alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Before the First Division,

June 1, 1967

No. P67/180.

#### Weather-Rite Sportswear Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

protests 64/10096,etc. (NewYork).

Beckworth, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise covered by the foregoing protests consists of articles of synthetic rubber similar in all material respects to those the subject of *United States*v. *Weather-Rite Sportswear*Co., *Inc*(52 CCPA 7, C.A.D. 848), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
No. 59820.

#### Naus Trimming Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

protest 234560-K (New York).

Opinion by

Donlon, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise described on the invoice as “item 5025/16” ” consists of buttons, composed of a plastic base with a glass chatón inserted thereon, the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
Exhibit 10.76


 


 


 











	 	November
    17, 2017


 


John
M. Desmarais


26
Deer Creek Lane


Mt.
Kisco, New York 10549


 


Dear
Mr. Desmarais:


 


Reference
is made to that certain Promissory Note, dated July 13, 2017 (the “Note”), issued by BioRestorative Therapies, Inc.
(the “Company”) to John M. Desmarais (the “Lender”) in the principal amount of $175,000 (the “Principal
Amount”). The Note provides that the Principal Amount, together with accrued interest thereon, is payable on December 1,
2017 (the “Maturity Date”).


 


The
Lender hereby waives any and all defaults by the Company under the Note. The parties agree that the Note is hereby amended such
that the Maturity Date for the payment of the Principal Amount, together with accrued interest thereon, shall be extended to December
1, 2018.


 


In
consideration of the foregoing, the Company agrees that the exercise price of the Warrants, dated March 18, 2016, issued to the
Lender for the purchase of 444,444, 400,000 and 250,000 shares of the Company’s Common Stock, respectively, and the Warrant,
dated November 17, 2015, issued to the Lender for the purchase of 125,000 shares of the Company’s Common Stock (collectively,
the “Warrants”) is reduced to $4.00 per share.


 


Except
as modified herein, the Note and the Warrants shall continue in full force and effect in accordance with their respective terms.
In addition, the Security Agreement, dated as of July 13, 2017, by and among the Company, Tuxis Trust, the Lender and John M.
Desmarais, as representative, shall continue in full force and effect in accordance with its terms.


 


This
letter may be executed in counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original, but all of which taken together shall constitute
one and the same instrument.


 


This
letter shall be governed by, and construed in accordance with, the laws of the State of New York, excluding choice of law principles
thereof.


 


	 	Very truly yours,
	 	 	 
	 	BIORESTORATIVE THERAPIES, INC.
	 	 	 
	 	By:	 
	 	 	Mark
    Weinreb
	 	 	Chief
    Executive Officer





 


	Agreed:	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 	 	 
	John
    M. Desmarais
From: cadeauchateau@yahoo.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 7:29:30 PM

To Whom It May Concern:

I am writing today to ask in the strongest way possible that you rescind the unjust and coercive

mandate that all "contraceptives" and sterilization procedures be covered by private health insurance

with no co-pay to patients. If you do not reverse course I ask you to expand conscience protections for

any organizations that provide individual and group insurance and have moral or religious objections. I

strongly oppose the government forcing free insurance coverage on Americans especially for drugs and

devices that I oppose because some of these can cause an abortion (such as ella and Plan B).

I also ask you to reconsider your definition of religious employer and offer an authentic conscience

protection for any organization and business that has moral or religious objection to providing such

insurance to their employees. This legal mandate clearly violates the spirit of conscience laws which

prohibit government discrimination against those who object to various health services on moral or

religious grounds. The definition of "religious employer" in the regulation is so narrow as to only include

churches, but will still mean that a host of businesses and organizations that have conscience objections

will be required to choose between either violating their conscience or not being able to offer employees

health insurance.

Please protect the conscience rights of insurers, providers and people like me who object to being

forced by the federal government to offer or subsidize contraceptives and sterilization services, especially

when some of these drugs can take the life of early unborn children. No Americans should be forced by

the federal government to essentially subsidize services they object to. I again urge you in the strongest

way possible to reverse course and remove contraceptives and sterilizations from the list of mandatory

preventive services.

Sincerely,

Laurie Metz

Pittsburgh, PA 15228
Before the First Division,

November 22, 1966

No. P66/347.

No. P66/348.

#### Morris Friedman *v.*United States, protests 63/5599, etc. (Philadelphia). Morris Friedman *v.*United States, protests 63/15629 and 63/15630 (Philadelphia).

*832Nichols, J.

In accordance with, stipulation of counsel that the merchandise covered by the foregoing protests consists of bags or baskets in chief value of rush similar in all material respects to those the subject of *Carson M. Simon & Co.*v. *United States*(55 Cust. Ct. 103, C.D. 2558), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
Express 

November 5, 2014 

Hearing Docket 

Federal Aviation Administration 

600 Independence Avenue S.W. 

Wilbur Wright Building- Suite 2W1 000 

Washington, DC 20591 

Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

Legal Department 

3620 Hacks Cross Road 

Building B, 3rd Floor 

Memphis, TN 38125 US 

RECEIVED 

NOV -6 2014 

HEARING DOCKET 

RE: Request for Formal Hearing- FAA Case Number: 2014SW700042 

Dear Sir: 

In response to the Final Notice of Proposed Civil Penalty that was issued in FAA case number 

2014SW700042 and received by my office on October 30, 2014, Federal Express, in 

accordance with 14 CFR 13.16(g)(2)(ii), respectfully requests a hearing in this matter. 

A copy of this request is being sent to James Archier, Attorney, Federal Aviation 

Administration, Southwest Region, Office of Regional Counsel, 2601 Meacham Boulevard, 

Fort Worth, Texas 76137. 

All correspondence regarding this matter should be sent to my attention at 

1700 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Suite 950, Washington, DC 20006. If there are any 

questions, please call me at (202) 393-9285 or email greg,stofko@fedex.com. 

Sincerely, 

;~:J;?ERAL ;~>.~:s ?RPORATION 

"'-~~'-·"' -.._.,_ __ / . -c_;:_>· <"~;ry·'f>C:>t /:~ C:r~ 

G'r G. Stofko 

S'enior Attorn y 

Regulatory Affairs 

Office: (202) 393-9285 

greg.stofko@fedex.com 

cc: James Archier
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

THE TALON GROUP, LLC,

Plaintiff,

v.

CHILEAN SEAFOOD EXCHANGE, INC.,

Defendant.

CASE NO. C06-0393-JCC

ORDER

CHILEAN SEAFOOD EXCHANGE, INC.,

Counter Plaintiff,

v.

THE TALON GROUP, LLC, and RYAN’S

RESTAURANT GROUP, INC.,

Counter Defendants.

This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion for a Protective Order. (Dkt. No. 47.)

After considering the parties’ relevant submissions on this matter and determining that oral argument is

not necessary, the Court hereby DENIES Plaintiff’s Motion.

Plaintiff argues that discovery should be stayed pending this Court’s determination of the

arbitrability of this dispute. The Federal Arbitration Act does not require such a stay merely because

Case 2:06-cv-00393-JLR Document 64 Filed 03/15/07 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

Plaintiff has filed a motion to compel arbitration. Britton v. Co-op Banking Group, 916 F.2d 1405, 1412

(9th Cir. 1990). Rather, “[t]he district court is directed to grant a stay only when it has determined that

the issue is to arbitrated.” Id. at 1405 n.8. In this case, there has been no such determination. Thus, the

only remaining issue is whether the Court should exercise its discretion to impose a stay. The Court sees

no compelling reason to take such action at this time. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion is hereby DENIED.

SO ORDERED this 15th day of March, 2007.

AJohn C. Coughenour

United States District Judge

Case 2:06-cv-00393-JLR Document 64 Filed 03/15/07 Page 2 of 2
[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 192 (Thursday, October 5, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 69264-69279]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-22109]


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

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

[Public Notice: 12203]


Notice of Department of State Sanctions Actions

SUMMARY: The Department of State is publishing the names of one or more 
persons that have been placed on the Department of Treasury's List of 
Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons (SDN List) 
administered by the Office of Foreign Asset Control (OFAC) based on the 
Department of State's determination that one or more applicable legal 
criteria were satisfied. All property and interests in property subject 
to U.S. jurisdiction of these persons are blocked, and U.S. persons are 
generally prohibited from engaging in transactions with them.

DATES: See SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for applicable date(s).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Aaron Forsberg, Director, Office of 
Economic Sanctions Policy and Implementation, Bureau of Economic and 
Business Affairs, Department of State, Washington, DC 20520, tel.: 
(202) 647 7677, email: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#cb8da4b9b8a9aeb9ac8a9b8bb8bfaabfaee5aca4bd"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="763019040514130411372636050217021358111900">[email protected]</span></a>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Electronic Availability

    The SDN List and additional information concerning sanctions 
programs are available on OFAC's website.

Notice of Department of State Actions

    On July 20, 2023, the Department of State determined that the 
property and interests in property subject to U.S. jurisdiction of the 
following persons are blocked under the relevant sanction's authority 
listed below.
BILLING CODE 4710-AE-P

[[Page 69265]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN05OC23.104


[[Page 69266]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN05OC23.105


[[Page 69267]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN05OC23.106


[[Page 69268]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN05OC23.107


[[Page 69269]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN05OC23.108


[[Page 69270]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN05OC23.109


[[Page 69271]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN05OC23.110


[[Page 69272]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN05OC23.111


[[Page 69273]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN05OC23.112


[[Page 69274]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN05OC23.113


[[Page 69275]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN05OC23.114


[[Page 69276]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN05OC23.115


[[Page 69277]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN05OC23.116


[[Page 69278]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN05OC23.117


[[Page 69279]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN05OC23.118


Roland F. de Marcellus,
Acting Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary, Bureau of Economic and 
Business Affairs, Department of State.
[FR Doc. 2023-22109 Filed 10-4-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4710-AE-C


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
01 

02

03

04

05

06

07

08

09

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

ORDER REMANDING CASE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE

HENRY WESSELIUS,

Plaintiff,

v.

LINDA S. McMAHON, Acting

Commissioner, Social Security

Administration,

Defendant. ____________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No. C06-0571-RSM

ORDER REMANDING CASE

The Court, after careful consideration of the plaintiff’s complaint, the parties’ briefs, all

papers and exhibits filed in support and opposition thereto, the Report and Recommendation

of the Honorable James P. Donohue, United States Magistrate Judge, and the balance of the

record, does hereby find and ORDER:

(1) The Court adopts the Report and Recommendation.

(2) The final decision of the Commissioner is REVERSED and this case is

REMANDED to the Social Security Administration for further proceedings not

inconsistent with the Report and Recommendation.

(3) The Clerk is directed to send copies of this Order to the parties and to Judge

Donohue.

DATED this 9th day of March, 2007.

A

RICARDO S. MARTINEZ

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Case 2:06-cv-00571-RSM Document 18 Filed 03/09/07 Page 1 of 1
<PAGE>   1

                                                                   EXHIBIT 10.44
                                    AMENDMENT

                                     TO THE

                           EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT PLAN
                                 OF AMETEK, INC.

                                 AMENDMENT NO. 2


         WHEREAS, there was adopted and made effective as of December 29, 1942,
the Employees' Retirement Plan of AMETEK, Inc. (the "Plan"); and

         WHEREAS, the Plan was amended and restated in its entirety, effective
January 1, 1998; and

         WHEREAS, Section 9.2 of the Plan provides that AMETEK, Inc. ("AMETEK")
may amend the Plan at any time or from time to time; and

         WHEREAS, AMETEK now desires to amend the Plan in certain respects;

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

         FIRST: A new Appendix XXXI is hereby added to the Plan, to read in its
entirety as follows:

                                  APPENDIX XXXI

                     SPECIAL PROVISIONS RELATING TO CERTAIN
                EMPLOYEES OF THE TEST AND CALIBRATION INSTRUMENTS
                            DIVISION OF AMETEK, INC.
           ----------------------------------------------------------

                  1. Those employees of Test and Calibration Instruments, a
         division of AMETEK, Inc., who are already Participants in the Plan as
         of December 31, 1998 shall be eligible to remain Participants under the
         Plan in accordance with and subject to the provisions in the Plan,
         after the absorption of Mansfield and Green, a division of AMETEK,
         Inc., by John Chatillon & Sons, Inc., a subsidiary of AMETEK, Inc., on
         January 1, 1999.

                  2. Except to the extent set forth above, defined terms used in
         this Appendix XXXI shall have the same meaning as used in the Plan.




<PAGE>   2

         SECOND: The provisions of this Amendment No. 2 shall be effective as of
January 1, 1999.

         IN WITNESS WHEREOF, AMETEK has caused these presents to be executed in
its corporate name, by its duly authorized officer on this 30th day of November,
1998.


                                         AMETEK, Inc.



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

Attest:

/s/ Kathryn E. Londra
----------------------
United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit

No. 21-51019

Summary Calendar

United States of America, 

Plaintiff—Appellee,

versus

Shelly Ann Smith, 

Defendant—Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 3:20-CR-2349

Before Barksdale, Elrod, and Haynes, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

Shelly Ann Smith pleaded guilty, pursuant to a plea agreement, to 

importation of 500 grams or more of a mixture or substance containing a 

detectable amount of methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 952(a). 

She was sentenced in 2021 to, inter alia, a below-Sentencing Guidelines term 

* Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 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 Circuit Rule 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

October 28, 2022

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 21-51019 Document: 00516526192 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/28/2022
No. 21-51019

2

of 60-months’ imprisonment. Under the terms of the plea agreement, Smith 

waived, inter alia, her right to appeal or to collaterally challenge her sentence, 

with exceptions not applicable to this appeal. Notwithstanding this waiver, 

Smith asserts the district court did not reasonably consider the 18 U.S.C. 

§ 3553(a) sentencing factors. 

This appeal is barred, as the Government contends, by the waiver-ofappeal provision in Smith’s plea agreement, which was knowing, voluntary, 

and enforceable. E.g., United States v. Portillo, 18 F.3d 290, 292–93 (5th Cir. 

1994) (“[W]hen the record. . . clearly indicates that a defendant has read and 

understands his plea agreement, and that he raised no question regarding a 

waiver-of-appeal provision, the defendant will be held to the bargain to which 

he agreed.”); Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(b)(1)(N). (In her response to the 

Government’s motion to dismiss based on the appeal waiver, Smith contends 

the Government waived enforcement of the waiver by failing to invoke it 

when she filed her notice of appeal. This contention, which borders on being 

frivolous, is totally without merit. E.g., United States v. Acquaye, 452 F.3d 

380, 381–82 (5th Cir. 2006) (“Ordinarily the government urges waiver of 

appeal after the defendant has filed either a merits brief or an Anders brief.” 

(citation omitted)).) 

AFFIRMED.

Case: 21-51019 Document: 00516526192 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/28/2022
III

105TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION S. CON. RES. 99

Authorizing the flying of the POW/MIA flag.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

MAY 22, 1998

Mr. LOTT submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was considered

and agreed to

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

Authorizing the flying of the POW/MIA flag.

1 Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives

2 concurring), That, for the purpose of section

3 1082(b)(1)(B) of the National Defense Authorization Act

4 for Fiscal Year 1998, the display of the POW/MIA flag

5 at the Capitol shall begin at 6:30 p.m. on Sunday, May

6 24, 1998. As used in this section, the term ‘‘POW/MIA

7 flag’’ has the same meaning as in section 1082 of such

8 Act.

9 SEC. 2. The Architect of the Capitol may prescribe

10 regulations with respect to the first section of this resolu11 tion.

Æ
US Department of Transportation

1200 New Jersey Avenue SE

Washington DC 20590

April 25 , 2013

FOR THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

DOT

- OST

IATA APPLICATION OF RESOLUTION 787 ON ENHANCED AIRLINE DISTRIBUTION

Submission by the Association of European Airlines (AEA)

Brussels

To whom it may concern,

In October 2012 the International Air Transport Association (IATA) adopted its new Resolution 787

on Enhanced Airline Distribution , which it terms a New Distribution Capability (NDC)

. The Resolution

sets out the modalities for the development of an electronic data interchange standard which aims

to modernise current data transmission st andards by allowing airlines to present their products to

consumers through indirect channels. This is not possible at the moment because the GDS network

is based on outdated standards which were developed over 40 years ago, before the advent of the

inte rnet.

AEA fully supports the introduction of Resolution 787 for the following reasons:

 The new system will provide consumers with easier and faster access to information with

regard to the different fares available, the possibility to purchase ancilla ry services, seat

selection, etc. This will enable them to compare competing offers from different airlines. In

general such competition leads to lower prices and better customer service.

 The current GDS system was designed to display only two elements: the base fare and flight

schedules. In addition, offers made through the GDSs may be higher than those obtained

through direct channels. Resolution 787 aims to do away with these inefficiencies by

providing a distribution system which enables consumers t o make an informed choice about

which services best meet their individual needs

.  The NDC will not infringe the customer’s rig ht to privacy. Customers will not be obliged to

provide any information that they do not already supply to the GDSs, but they will have the

option to provide some additional personal information which will enable the airline to offer

them products customised to their travel needs. It is not intended that the new standards should become obligatory; airlines will have a

choice as to whether or not to adopt them, or indeed develop their own hybrid solutions.

AEA believes that Resolution 787 represents a win

- win situation for airlines and passengers alike,

upgrading standards which have been overtaken by new technologies, and is worthy of Department

of Transportation support.

Yours sincerely,

Athar Husain Khan

Acting Secretary General

The AEA brings together 35 major European airlines, who collectively carry more than 340 million

passengers each year, employ over 383,000 staff and operate more than 2,600 aircraft. AEA carriers

have a long tradition of providing a high level of service t o their passengers. AEA and its members

take their responsibility to provide valuable and reliable customer service to their passengers

seriously and share the goal of improving the air transport experience
United States Court of Appeals

For the First Circuit

No. 19-1874

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff, Appellee,

v.

PUERTO RICO INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT COMPANY,

Defendant, Third-Party Plaintiff, Appellant,

v.

BECKMAN COULTER, INC.; SYSTEM ENGINEERING LABS, INC.; COULTER 

REAGENTS, INC; SOLAR MAT OF PUERTO RICO COMPANY, INC.; PUERTO 

RICO HOUSING DEPARTMENT; PREMIUM FRUIT COMPANY, INC.; PUERTO 

RICO BEVERAGE, INC.; EIG AGUA PURA DE PUERTO RICO, INC.; JUAN 

OROZCO LTD., INC.; CATPI, INC.; ORLE INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION; 

MUNICIPALITY OF MAUNABO; SUNOCO CARIBBEAN, INC.; INSURER NUMBERS 

ONE - TWELVE,

Third-Party Defendants.

ERRATA SHEET

The opinion of this Court, issued on November 17, 2021, 

is amended as follows:

On page 14, line 17, replace "2020" with "2019" and 

"entered" with "endorsed."
**EXHIBIT 32.1**

**Section 1350 Certification by the Chief Executive Officer**

          I, Timothy A. Richardson, the chief executive officer of Micro Linear Corporation (the “Company”), certify for the purposes of section 1350 of chapter 63 of title 18 of the United States Code that, to the best of my knowledge,

          (i) the Quarterly Report of the Company on Form 10-Q for the period ended July 2, 2006 (the “Report”), complies with the requirements of section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and

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

| August 16,   2006 | /s/ Timothy   A. Richardson |
|-------------------|-----------------------------|
|              |                             |
|              | Timothy A.   Richardson     |
|              | Chief   Executive Officer   |