hereby” and each other similar reference, and each
reference to “this Note” and each other similar
reference, contained in the Note shall from and after the date
hereof refer to the Note as amended hereby. Except as amended
hereby, all terms and provisions of the Note shall continue
unmodified and remain in full force and effect.


2
2. Extension of
Maturity Date. The second sentence of Section 1 of the Note
is hereby amended and restated in its entirety as
follows:


“Maturity Date”
shall mean June 9, 2016.


 


3
3. Counterparts. This Agreement
may be executed in two or more counterparts, all of which when
taken together shall be considered one and the same agreement and
shall become effective when counterparts have been signed by each
party and delivered to the other party, it being understood that
both parties need not sign the same counterpart. In the event that
any signature is delivered by facsimile transmission or by e-mail
delivery of a “.pdf” format data file, such signature
shall create a valid and binding obligation of the party executing
(or on whose behalf such signature is executed) with the same force
and effect as if such facsimile or “.pdf” signature
page were an original thereof.


4
4. Governing
Law. This Amendment shall be governed by and construed in
accordance with the laws of the State of New York.



[Signature page to follow]




 


 






1








 






IN
WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Amendment to
be duly executed on the date first above written.


ADGERO
BIOPHARMACEUTICALS, INC.


 


 


By:
/s/ Frank
Pilkiewicz                       




Name:
Frank Pilkiewicz


Title:
Chief Executive Officer


 


 


 


INVESTOR


 


 


/s/ Robert F.
Hendrickson                      




Robert
F. Hendrickson


 




 


[Signature
Page to Amendment No. 1 to 6% Convertible Note – Robert F.
Hendrickson]

2
EXHIBIT  99.2
                                  HIV-VAC, INC.
                            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 HIV-VAC, Inc. (the "Company") on Form
10-QSB/A for the period ending March 31, 2001, as filed with the  Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Sally Del Principe the
Chief Financial  Officer of the Company,  hereby certify,  pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
ss.  1350,  as adopted  pursuant to ss. 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002,
that:

(1) the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

(2) the  information  contained in the Report fairly  presents,  in all material
respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.




                                                     /s/ Sally Del Principe
                                                     -----------------------
                                                     Chief Financial Officer

October 22, 2002










                                       20
§ 50-203.10 Decision of the administrative law judge. ( a ) Following the hearing and upon completion of the record, the administrative law judge shall issue an order and decision embodying his findings of fact and conclusions of law on all issues as to whether respondent has violated the representations and stipulations of the act and the amount of damages due therefor, which shall become final, unless a petition for review is filed under § 50-203.11, before the expiration of the time provided for the filing of such petition. The decision of the administrative law judge shall be inoperative unless and until it becomes final. If the respondent is found to have violated the act, the administrative law judge in his decision shall make recommendations to the Administrative Review Board as to whether respondent should be relieved from the application of the ineligible list provisions of section 3 of the Walsh-Healey Public Contracts Act of June 30, 1936 (sec. 3, 49 Stat. 2037; 41 U.S.C. 37).
( b ) The decision of the administrative law judge shall be made part of the record, and a copy thereof shall be served upon the respondent or respondents by mailing a copy thereof by registered mail to the respondent or respondents or to the attorney or attorneys of record. Upon request from employees or other interested persons, the decision will be served upon such persons, and in the discretion of the administrative law judge, the decision will be served upon such other persons or their attorneys who appeared at the hearing or upon brief by mailing a copy thereof to such persons.
[11 FR 14493, Dec. 18, 1946. Redesignated at 24 FR 10952, Dec. 30, 1959, as amended at 61 FR 19987, May 3, 1996]
§ 27.1200 Change to BRS and EBS. ( a ) As of January 10, 2005, licensees assigned to the Multipoint Distribution Service (MDS) and the Multichannel Multipoint Distribution Service (MMDS) shall be reassigned to the Broadband Radio Service (BRS) and licensees in the Instructional Television Fixed Service (ITFS) shall be reassigned to the Educational Broadband Service (EBS).
No. 11-9479.

#### Strickland *v.*Small, Warden.

C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 11-8825.

#### Gary *v.*Clarke, Director, Virginia Department of Corrections, et al.

C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 11-5483.

#### Evans *v.*United States.

C. A. 9th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.
§ 5.311 Additional requirements related to safety of the public. In addition to the notification requirements of § 5.309, for experiments that may affect frequency bands used for the provision of commercial mobile services, emergency notifications, or public safety purposes, the program experimental radio licensee shall, prior to commencing transmissions, develop a specific plan to avoid interference to these bands. The plan must include provisions for: ( a ) Providing notice to parties, including other Commission licensees that are authorized to operate in the same bands and geographic area as the planned experiment and, as appropriate, their end users;
( b ) Rapid identification, and elimination, of any harm the experiment may cause; and
( c ) Identifying an alternate means for accomplishing potentially-affected vital public safety functions during the experiment.
[78 FR 25162, Apr. 29, 2013]
#### § 22.723 Secondary site-by-site authorizations.

Authorizations for new facilities (including new sites and additional channel pairs for existing sites) in the Rural Radiotelephone Service (including BETRS facilities) may be granted after May 12, 1997 only on the condition that such authorizations shall be secondary to any existing or future co-channel paging geographic area authorization in the Paging and Radiotelephone Service or the Rural Radiotelephone Service. If the paging geographic area licensee notifies the Rural Radiotelephone Service licensee that operation of a co-channel secondary facility must be discontinued because it may cause interference to existing or planned facilities, the Rural Radiotelephone Service licensee must discontinue operation of that facility on the particular channel pair involved no later than six months after such notice.

[62 FR 11636, Mar. 12, 1997]
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 21

- 7354

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,

v.
MUSTAFA MUHAMMAD , Defendant

- Appellant

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia , at Richmond

. Robert E. Payne , Senior District Judge. ( 3:14

- cr - 00055

- REP

- DJN

- 1 )

Submitted : February 17, 2022 Decided: February 23, 2022

Before AGEE and RUSHING , Circuit Judges , and SHEDD, Senior Circuit Judge

.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

.
Mustafa Muhammad, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM:
Mustafa Muhammad appeals the dist rict court’s order denying relief on his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i) motion for compassionate release. Upon review, we discern no abuse of discretion in the district court’s determination that, under the pertinent 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors, compassionate release was not warranted. See United States
v. Kibble , 992 F.3d 326, 329

- 31 (4th Cir.) (providing standard of review and outlining steps for evaluating compassionate release motions) , cert. denied , 142 S. Ct. 383 (2021)

. Accordingly, we af firm the district court’s judgment. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
#### Joe Lopez, *Plaintiff in Error,*vs. State of Florida, *Defendant in Error.*

143 So. 303.

Division B.

Opinion filed August 3, 1932.

*Whitaker Brothers,*for Plaintiff in Error;

*Cary D. Lcmdis,*Attorney General, and *Boy Campbell,*Assistant, for the State.

Per Curiam.

The conviction herein was upon an information which alleges that the defendant "did unlawfully and feloniously break and enter a store building to-wit: store building of the Independent Wholesale Grocery, Mulberry, Florida, which said Independent Wholesale Grocery is owned by Mutual Stores, Inc., with intent to commit a felony to-wit: "store building.”

The name of the owner of the building which was broken and entered must be stated with accuracy. Pells v. State, 20 Fla. 774; Davis v. State, 51 Fla. 37, 40 So. 179; Vicente v. State, 55 Fla. 197, 63 So. 423; Burnes v. State, 89 Fla. *362494, 104 So. 783; Davis v. State, 54 Fla. 34, 44 So. 757; Tilly v. State, 21 Fla. 242; Presley v. State, 61 Fla. 46, 54 So. 367; Smith vs. State, 96 Fla. 30, 117 So. 377; Dees v. State, 99 Fla. 1144, 128 So. 485; Kirtsinger vs. State, 99 Fla. 433, 126 So. 767; Leslie v. State, 35 Fla. 171, 17 So. 555.

The allegation as to ownership is “a store building of the Independent Wholesale Grocery, Mulberry, Florida, which said Independent Wholesale Grocery is owned by Mutual Stores, Inc.” Assuming that “Mutual Stores, Inc.” is a corporation, the allegation that the building broken and entered is a store building of the Independent Wholesale Grocery which said Independent Wholesale Grocery is owned by Mutual Stores, Inc., is merely an allegation that the Mutual Stores, Inc., owns the Independent Wholesale Grocery, no't the store building of the Independent Wholesale Grocery, and there is no allegation that the Independent Wholesale Grocery is a corporation. See Pells v. State, 20 Fla. 774. The allegation as to ownership of the store building- is insufficient to sustain a conviction that is challenged by writ of error.

Reversed.

Whitfield, P.J., and Terrell and Davis, J.J., concur.

Buford, C.J., and Ellis and Brown, J.J., concur in the opinion and judgment.
#### St. Andrews Bay Lumber Company, a corporation, *Plaintiff in Error,*vs. Jack Bernard, *Defendant in Error.*

143 So. 160.

En Banc.

Opinion filed July 19, 1932.

*236
      *B. E. Hmvrich,*for Plaintiff in Error;

*Haskins, Gregory & Gordon,*for Defendant in Error.

Per Curiam.

In the case there was a motion for a new trial made, which was denied, but no exception was taken to the ruling, so the sufficiency of the evidence to support the plaintiff’s recovery cannot be reviewed on this writ of error in so far as the denial of the motion for a new trial is concerned. See St. Andrews Bay Lumber Company vs. Mark Bernard, et ah, a companion case this day decided.

The order denying the defendant’s motion for an instructed verdict, which was properly excepted to, cannot be reviewed upon the authority of Warner vs. Goding, 91 Fla. 260, 107 So. 406, because there is no assignment of error which questions the ruling o’f the court in denying the defendant’s motion for a directed verdict.

A proper assignment of error in the appellate court is a requisite in the nature of a pleading in the court of review, which is essential to enable the appellate court to review and rectify errors complained of. Davidson vs. Bezant, 132 So. 488.

Errors which are properly assigned have been con-considered by us but present no grounds for reversal, so the judgment must be affirmed for the reasons stated in the opinion in the companion case to this one, above referred to.

Affirmed.

Buford, C.J., and Whitfield, Brown and Davis, J.J., concur.

Ellis, J., concurs specially.

Terrell, J., not participating.

*237Ellis, J.,

concurring-.—I agree to the affirmance for the reason given in the concurring opinion in the companion case.
#### Mario Russell PIERCE, Petitioner—Appellant, v. E.E. WRIGHT, Warden, Respondent—Appellee.

No. 03-7827.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted March 11, 2004.

Decided March 18, 2004.

Mario Russell Pierce, Appellant pro se. Donald Eldridge Jeffrey, III, Office of the Attorney General of Virginia, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Before WIDENER, WILKINSON, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM.

Mario Russell Pierce appeals from the magistrate judge’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition.* An appeal may not be taken from the final order in a habeas corpus proceeding unless a circuit judge or justice issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(l)(2000). *39This court will not issue a certificate of appealability as to claims dismissed by a district court or magistrate judge on procedural grounds unless the movant can demonstrate both “(I) ‘that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the petition states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right’ and (2) ‘that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the district court was correct in its procedural ruling.’ ” *Rose v. Lee,*252 F.3d 676, 684 (4th Cir.2001) (quoting *Slack v. McDaniel, 529*U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000)).

We have reviewed the record and determine that Pierce has not made the requisite showing. *See Miller-El v. Cockrell,*537 U.S. 322, 336, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003). Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. 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 in the decisional process.

*DISMISSED*

*

 The parties consented to the jurisdiction of a magistrate judge under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) (2001).
Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not *

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-31006

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

RONALD THOMPSON, JR.,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Louisiana

USDC No. 2:05-CR-257-1

Before BENAVIDES, PRADO and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Ronald Thompson,

Jr., has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Thompson has filed a response. Our

independent review of the record, counsel’s brief, and Thompson’s response

discloses no nonfrivolous issue for appeal. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for

leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities

herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

September 18, 2009

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 160 (Friday, August 18, 2006)]
[Notices]
[Pages 47782-47783]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 06-7007]


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

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Department of the Army


Intent To Grant an Exclusive License of a U.S. Government-Owned 
Patent

AGENCY: Department of the Army, DoD.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with 35 U.S.C. 209(e) and 37 CFR 404.7(a)(I)(i), 
announcement is made of the intent to grant an exclusive, royalty-
bearing, revocable license to U.S. patent number 6,399,332 issued June 
4, 2002 entitled ``Bacterial Superantigen Vaccines,'' and U.S. patent 
number 6,713,284 issued March 30, 2004 entitled ``Bacterial 
Superantigen Vaccines,'' and all pending foreign patents to Integrated 
Biotherapeutics, Inc. with its principal place of business at Frederick 
Innovative Technology Center, Rosenstock Hall, Frederick, MD 21702.

ADDRESSES: Commander, U.S. Army Medical Research and Materiel Command, 
ATTN: Command Judge Advocate, MCMR-JA, 504 Scott Street, Fort Detrick, 
Frederick, MD 21702-5012.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For patent issues, Ms. Elizabeth 
Arwine, Patent Attorney, (301) 619-7808. For licensing issues, Dr. Paul 
Mele, Office of Research & Technology Assessment, (301) 619-6664, both 
at telefax (301) 619-5034.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Anyone wishing to object to the grant of 
this license can file written objections along

[[Page 47783]]

with supporting evidence, if any, 15 days from the date of this 
publication. Written objections are to be filed with the Command Judge 
Advocate (see ADDRESSES).

Brenda S. Bowen,
Army Federal Register Liaison Officer.
[FR Doc. 06-7007 Filed 8-17-06; 8:45am]
BILLING CODE 3710-08-M
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 96-1465
JAMES P. MIXON, JR., Plaintiff - Appellant, versus COMMONWEALTH ATTORNEY'S OFFICE AND PERSONNEL, Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Henry C. Morgan, Jr., District Judge. (CA-95-699) Submitted: November 21, 1996 Decided: December 3, 1996 Before HALL, WILKINS, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. James P. Mixon, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals the district court's order dismissing hiscivil action involving domestic relations issues for lack of jurisdiction. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Mixon v. Commonwealth Attorney's Office , No. CA-95-699 (E.D. Va. Apr. 24, 1996). We deny Mixon's pending motions for appointment of counsel, for reconsideration ofthis court's order deferring consideration of his request for counsel, and for a jury trial. 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.

AFFIRMED