alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Case No. 13,761.

#### TATHAM v. LE ROY.

Circuit Court, S. D. New York.

1849.

Patents — Alibs Patentee — Combinations — Infringement — Who are Infringers— New and Useful Result.

1. Under section 15 of the act of 1836 [5 Stat. 123), it is not essential that an alien- patentee or his assignee should take active means for 'the purpose of putting the patented invention in the market, and forcing a sale, within 18 months after the date of the patent, but only that he should be ready at all times to sell at a fair price, when a reasonable offer is made.

2. It is a question for the jury to determine whether the invention was so put and continued on sale.

3. If a combination is new, and produces a new and useful result, it is the proper subject of a patent.

4. Though a mere combination of machinery in the abstract may not be new, yet if used and applied in connection with the practical development of a newly-discovered principle, producing a new and useful result, the subject is patentable.

5. Under section 15 of the act of 1836. providing, in the case of a patent granted to an alien patentee, that it should be a' good defense that such patentee had omitted to put and continue his invention on sale, upon reasonable terms, within 18 months after the patent was granted, it is not essential that such patentee should take active means for the purpose of putting his invention in market, and forcing a sale; but it is a sufficient compliance with the law that he should at all'times be ready to sell at a fair price, when a reasonable offer is made.

6. Where A. and B. agreed with C. to purchase of the latter all of a certain article (lead pipe) which he should make, A. and B. agreeing to furnish the lead, and pay O. a given price for manufacturing, and O. used in such manufacture a machine patented to plaintiff’s assignor, *held,*in an action for infringement against A., B. and C., that if A. and B. had no connection with the manufacture, except to furnish the lead and pay a given price, they were not liable for infringement.

7. But if the agreement was only colorable, and entered into for the purpose of securing the profits of the business, without assuming the responsibility for the use of the invention, then they would be lianle. Aiding and assisting a person in carrying on such a business and in operating the machinery, will implicate the parties so engaged.

8. It is a question for the jury to determine whether an alien patentee has put and continued on sale the invention patented to him within 18 months from the date of the patent.

9. The question of identity between two opposing machines is ultimately one of fact to he determined by the jury.

10. The discovery of a new principle is not patentable, but it must be embodied and brought into operation by machinery so as to produce a new and useful result.

[Cited in Law’s Pat. Dig. 128, 183. 244, 371, 456, 489, 581, and 592. to the points ns stated above. Nowhere reported; opinion not now accessible.)

[See Case No. 13.762, and note.
<PAGE>



                                  EXHIBIT 23.1

                         CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements
(Forms S-8 Nos. 33-00175, 33-16187, 33-00176, 2-76657, 2-91931, 33-16188,
33-38361, 2-40012, 2-87193, 2-61721, 2-89418, 33-38360, 33-38361, 33-52760,
33-52758, 33-52756, 33-52762, 333-16113, 333-56119, 333-56752, 333-62759 and
333-68566 and Form S-3 No. 333-46329) of Keane, Inc. and in the related
Prospectuses of our report dated February 11, 2002, except for Note O, as to
which the date is March 15, 2002, with respect to the consolidated financial
statements of Keane, Inc. included in this Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the
year ended December 31,2001.


                                                         /s/ Ernst and Young LLP

Boston, Massachusetts
March 27, 2002
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THE SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF JOURNAL EMPLOYEES' STOCK TRUST AS OF AND
FOR THE PERIOD ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1997 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                               0
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                       0
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                         0
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                27,075<F1>
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                27,075<F1>
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                         0
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0<F2>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0<F2>

<FN>
<F1>   The only revenue and expense associated with the
       trust pertain to dividends received and paid out.
       All dividends received are in turn paid out,
       accounting for net income of zero ($0).
<F2>   Earnings per share is not applicable as net
       income is zero ($0).
</FN>

</TABLE>
5120 Campus A Pr DBi oferive dna ssiona • New& Keys por l Ltaw Beach, Corpo CAra 92tion660 • (949) 752-7030

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

1

v Recycled Paper STIPULATION AND ORDER OF DISMISSAL Case No. CIV.S-04-1477 DFL (GGH)

Jon A. Longerbone, CSB #90570

Bidna & Keys, APLC

5120 Campus Drive

Newport Beach, CA 92660

Tel: (949) 752-7030

Attorneys for Plaintiff Cytosport, Inc.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CYTOSPORT, INC., a California

corporation, 

Plaintiff,

vs.

OPTIMUM NUTRITION, INC., a Florida

corporation,

Defendant.

Case No. CIV.S-04-1477 DFL (GGH)

STIPULATION FOR DISMISSAL WITH

PREJUDICE; AND ORDER THEREON

Pursuant to Rule 41(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and a settlement

agreement entered into by the parties, plaintiff Cytosport, Inc. and defendant Optimum Nutrition,

Inc., hereby stipulate that this action be dismissed with prejudice. The parties further stipulate

that the Court shall retain jurisdiction over this matter solely to enforce the terms of the parties’

settlement agreement, should enforcement be necessary. Each party will bear its own fees and

costs

DATED: June 3, 2005 THORPE NORTH & WESTERN, L.L.P.

Peter M. de Jonge

John W. Ogilive

Nathan Winesett

RAY QUINNEY & NEBEKER

Mark M. Bettilyon

Case 2:04-cv-01477-DFL-GGH Document 14 Filed 06/03/05 Page 1 of 2
5120 Campus A Pr DBi oferive dna ssiona • New& Keys por l Ltaw Beach, Corpo CAra 92tion660 • (949) 752-7030

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

2

v Recycled Paper STIPULATION AND ORDER OF DISMISSAL Case No. CIV.S-04-1477 DFL (GGH)

BIDNA & KEYS, APLC

Jon A. Longerbone

By /s/ Jon A. Longerbone 

Jon A. Longerbone

Attorneys for Plaintiff Cytosport, Inc.

DATED: May 31, 2005 ISICOFF, RAGATZ & KOENIGSBERG. P.A.

By /s/ Eric D. Isicoff (as authorized 5/31/05) 

Eric D. Isicoff

Teresa Ragatz

Attorneys for Defendant Optimum Nutrition, Inc.

O R D E R

Based upon the foregoing stipulation, and good cause appearing, 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: 6/2/2005

DAVID F. LEVI

United States District Judge

G:\DOCS\LEV\3. Signed Orders to be Processed\04cv1477.o.wpd

Case 2:04-cv-01477-DFL-GGH Document 14 Filed 06/03/05 Page 2 of 2
No. P68/262.

protests 64/13648, etc. (New York).

#### Seedman International Corp. et al. *v.*United States,

Begkworth, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise covered by the foregoing protests consists of rubber bulb horns similar in all material repects to those the subject of *Sherwin*International, *Inc.*v. *United States*(54 Cust. Ct. 466, Abstract 69382), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 9 (Tuesday, January 16, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Page 1804]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-378]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

Internal Revenue Service


Open Meeting of the Area 4 Taxpayer Advocacy Panel (Including the 
States of Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio, Tennessee, and 
Wisconsin)

AGENCY: Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: An open meeting of the Area 4 Taxpayer Advocacy Panel will be 
conducted (via teleconference). The Taxpayer Advocacy Panel is 
soliciting public comment, ideas, and suggestions on improving customer 
service at the Internal Revenue Service.

DATES: The meeting will be held Tuesday, February 20, 2007, at 10 a.m., 
central time.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mary Ann Delzer at 1-888-912-1227, or 
(414) 231-2360.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given pursuant to Section 
10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. (1988) 
that a meeting of the Area 4 Taxpayer Advocacy Panel will be held 
Tuesday, February 20, 2007, at 10 a.m., Central Time via a telephone 
conference call. You can submit written comments to the Panel by faxing 
the comments to (414) 231-2363, or by mail to Taxpayer Advocacy Panel, 
Stop 1006MIL, PO Box 3205, Milwaukee, WI 53201-3205, or you can contact 
us at http://www.improveirs.org. This meeting is not required to be 
open to the public, but because we are always interested in community 
input we will accept public comments. Please contact Mary Ann Delzer at 
1-888-912-1227 or (414) 231-2360 for dial-in information.
    The agenda will include the following: Various IRS issues.

    Dated: January 8, 2007.
John Fay,
Acting Director, Taxpayer Advocacy Panel.
[FR Doc. E7-378 Filed 1-12-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4830-01-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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DENNIS KELLER and CRYSTAL

KELLER,

NO. CIV. S-04-1325 LKK/DAD

Plaintiffs,

v. O R D E R

 

CITY OF STOCKTON, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

A hearing on this case is scheduled for June 12, 2006 at 10:00

a.m., on the Law and Motion Calendar of this court pursuant to

plaintiffs’ motion for attorney’s fees. Because oral argument will

not be of material assistance, the court orders this matter

submitted on the briefs. The hearing on this matter scheduled for

June 12, 2006 is VACATED.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: June 2, 2006.

Case 2:04-cv-01325-LKK -DAD Document 95 Filed 06/05/06 Page 1 of 1
Before Judge Donlon,

January 8, 1968

No. R68/1.

reappraisements R61/2786 and R61/2798 (San Francisco).

#### International Packers, Limited *v.*United States,

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise and issues are similar in all material respects to those involved in *International*Packers, *Limited*v. *United States*(56 Cust. Ct. 636, Reap. Dec. 11147) and *International*Packers, *Limited*v. *United States*(52 Cust. Ct. 472, Reap. Dec. 10696), the court found and held that export value as defined in section 402(b), Tariff Act of 1930, as amended by the Customs Simplification Act of 1956, is the proper basis for determining value of the canned meat products exported from Argentina during the period January 1, 1959, through December 31, 1959, described on the invoices of the entries covered by these appeals to reappraisement as canned corned beef in 12 ounce tins, and that such value, in the case of appeal R61/2786 is $2.9168 per dozen tins, net packed, and in the case of appeal R61/2798 is $2.7986' per dozen tins, net packed.
Exhibit 10.2


 


October 7, 2016


 


AR Capital Acquisition Corp.


405 Park Avenue, 14th Floor


New York, New York 10022


 


AR Capital, LLC


405 Park Avenue, 14th Floor


New York, New York 10022


 


Re: Termination
Letter


 


Gentlemen:


 


Reference is made to
that certain letter agreement dated as of October 1, 2014 (the “Insider Letter Agreement”), by
and among AR Capital Acquisition Corp., a Delaware corporation (the “Company”), AR Capital, LLC, a Delaware
limited liability company (“AR Capital”), Nicholas S. Schorsch, William M. Kahane, Nicholas Radesca and Yoav
Wiegenfeld (collectively, the “Parties”).


 


Based
on the due execution and delivery of (i) that certain transfer agreement dated as of September 16, 2016, by and among AR Capital,
Axar Master Fund Ltd., a Cayman Islands exempted company (“Axar”), and the Company,
as amended by the First Amendment to the Agreement, dated September 27, 2016, and (ii) that
certain insider letter agreement dated as of even date herewith, by and between Axar and the Company, the Parties hereby agree
that the Insider Letter Agreement is terminated effective as of the date hereof with respect to Nicholas S. Schorsch, William
M. Kahane and Nicholas Radesca; provided however, that the Insider Letter Agreement shall remain
in full force and effect with respect to Yoav Wiegenfeld. 


 


[Signature Page Follows]


 




     


     


    

 


	 	Very truly, yours, 
	 	 
	 	AR CAPITAL ACQUISITION CORP.
	 	 	 
	 	By:	/s/ William Kahane
	 	 	
        Name: William Kahane

        Title: CEO



 


[Signature Page
to Insider Letter Amendment]


 




     


     


    

 


ACKNOWLEDGED AND AGREED:


 


AR CAPITAL, LLC


 


	By:	/s/ Edward Michael Weil Jr	 
	 	Name: Edward Michael Weil Jr	 
	 	Title: CEO	 
	 	 	 
	By: 	/s/ Nicholas S. Schorsch	 
	 	Name: Nicholas S. Schorsch	 


 


	By:	 /s/ William M. Kahane	 
	 	Name: William M. Kahane	 
	 	 	 
	By:	 /s/ Nicholas Radesca	 
	 	Name: Nicholas Radesca	 


 


	By:	 /s/ Yoav Wiegenfeld	 
	 	Name: Yoav Wiegenfeld	 


 


[Signature Page
to Insider Letter Amendment]
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the quarterly report of Luna Innovations
Incorporated (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Kent A. Murphy, Chief Executive Officer of the Company,
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:

(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.



|                                     
|-------------------------------------
|/s/ KENT A. MURPHY                   
|Kent A. Murphy, Ph.D.                
|President and Chief Executive Officer

November 13, 2009
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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ROWLAND PUGH,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-1091 DFL PAN P

vs.

A. STONE, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed this civil rights action

seeking relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate

Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local General Order No. 262.

On April 26, 2006, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations

herein which were served on plaintiff and which contained notice to plaintiff that any objections

to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within twenty days. Plaintiff has not filed

objections to the findings and recommendations.

The court has reviewed the file and finds the findings and recommendations to be

supported by the record and by the magistrate judge’s analysis. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY

ORDERED that: 

/////

Case 2:04-cv-01091-DFL-PAN Document 16 Filed 06/16/06 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

2

1. The findings and recommendations filed April 26, 2006, are adopted in full;

and

2. This action is dismissed without prejudice. See Local Rule 11-110; Fed. R.

Civ. P. 41(b). 

DATED: 6/15/2006

DAVID F. LEVI

United States District Judge

Case 2:04-cv-01091-DFL-PAN Document 16 Filed 06/16/06 Page 2 of 2
The HONORABLE ROBERT W. PRATT, United States District Judge for the *

Southern District of Iowa, sitting by designation.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 97-4008

___________

Lyle Robinson, *

*

Plaintiff - Appellant, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* District of South Dakota.

Kenneth S. Apfel, Commissioner, *

Social Security Administration, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Defendant - Appellee. *

___________

Submitted: April 15, 1998

Filed: June 8, 1998

___________

Before LOKEN and LAY, Circuit Judges, and PRATT, District Judge. *

___________

PER CURIAM.

Lyle Robinson applied for social security disability and supplemental security

income benefits on October 18, 1994, alleging a disability onset date of September 2,

1992. Following a hearing, the Commissioner’s administrative law judge denied the

application, finding that Robinson cannot perform his past work but has the residual

functional capacity to perform jobs that exist in significant numbers in the economy,
The HONORABLE RICHARD H. BATTEY, Chief Judge of the United States 1

District Court for the District of South Dakota. 

-2-

such as dispatcher, order clerk, and gate guard. Robinson has a herniated disc in his

back, which the ALJ found to be a severe impairment, curvature of the spine resulting

from radiation treatment for kidney cancer when he was three years old, and various

lesser impairments. Critical to the ALJ’s adverse decision was his finding that

Robinson’s subjective complaints of disabling pain were “inconsistent, exaggerated,

and not fully credible.” The Commissioner’s Appeals Council denied review, and

Robinson sought judicial review. 

The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the Commissioner,

1

concluding that substantial evidence on the record as a whole supports the ALJ’s

decision, including his finding that Robinson’s testimony as to disabling pain was not

entirely credible. Robinson appeals. Having carefully reviewed the administrative

record and the parties’ contentions on appeal, we affirm for the reasons stated in the

district court’s thorough Memorandum Opinion and Order dated October 1, 1997. See

8th Cir. Rule 47B. To the extent Robinson raises a challenge to the vocational expert’s

testimony not presented to the district court, we conclude that contention is without

merit.

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U. S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

GUILLERMO CRUZ TRUJILLO, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

 v. 

GOMEZ, C/O; et al., 

Defendants-Appellees. 

No. 16-16567 

D.C. No. 1:14-cv-01797-DADDLB 

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of California

Dale A. Drozd, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted April 11, 2017**

Before: GOULD, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.

Guillermo Cruz Trujillo, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the 

district court’s judgment dismissing for failure to exhaust administrative remedies 

his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging excessive force. We have jurisdiction under 

28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Albino v. Baca, 747 F.3d 1162, 1171 (9th

 

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision 

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

FILED

APR 19 2017

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
 2 16-16567 

Cir. 2014) (en banc) (legal rulings on exhaustion); Knievel v. ESPN, 393 F.3d 

1068, 1072 (9th Cir. 2005) (Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss). We 

affirm. 

The district court properly dismissed Trujillo’s action because it was clear 

from the face of the amended complaint that Trujillo failed to exhaust his available 

administrative remedies prior to filing his lawsuit. See McKinney v. Carey, 311 

F.3d 1198, 1199-1200 (9th Cir. 2002) (exhaustion must be completed before a 

§ 1983 action is filed; exhaustion during the pendency of the litigation is 

insufficient because exhaustion is a precondition to suit); see also Albino, 747 F.3d 

at 1169 (“[W]here a failure to exhaust is clear from the face of the complaint, a 

defendant may successfully move to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to 

state a claim.”). 

We do not consider arguments and allegations raised for the first time on 

appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).

AFFIRMED.
HERE 

##### Nav Bar Menu - desktop

-  Home 
-  Search 
-  Nav Rules 
-  BNMs 
-  LNMs 
-  GPS 
-  Comms 
-  MSI 
-  AIS 
-  Ice Patrol 
-  Archives 
-  Space Ops 

                - Home

##### NAVCEN Main Menu - desktop

-  Home 
-  Search 
-  Resources    -  News and Notices 
  -  RSS Feeds 
  -  Archives 
  -  Site Map 
  -  Vision and Mission 
  -  Website Privacy Act 
  -  CG Resources 
  -  USCG Safety Alerts (uscg.mil) 
  -  USCG Homeport Website 
  -  Electronic Nav General Info 
-  Maritime Safety Information 
-  Nav Systems and Services 
-  Waterways 
-  Contact Us/Report a Problem 

##### NAVCEN Main Menu - mobile

-  Home 
-  Search 
-  Resources    -  News and Notices 
  -  RSS Feeds 
  -  Archives 
  -  Site Map 
  -  Vision and Mission 
  -  Website Privacy Act 
  -  CG Resources 
  -  USCG Safety Alerts (uscg.mil) 
  -  USCG Homeport Website 
  -  Electronic Nav General Info 
-  Maritime Safety Information 
-  Nav Systems and Services 
-  Waterways 
-  Contact Us/Report a Problem 

# Archives

**NOTE:Archived data is limited to files NAVCEN currently has available in data storage:**
                - LNMs - 1995 to present
                - GPS Products - 2000 to present
                - Light Lists - 2009 to present
                - Ice Charts - 2009 to present  PNBs - 2010 to present    GPS TypePlease select type of GPS Archive file.Almanac - SEMAlmanac - YUMANANUOps Advisory  Please enter year.