alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
{"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":"22-1580: In Re REZANEZHAD GATABI [OPINION], Nonprecedential - U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"8a0K8hXY3o\"><a href=\"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/05-16-2023-22-1580-in-re-rezanezhad-gatabi-opinion-22-1580-opinion-5-16-2023_2127570\/\">22-1580: In Re REZANEZHAD GATABI [OPINION], Nonprecedential<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/05-16-2023-22-1580-in-re-rezanezhad-gatabi-opinion-22-1580-opinion-5-16-2023_2127570\/embed\/#?secret=8a0K8hXY3o\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“22-1580: In Re REZANEZHAD GATABI [OPINION], Nonprecedential” — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit\" data-secret=\"8a0K8hXY3o\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\"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: In Re REZANEZHAD GATABI [OPINION](pdf) Appeal Number: 22-1580 Origin: PTO Nonprecedential To see more opinions and orders, follow this link: Opinions and Orders."}
Case 16-22944 Doc 1 Filed 07/18/16 Entered 07/18/16 15:01:38 Desc Main

 Document Page 1 of 10
Case 16-22944 Doc 1 Filed 07/18/16 Entered 07/18/16 15:01:38 Desc Main

 Document Page 2 of 10
Case 16-22944 Doc 1 Filed 07/18/16 Entered 07/18/16 15:01:38 Desc Main

 Document Page 3 of 10
Case 16-22944 Doc 1 Filed 07/18/16 Entered 07/18/16 15:01:38 Desc Main

 Document Page 4 of 10
Case 16-22944 Doc 1 Filed 07/18/16 Entered 07/18/16 15:01:38 Desc Main

 Document Page 5 of 10
Case 16-22944 Doc 1 Filed 07/18/16 Entered 07/18/16 15:01:38 Desc Main

 Document Page 6 of 10
Case 16-22944 Doc 1 Filed 07/18/16 Entered 07/18/16 15:01:38 Desc Main

 Document Page 7 of 10
Case 16-22944 Doc 1 Filed 07/18/16 Entered 07/18/16 15:01:38 Desc Main

 Document Page 8 of 10
Case 16-22944 Doc 1 Filed 07/18/16 Entered 07/18/16 15:01:38 Desc Main

 Document Page 9 of 10
Case 16-22944 Doc 1 Filed 07/18/16 Entered 07/18/16 15:01:38 Desc Main

 Document Page 10 of 10
§ 73.731 Licensing requirements. ( a ) A license for an international broadcasting station will be issued only after a satisfactory showing has been made in regard to the following, among others: ( 1 ) That there is a need for the international broadcasting service proposed to be rendered.
( 2 ) That the necessary program sources are available to the applicant to render the international service proposed.
( 3 ) That the production of the program service and the technical operation of the proposed station will be conducted by qualified persons.
( 4 ) That the applicant is legally, technically and financially qualified and possesses adequate technical facilities to carry forward the service proposed.
( 5 ) That the public interest, convenience and necessity will be served through the operation of the proposed station.
[38 FR 18895, July 16, 1973]
Decided April 26, 1910.

#### MOON *v.*RICHELDERFER.

[108 Pac. 178.]

Appeal and Error — Failure to File Transcript — Right to Abandon Appeal — Successive Appeals.

After an appeal lias been perfected, the right of appeal is lost, if appellant fails to file the transcript within time, since the filing of a transcript on time is expressly made jurisdictional by Section 553, B. & C. Comp., and hence an appeal cannot be abandoned after failure to file a transcript, and a new appeal taken.

From Sherman: Robert R. Butler, Judge.

This is an action by E. B. Moon and Blake Shaw, against H. Richelderfer, wherein a judgment was rendered in favor of plaintiffs, and defendant appeals. On motion to dismiss appeal.

Dismissed.

*247*Mr. John B. Hosford,*for the motion.

*Mr. Edwin V. Littlefield, contra.*

Mr. Justice Eakin

delivered the opinion of the court.

On July 13, 1909, plaintiffs recovered a judgment against defendant for $200 and costs, and on October 22, 1909, defendant served and filed with the clerk of the circuit court a notice and undertaking on .appeal, with proof of service duly indorsed thereon. No transcript was filed in the Supreme Court within the time allowed by law therefor. Thereafter defendant abandoned the appeal. On January 8, 1910, defendant served a second notice and undertaking on .appeal, which was filed in the circuit court on January 15, 1910. The transcript was filed in this court March 9, 1910. On March 11, 1910, plaintiffs filed a motion to dismiss the appeal for the reasons that it has not been taken in the manner or within the time provided by law, and that the Supreme Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the appeal.

When an appeal is perfected, it cannot be abandoned thereafter and a second appeal taken. The right of appeal is lost if the transcript is not filed within the time allowed by law or an extension thereof. This is jurisdictional. Section 553, B. & C. Comp. *Nestucca Wagon Road Co.*v. *Landingham,*24 Or. 439 (33 Pac. 983); *Davidson*v. *Columbia Timber Co.,*49 Or. 577 (91 Pac. 441); *Harrington*v. *Snyder,*53 Or. 573 (101 Pac. 392.)

The appeal is dismissed. Dismissed.
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 Apollo Medical Holdings, Inc. (the
“Company”) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended April 30, 2009 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I,
Warren Hosseinion, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to
18 U.S.C. section 1350 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 results of operations of the Company.





The
foregoing certification is being furnished solely to accompany the Report
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section  1350 and is not being filed for
purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and
is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company, whether
made before or after the date hereof, regardless of any general incorporation
language in such filing.








Date:  November
      9, 2009
            By:
            /s/ WARREN
  HOSSEINIONWarren
      Hosseinion
              Chief
      Executive Officer
# Continuation of the National Emergency With Respect to Certain Terrorist Attacks

Consistent with section 202(d) of the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1622(d)), I am continuing for 1 year the national emergency I declared on September 14, 2001, in Proclamation 7463, with respect to the terrorist attacks at the World Trade Center, New York, New York, the Pentagon, and aboard United Airlines flight 93, and the continuing and immediate threat of further attacks on the United States. 

Because the terrorist threat continues, the national emergency declared on September 14, 2001, and the measures adopted to deal with that emergency must continue in effect beyond September 14, 2006. Therefore, I am continuing in effect for an additional year the national emergency I declared on September 14, 2001, with respect to the terrorist threat. 

                    This notice shall be published in the                     **Federal Register**                     and transmitted to the Congress.                

[FR Doc. 06-7527

Billing code 3195-01-P
#### § 95.989 [Reserved]
#### CATHARINE WIEL, Respondent, *v.*CORNELIA M. STEWART, Appellant.

*Action for*nuisance— *ibhen the declarations of parties affected by, inadmissible*— *measure of damages.*

Appeal from a judgment in favor of the plaintiff, entered upon the verdict of a jury.

The action was brought to recover damages for an alleged nuisance, which it was claimed consisted in the manufacturing of soap in a certain laundry near to the plaintiff’s premises, and also in discharging from said laundry a stream of foul water which ran under the plaintiff’s premises. These causes it was averred produced an offensive smell, which rendered the plaintiff’s premises unfit for habitation.

The plaintiff kept a summer hotel, and claimed that, by reason of this offensive smell, some of her boarders went away, and that other persons refused to become boarders there on that account..

The pourt at General Term said : “In the course of the trial evidence was offered by, the plaintiff, and admitted against the objection, of the defendant, that the guests of the plaintiff complained about the smell; that they said that they came there for’ the good of their health, and not for the nasty smell there was. in the house ; that they spoke of the smell, and said they would not stand it any longer and would rather leave.

“ This evidence, we think, was objectionable. It was not any part of the *res gestee ;*for it did not accompany the act of going away from the house. It was merely ordinary talk. It was no evidence that an offensive smell existed, which was one of the *273principal facts in controversy. The guests whose conversation was thus detailed could have been called to prove the fact of 'an offensive smell.

“Again, the rule of damages is laid down in *Francis*v. *SchoellTcqpf*(53 N. Y., 152), to be the difference in rental value, free from the stench and subject to it. And this was the rule which the plaintiff herself seems to have adopted. For she gave proof on that point. Therefore, even if the guests had gone away on account of the offensive smell, and even if their language, when going away, had been proved, in order to characterize their act, still the difficulty remains, that it was immaterial whether they went away or not. This evidence might have influenced the jury in their verdict. They might have given damages for the loss of boarders.”

*Charles 8.*Lester, for the appellant.

*Putnam <& Fustis,*for the respondent.

Opinion by

Learned, P. J.

Present — Learned, P. J., Bockes and Boardman, JJ.

Judgment reversed, new trial granted, costs to abide event.
Evidence Table 8.    What is the effect of 5-fluorouracil on intraocular pressure control after combined cataract and glaucoma surgery?

								Outcomes/Benefits

Study design: Randomized controlled trials.

Gandolfi, Vecchi, 1997

Europe

Followup: Not Reported

Quality: 62%	1	12	NR	0	NR	NR	Phaco.

Clear cornea

2-site	-7.30	NR	NR	NR	0	NR

	2	12	NR	0	NR	25mg, 5	Phaco.

Clear cornea

2-site	-13.60	NR	NR	NR	0.00	NR

Hennis, Stewart, 1991

United States

Followup: Not Reported

Quality: 50%	1	15	0.67	NR	NR	5mg, 14	ECCE

1-site	-3.00	NR	NR	NR	0.90	8

	2	2	0.88	NR	NR	NR	ECCE

1-site	-2.60	NR	NR	NR	0.7	9

O'Grady, Juzych, Shin et al., 1993

United States

Followup: Not Reported

Quality: 45%	1	NR	NR	NR	Injection 5mg	Can't Tell Can't Tell	Phaco.

Scleral

1-site	-4.10	NR	NR	NR	0.70	NR

	2	NR	NR	16	NR	NR	Phaco.

Scleral

1-site	-3.00	NR	NR	NR	0.7	NR

Wong, Ruderman, Krupin 

et al., 1994

United States

Followup: Not Reported

Quality: 62%	1	24	0.04	NR	NR	5mg, 5	ECCE

Scleral

Can't Tell	-4.40	NR	24	NR	0.80	14

	2	20	0.15	NR	NR	NR	ECCE

Scleral

Can't Tell	-3.90	NR	20	NR	1	12

Study design: Cohort studies

Budenz, Pyfer, Singh et al., 1999

United States

Followup: Not Reported

Quality: 58%	1	21	0.38	NR	NR	NR	Phaco.

1-site	-3.40	NR	NR	NR	0.70	NR

	2	28	0.46	NR	50mg/ml

5 minutes	5mg, 

Can't Tell	Phaco.

1-site	-3.70	NR	NR	NR	1.10	NR

	3	29	0.28	NR	NR	5mg, 

Can't Tell	Phaco.

1-site	-4.60	NR	NR	NR	0.40	NR

Cohen, 1990

United States

Followup: Not Reported

Quality: 61%	1	22	0.05	NR	NR	NR	Can't Tell

Scleral	-4.50	NR	19	19	NR	17

	2	22	0.23	NR	Injection 5mg	5mg, 

Can't Tell	Can't Tell

Scleral	-4.10	NR	21	21	NR	10

Hurvitz, 1993

United States

Followup: Not Reported

Quality:33%	1	NR	NR	NR	NR	NR	ECCE

Scleral

1-site	-3.40	NR	NR	NR	1.21	NR

	2	NR	NR	NR	NR	NR	Phaco.

Scleral

1-site	-5.30	NR	NR	NR	1.02	NR

	3	NR	NR	NR	NR	Can't Tell Can't Tell	Phaco.

Scleral

1-site	-6.20	NR	NR	NR	0.50	NR

Study design: Case-control studies

Donoso, Rodriguez, 2000

Chile

Followup: Not Reported

Quality: Not Applicable	1	18	NR	NR	50mg/ml

Can't Tell	NR	Phaco.

Scleral	1.80	NR	18	NR	0.00	0

	2	22	NR	NR	50mg/ml

Can't Tell	NR	Phaco.

Scleral

1-site	-7.60	NR	22	NR	0.00	0
§ 217.50 Specified activity and specified geographical region. ( a ) Regulations in this subpart apply only to the St. George Reef Lighthouse Preservation Society (Society) and those persons it authorizes or funds to conduct activities on its behalf for the taking of marine mammals that occurs in the areas outlined in paragraph (b) of this section and that occurs incidental to lighthouse repair and tour operation activities.
( b ) The taking of marine mammals by the Society may be authorized in a Letter of Authorization (LOA) only if it occurs within Pacific Ocean waters in the vicinity of Northwest Seal Rock near Crescent City, California.
Your session is about to expire.Resume session

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                Welcome.Log inorregisterCOPS OFFICE RESOURCE CENTER

HomeCatalogCartOrders

                    

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                CatalogMatches: 1Offline form Recent Popular Online Print OtherCOPS-W0861Civilian Oversight of the Police in Major CitiesSince the 1950s, when civilian oversight was first implemented in some American police departments, its use has grown and a variety of new forms have developed. Established to improve community relations, enhance transparency and increase accountability, all of these programs have the ultimate goal of improving the quality of local policing and thereby increasing public safety. To develop a better understanding of oversight programs in their various forms, how they have evolved over time, and the challenges to implementing them, the Office of Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS Office) collaborated with the Major Cities Chiefs Association (MCCA) to conduct a survey of MCCA member agencies. This publication discusses the results of that survey and the outcome of the round table held to discuss it. In doing so, it provides an overview of civilian oversight in major city police agencies.By Darrel W. Stephens, Ellen Scrivner, Josie F. CambareriCategories: Data and AnalysisLanguage: EnglishPublic linkhttps://portal.cops.usdoj.gov/resourcecenter?item=cops-w0861Click here to see the entire catalog.Cart:Download PDFWeb • Aug 2018Search catalogreset title abstract authors contentContaining text: exact phraseNot containing text: exact phraseLanguage:anyEnglishSpanishHmongVietnameseCategory:anyAlternatives to IncarcerationCommunity PartnershipsData and AnalysisEthics and IntegrityFoundations of Community PolicingHiring, Recruitment, and RetentionHomeland SecurityNew Immigrant CommunitiesNonviolent CrimeOtherPolice OperationsPOP Center ResourceSchool and Campus SafetyTechnologyTribalViolent CrimeYouth SafetyPublished after:Published before:Page1

                    

FOIA | No FEAR Act | Open Government | Privacy | Legal|HelpCopyright (C) U.S. Department of Justice, COPS Office, IT Division, 2012 - 2024. All rights reserved.
Rendered on Mon Mar 4 2024 at 02:13 (UTC-5) in 0.19 secEnterprise Framework 3.21.7.7 • Store Controls 3.3.1.7Survey 500303407 Section 60000560 Rules Hints Inactive
**EXHIBIT 32.1**

 

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

 PURSUANT TO 18U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

 

I, Edward L. Erickson, Chief Executive Officer ofImmunicon Corporation (the “Company”), hereby certify, that:

 

(1) The Company’s quarterly report on Form 10-Q forthe quarterly period ended March 31, 2004 (the “Form 10-Q) fully complies withthe requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, asamended; and

 

(2) The information contained in the Form 10-Q fairlypresents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results ofoperations of the Company.

 

 
| /s/ Edward  L. Erickson  |   |
|--------------------------|--------|
| Edward L.  Erickson      |
| Chief  Executive Officer |
| May 21, 2004             |

 

----
###### Editorial Note on Part 11

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 11 appear at 67 FR 38208, June 3, 2002.

#### § 11.1 Purpose of regulations.

The regulations contained in this part provide uniform rules and procedures for the assessment of civil penalties in connection with violations of certain laws and regulations enforced by the Service.
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.1

 CERTIFICATION OF CEO 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 Zap.Com Corporation (the "Company")
on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2005 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), Avram A. Glazer, as
Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002 to the best of my knowledge, that:

    (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) 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/ Avram A. Glazer
-------------------
Avram A. Glazer
President and Chief Executive Officer
May 5, 2005

This Certification accompanies this Report pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not be deemed filed by the Company for
purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.

                                       16
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 SATELINX INTERNATIONAL INC.(the Company) on Form 10-QSB for the period ended September 30, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Jean-Francois Amyot, President and acting CFO, 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 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 this Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.







Date: November 17, 2004

By:/s/ Jean-Francois Amyot

Name: Jean-Francois Amyot

Title:    President and Acting CFO
#### § 80.165 Operator requirements for voluntary stations.

Minimum Operator License

| Ship Morse telegraph | T. |
| Ship direct-printing telegraph | MP. |
| Ship telephone, with or without DSC, more than 250 watts carrier power or 1,000 watts peak envelope power | PG. |
| Ship telephone, with or without DSC, not more than 250 watts carrier power or 1,000 watts peak envelope power | MP. |
| Ship telephone, with or without DSC, not more than 100 watts carrier power or 400 watts peak envelope power | |
| Above 30 MHz | None.1 |
| Below 30 MHz | RP. |
| Ship earth station | RP. |
| | |
| --- | --- |
| 1 RP required for compulsory ships and international voyages. | |

[[76 FR 67611](https://www.federalregister.gov/citation/76-FR-67611), Nov. 2, 2011, as amended at [78 FR 23155](https://www.federalregister.gov/citation/78-FR-23155), Apr. 18, 2013]
<PAGE>

Exhibit 10.12

Summary of Loan Transactions between the Company and World Wide Business Centres

         World Wide Business Centres, a private company affiliated with Donald
S. Radcliffe, a director of SVI Solutions, Inc. (the "Company"), made three
short-term loans to the Company, as follows:

  Loan dates      Re-payment dates          Amount
----------------------------------------------------------

   5/30/01             6/1/01                     $50,000

   12/27/01            1/2/02                    $125,000

   5/14/02         6/4 & 6/19/02                  $70,000

         The loans were not documented by promissory notes or other contracts.
The Company repaid the loans with interest calculated at the prime rate in
effect at the time of the respective loans.