alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

ORDER EXTENDING

TIME TO FILE INDICTMENT

(Kenneth P. MacDonald; 06-139M) - 1

FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER

1331 Broadway, Ste. 400

Tacoma, Washington 98402

(253) 593-6710

MAGISTRATE JUDGE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT TACOMA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff,

vs.

KENNETH P. MACDONALD,

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

NO. 06-139M

ORDER EXTENDING

TIME TO FILE INDICTMENT

The Court, having reviewed the stipulation by the parties, hereby finds that

the reasons set forth therein for the requested 60-day extension to file an indictment

against the defendant establish that the ends of justice served by granting the extension

outweigh the best interest of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial. Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the date on or before which an indictment

in this case must be filed against the defendant shall be extended from October 11, 2006

to December 11, 2006.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the period of delay from October 11,

2006 to December 11, 2006 is excludable time pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §§ 3161 through

3164.

DONE this 5th day of October, 2006.

 S/ J Kelley Arnold 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Presented by:

s/ Russell V. Leonard s/ AUSA Bruce Miyake

Attorney for Defendant per telephonic authorization 

Case 2:06-mj-00139-MJB Document 13 Filed 10/05/06 Page 1 of 1
```

[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 184 (Monday, September 25, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Page 65656]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-20633]

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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Institute of Standards and Technology

National Institute of Standards and Technology Performance Review 
Board Membership

AGENCY: National Institute of Standards and Technology, Department of 
Commerce.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice lists the membership of the National Institute of 
Standards and Technology Performance Review Board (NIST PRB) and 
supersedes the list published on September 26, 2022.

DATES: The changes to the NIST PRB membership list announced in this 
notice are effective September 25, 2023.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Didi Hanlein, (240) 449-6356 or by 
email at [email protected] or Amy Laughter, (202) 845-5196 or by 
email at [email protected] at the National Institute of Standards 
and Technology.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The National Institute of Standards and 
Technology Performance Review Board (NIST PRB or Board) reviews 
performance appraisals, agreements, and recommended actions pertaining 
to employees in the Senior Executive Service and Senior Professional 
employees. The Board makes recommendations to the appropriate 
appointing authority concerning such matters so as to ensure the fair 
and equitable treatment of these individuals.
    This notice lists the membership of the NIST PRB and supersedes the 
list published in the Federal Register on September 26, 2022 (87 FR 
58312).

NIST PRB Members

Mojdeh Bahar (C) (alternate), Associate Director for Innovation and 
Industry Services, National Institute of Standards & Technology, 
Gaithersburg, MD 20899, Appointment Expires: 12/31/24
Hannah Brown (C) (alternate), Deputy Associate Director for Laboratory 
Programs, National Institute of Standards & Technology, Gaithersburg, 
MD 20899, Appointment Expires: 12/31/25
Marla Dowell (C), Director, CHIPS R&D Metrology Program, National 
Institute of Standards & Technology, Boulder, CO 80305, Appointment 
Expires: 12/31/24
Robert Fangmeyer (C) (alternate), Director, Baldrige Performance 
Excellence Program, Department of Commerce, Gaithersburg, MD 20899, 
Appointment Expires: 12/31/24
John (JD) Grom (NC), Senior Advisor to the Chief of Staff, National 
Institute of Standards & Technology, Washington, DC 20230, Appointment 
Expires: 12/31/25
Paula Patrick (C), Strategic Advisor to Enterprise Services, Department 
of Commerce, Washington, DC 20230, Appointment Expires: 12/31/24
Chandan Sastry (C), Chief Information Officer for NIST, National 
Institute of Standards & Technology, Gaithersburg, MD 20899, 
Appointment Expires: 12/31/25

    Authority: 5 U.S.C. 4301 et seq.

Alicia Chambers,
NIST Executive Secretariat.
[FR Doc. 2023-20633 Filed 9-22-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-13-P
```
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

ORDER - 1 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE

BADEN SPORTS, INC.,

Plaintiff,

v.

KABUSHIKI KAISHA MOLTEN (DBA

MOLTEN CORPORATION) AND MOLTEN

U.S.A. INC., 

Defendants.

No. C06-210MJP

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’

MOTION TO EXCLUDE THE

TESTIMONY OF PLAINTIFF’S

EXPERT RICHARD YALCH AND

HIS EXPERT REPORT AT TRIAL

This matter comes before the Court on Defendants’ motion to exclude Plaintiff’s expert report

of Richard Yalch and testimony for failure to satisfy the requirements of Daubert v. Merrill Dow

Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993) and Kumho Tire Co., Ltd. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137

(1999). (Dkt. No. 226.) Plaintiff opposes the motion. (Dkt. No. 239.) Having considered the

motion, response, and reply (Dkt. No. 254), and all documents submitted in support thereof, the

Court DENIES Defendants’ motion.

Defendants argue that Mr. Yalch’s testimony and report are speculative. They argue that Mr.

Yalch does not have the knowledge or experience to qualify as an expert in calculating future sales,

and that his calculation is not based on sufficient data, and is not calculated according to a reliable

methodology. Plaintiff argues that, as a marketing professor and consultant, Mr. Yalch is qualified to

testify. In support of Plaintiff’s Lanham Act claims, Mr. Yalch will testify that the amount of money

Molten paid basketball organizations FIBA and USA Basketball for sponsorship and advertising can

be used to ascertain the financial benefit Molten derived from advertising its “dual cushion

Case 2:06-cv-00210-MJP Document 266 Filed 07/31/07 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

ORDER - 2 

technology.” Plaintiff argues that this method of measuring financial benefit is defensible. Plaintiff

also argues that Mr. Yalch did not need to use consumer surveys to reach his opinion, and that his

testimony regarding an increase in Molten’s sales and the color of Molten’s basketballs are not

grounds to exclude his testimony. 

The Court agrees with Plaintiff. Mr. Yalch is qualified to testify and his testimony regarding

the amount of money Molten spent on its sponsorship agreements and advertising is relevant to the

question of the financial benefit Molten gained from advertising its “dual cushion technology.” The

Court DENIES the motion to exclude Mr. Yalch’s testimony and expert report.

The clerk is directed to send copies of this order to all counsel of record. 

Dated: July 31st, 2007.

AMarsha J. Pechman

 United States District Judge

Case 2:06-cv-00210-MJP Document 266 Filed 07/31/07 Page 2 of 2
Exhibit
4.1





State
      of DelawareSecretary
      of StateDivision
      of CorporationsDelivered
      12:59 PM 06/10/2008FILED
      12:38 PM 06/10/2008SRV
      080678168–2211104 FILE





STATE
OF DELAWARE


CERTIFICATE
OF AMENDMENT OF


RESTATED
CERTIFICATE OF INCORPORATION OF




LAPOLLA
INDUSTRIES, INC., a corporation organized and existing under and by virtue of
the General Corporation Law of the State of Delaware.





DOES
HEREBY CERTIFY:





FIRST:
Pursuant to Section 228 of the Delaware General Corporation Law, as amended, and
Article I, Section 7 of LaPolla Industries, Inc.’s Bylaws, the Board of
Directors unanimously resolved and duly adopted a proposed amendment to the
Restated Certificate of Incorporation, as it has been amended from time to time,
of said corporation, declaring said amendment to be advisable and for
consideration thereof. The proposed amendment is as follows:





RESOLVED,
that the Restated Certificate of Incorporation of this corporation be amended by
changing the Article and Section thereof numbered "FOURTH", Section "A", so
that, as amended, said Article's Section shall be and read as
follows:




"FOURTH:
Capital Stock. A. The total number of shares of stock which the Corporation
shall have the authority to issue is One Hundred Million (100,000,000) shares of
which Ninety Eight Million (98,000,000) shall be common stock of the par value
of One Cent ($.01) per share (hereinafter called the "Common Stock") and of
which Two Million (2,000,000) shares shall be preferred stock of the par value
of One Dollar ($1.00) per share (hereinafter called the "Preferred
Stock")."




SECOND:
That thereafter, pursuant to Section 228 of the Delaware General Corporation
Law, as amended, a written consent of 67.49 % of the outstanding shares of
Common Stock at the close of business on May 2, 2008, in lieu of and without a
meeting, without prior notice and without a vote, was duly executed, wherein
stockholders owning more than the necessary number of shares as required by
statute voted in favor of the amendment.




THIRD:
That said amendment was duly adopted in accordance with the provision of Section
242 of the General Corporation Law of the State of Delaware.




FOURTH:
That the capital of said corporation shall not be reduced under or by reason of
said amendment.





FIFTH:  Except
as amended hereby, the Restated Certificate of Incorporation of LaPolla
Industries, Inc., as it has been amended from time to time, is hereby ratified
and approved.




IN
WITNESS WHEREOF, said LAPOLLA INDUSTRIES, INC. has caused this certificate to be
signed by Michael T.
Adams, EVP, an Authorized Officer, this 10th day of June,
2008.





LAPOLLA
      INDUSTRIES, INC.BY:
            /s/  Michael
      T. Adams, EVPTITLE
      OF OFFICER:
            Executive Vice
      President
No. 57776.

protests 202574-K, etc. (Boston).

#### W. N. Proctor Company *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Oliver, C. J.

It was stipulated that for duty purposes the clean content of the wool in question was determined in accordance with the instructions contained in T. D. 53159. Said T. D. 53159 was issued following the decision in *Fred Whitaker Company, Inc.*v. *United States*(27 Cust. Ct. 168, C. D. 1365), affirmed in *United States*v. *Fred Whitaker Company, Inc.*(40 C. C. P. A. 19, *376C. A. D .492), wherein the statutory language, clean content of wool, as.used in. paragraph 1102 (b), was construed to mean the product commercially usable as wool and from which all the weight of grease and foreign material has been removed, including the wool fibers which are unavoidably and irrevocably lost as a result of commercially applied cleaning processes. Accordingly, the wool in question was held dutiable at the rate applied by the collector on the basis of the percentages of clean content as set forth in the column headed “Clean Content under T. D. 53159” in the schedule attached to and made a part of the decision in this case.
-       - Superintendent of Documents
      - 2023-02-14T21:53:18-0500
      - Government Publishing Office, Washington, DC 20401
      - Government Publishing Office
      - Government Publishing Office attests that this document has not been altered since it was disseminated by Government Publishing Office
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

ORDER

Page - 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT TACOMA

STEVEN VOLSTAD,

Plaintiff,

v.

DEAN MASON,

Defendant.

Case No. C06-5005RBL

ORDER ADOPTING

REPORT AND

RECOMMENDATION

 The Court, having reviewed Plaintiffs’ complaint, the Report and Recommendation of

Magistrate Judge J. Kelley Arnold, objections to the Report and Recommendation, if any, and the

remaining record, does hereby find and ORDER:

(1) The Court adopts the Report and Recommendation;

(2) This action is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE prior to service on plaintiff’s

motion for non suit.

(3) Clerk is directed to send copies of this Order to plaintiff, and to the Hon. J. Kelley

Arnold.

DATED this 19th day of April, 2006.

ARONALD B. LEIGHTON

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:06-cv-05005-RBL Document 7 Filed 04/19/06 Page 1 of 1
Case 2:06-cv-00204-JCC Document 13 Filed 04/03/2006 Page 1 of 3

Gordon v. Virtumundo Inc et al Doc. 13

Dockets.Justia.com
Case 2:06-cv-00204-JCC Document 13 Filed 04/03/2006 Page 2 of 3
Case 2:06-cv-00204-JCC Document 13 Filed 04/03/2006 Page 3 of 3
#### Eddie J. THOMAS, Petitioner, v. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE, Respondent.

No. 00-3439.

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

June 11, 2001.

*981Before CLEVENGER, SCHALL, and GAJARSA, Circuit Judges.

Judgment

PER CURIAM.

This CAUSE having been heard and considered, it is ORDERED and ADJUDGED:

AFFIRMED. *See*Fed. Cir. R. 36.
Exhibit 10.13

                       AMENDMENT TO STOCK OPTION AGREEMENT

                                George C. Barker

         This Amendment to  Stock Option Agreement  is made as of the 4th day of
May, 1998, between Tatonka Energy, Inc., an Oklahoma corporation ("Company") and
George C. Barker, ("Optionee").

         WHEREAS,  on May 4, 1988,  the  Company  granted  Optionee an option to
purchase an aggregate of 5,000,000  shares of Company's  Common Stock, par value
of $0.001 (as presently  constituted),  on the terms and conditions  hereinafter
set forth,  at the purchase  price of $0.075 per share as presently  constituted
(500,000  shares at $0.75 per share,  after the  effectiveness  of the  proposed
1-for-10 reverse stock split); and

         WHEREAS,  the  option  was  contained  in  that  certain  Stock  Option
Agreement dated as of May 4, 1988; and

         WHEREAS,  the  Company  and the  Optionee  intended  that the option be
granted  at a price  equal to 100% of the  fair  market  value of the  Company's
Common Stock on the date of grant; and

         WHEREAS,  the  parties  believed  at the time that $0.075 per share (as
presently  constituted)  was the fair market  value of the Common  Stock on such
date,  but the parties have  subsequently  learned that the fair market value of
the Common Stock on such date was $0.13; and

         WHEREAS, the parties desire to amend the Stock Option Agreement,  as of
May 4, 1998, to correct this error;

         NOW, THEREFORE,  in consideration of the premises, the mutual covenants
hereinafter set forth,  and other good and valuable  consideration,  the Company
and Optionee agree as follows:

         1. The purchase price shall be $0.13 per share as presently constituted
($1.30 per share, after the effectiveness of the proposed 1-for-10 reverse stock
split).

         2. Except as amended by this Amendment, the terms and provisions of the
Stock Option  Agreement  shall be  unchanged  and shall remain in full force and
effect.

         IN WITNESS  WHEREOF,  the Company has caused  this  Amendment  to Stock
Option Agreement to be executed in its name by its President and attested by its
Secretary on the day and year first above written, and the Optionee has hereunto
set his hand and seal on the day and year specified below.

                                                TATONKA ENERGY, INC.

                                                By /s/ George C. Barker
                                                   ---------------------------
                                                   George C. Barker, President
ATTEST:

/s/ Judith F. Barker
---------------------------
Judith F. Barker, Secretary


                                               By /s/ George C. Barker
                                                  ---------------------------
                                                  George C. Barker, Optionee
EX-4.4



 Exhibit 4.4 

AMENDMENT TO THE 

GENERAL RE CORPORATION AND GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES COMPANIES 

SAVINGS AND STOCK OWNERSHIP PLAN 

As Amended and Restated Effective December 31, 2017 

The General Re Corporation and Government Employees Companies Savings and Stock Ownership Plan, as amended and restated effective
December 31, 2017 (the “Plan”), is hereby further amended, effective as of December 31, 2017, as provided below: 
  

	 	1.	Section LL, “Articles X, XI, XII and XIII,” of Schedule IX of Appendix B to the Plan is hereby amended by deleting the section in its entirety and replacing it with the following: 


“Articles X, XI, XII and XIII: Articles X, XI, XII and XIII of the Plan shall apply to GEICO Employees and their ESOP Accounts.
Notwithstanding the foregoing, the following Section 11.8 shall apply to GEICO Employees: 

(a)    Unless otherwise agreed to by the Corporation, no fiduciary hereunder (who is an Employee) shall
receive any compensation for services as such. Expenses incurred by fiduciaries in connection with the administration of the Plan shall be paid by the Trustees from the Trust Fund in accordance with the direction of the Plan Administrator, unless
paid by the Corporation. Brokerage fees, transfer taxes, if any, and other expenses incident to the purchase or sale of securities, including Sponsor Stock, by the Trustees shall, for Plan purposes, be deemed to be part of the cost of such
securities, or deducted in computing the sale proceeds there from, as the case may be. 

(b)    Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained herein, any
per-participant recordkeeping or administrative services fees applicable to GEICO Employees not paid by the GEICO Companies and not otherwise paid from forfeited amounts pursuant to Section 16.13(b) shall
be charged to the ESOP Account of the GEICO Employee who is a Participant, beneficiary or alternate payee. In addition, the Committee may charge the ESOP Account of an individual Participant, beneficiary or alternate payee a reasonable charge to
offset the cost of processing a request of such Participant, beneficiary or alternate payee (e.g., fees for loan originations, loan maintenance, distributions, withdrawals, or determinations regarding the qualification of domestic relations
orders).” 
  

	 	2.	Section QQ, “Section 16.13,” of Schedule IX of Appendix B to the Plan is hereby amended by adding a new Section 16.3(b) and renumbering the first paragraph of Section 16.13 as
Section 16.13(a): 

 “(b)    To the extent that any amounts forfeited pursuant to
Section 16.13(a) shall be used to pay expenses under the Plan, such amounts shall be used, no later than as of the end of the Plan Year in which the forfeiture occurs, first to pay the per-participant
recordkeeping or administrative service fees that are assessed against the ESOP Accounts of the GEICO Employees who are designated as active on the Plan’s recordkeeping system, other than participant-originated fees, and then to pay any other
administrative expenses under the Plan identified by the Committee in accordance with Section 11.8.” 

  
 A-1
<PAGE>   1

                                                                   EXHIBIT 10.11
                                 AMENDMENT No. 7

                                       to

                     THE AMETEK RETIREMENT AND SAVINGS PLAN



         WHEREAS, there was adopted and made effective as of October 1, 1984,
The AMETEK Retirement and Savings Plan (the "Plan"); and

         WHEREAS, the Plan was amended and restated in its entirety, effective
January 1, 1997; and

         WHEREAS, effective as of January 1, 1997, the employees of the Dixson
Division became eligible to be Retirement Participants subject to certain
requirements and whereas AMETEK desires to document this participation by the
inclusion of a separate paragraph in Appendix I of the Plan; and

         WHEREAS, Section 10.1 of the Plan provides that AMETEK, Inc. ("AMETEK")
may amend the Plan at any time, and from time to time;

         NOW, THEREFORE, the Plan is hereby amended as follows:

         FIRST: Appendix I to the Plan is amended by adding a new Section 6 to
the end thereof to read in its entirety as follows:

                  "6. Effective January 1, 1997, employees of the Dixson
         Division are eligible to be Retirement Participants, subject to the
         Entry Date requirements set forth in Section 2.2(b) of the Plan. Solely
         for purposes of determining Employer Retirement Contributions and
         Employer Incentive Retirement Contributions, Years of Service shall
         mean Periods of Service as an employee of the Company or its
         Affiliates."

                  SECOND: The provisions of this Amendment No. 7 shall be
         effective as of January 1, 1999.


<PAGE>   2

                  IN WITNESS WHEREOF, AMETEK has caused these presents to be
         executed, in its corporate name, by its duly authorized officer on this
         31st day of March, 1999.


                                             AMETEK, Inc.

                                             By:   /s/ Donna F. Winquist
                                                  ---------------------------

Attest:


/s/ Kathryn E. Londra
----------------------
No. 53294.

protests 123128-K, etc. (New York).

#### Amtorg Trading Corp. et al. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Cole, J.

The protests were dismissed.
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

ORDER

Page - 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT W.D. OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

v.

SABRINA K. HOWE,

Defendant.

Case No. CR06-5214

INITIAL ORDER RE: ALLEGATIONS

OF VIOLATION OF CONDITIONS

OF SUPERVISION BY UNITED

STATES PROBATION OFFICE

THIS MATTER comes on for hearing on the Petition of the United States Probation Office alleging

that the defendant has violated the conditions of supervision.

The plaintiff appears through Special/Assistant United States Attorney, BARBARA SIEVERS;

The defendant appears personally and represented by counsel, MICHAEL FILIPOVIC;

The Court having advised the defendant of the FIVE allegations in the Petition(s) filed by the U.S.

Probation Office; the defendant having been advised of the maximum potential sanction if the

allegation(s) is/are substantiated; and the court finding probable cause with regard to the alleged

violation(s); 

Having been advised of her right to a hearing the defendant voluntarily acknowledged her rights and

acknowledged violating the conditions of probation as alleged in Violation Numbers 1, 2, 3, and 4.

The matter is scheduled for a disposition hearing on Violations 1, 2, 3, and 4, and an evidentiary

hearing on Violation 5 before the Honorable J. KELLEY ARNOLD.

Date: MARCH 10, 2008

Time: 3:00 P.M.

(X) Defendant is released pending the above scheduled hearing, SUBJECT TO being in full compliance

with the terms and conditions of probation, including but not limited to continuation of substance

abuse and mental health treatment.

-

The clerks shall direct copies of this order to counsel for the United States, to counsel for the defendant,

the United States Marshal and to the United States Probation Office and/or Pretrial Services Office.

February 22, 2008.

_/s/ J. Kelley Arnold________________ J. Kelley Arnold, U.S. Magistrate Judge

Case 2:06-cr-05214-JKA Document 36 Filed 02/22/08 Page 1 of 1
March 13, 1962

No. 66568.

#### National Carloading Corp. and Printed Cellophane Tape Co. et al. *v.*United States,

protests 58/21326, etc.

Protests abandoned November 24, 1961. (Not published.) Plaintiffs’application for rehearing denied.

Oliver, O.J., dissented.
Before the Third Division,

December 16, 1963

No. 68171.

#### Acme Novelty Co. and Universal Foreign Service Co. et al. *v.*United States,

protests 200883-K, etc. (Los Angeles).

Opinion by

Donlon, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of after-dinner cups and saucers the same in all material respects as those the subject of *United States*v. *The Baltimore & Ohio R.R. Co. a/c United China & Glass Company*(47 CCPA 1, C.A.D. 719), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.