alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
No. 49849.

#### Protest 82794-K of Golden Gate Basket Factory (San Francisco).

Opinion by

Walker, J.

When the case was called for trial the examiner who-had advisorily classified the item described it as “a piece of veneer, possibly 12 or 13 inches square, uniform size, having a tin top with indentation on the surface at which points the wood is to be bent to make a fruit box.” He further stated on cross-examination that it had been further advanced than “just plain Wood.” On the record presented the court could see no reason for disturbing the action of the collector, which was held presumptively correct.
NASA LogoNTRSNTRS - NASA Technical Reports ServerSearchmore_vertCollectionsAboutNewsHelpLogin Back to ResultsStudy of selected tether applications in space, phase 3, volume 1A dual keel space station configuration was used. The Mobility System, created for moving components over one face of the Space Station, makes it possible to use a single tether deployer system for both Orbit Transfer Vehicles (OTV) and Shuttle launches. Deployer concepts ranging from a minimum capability system that can deorbit the Shuttle from a maximum altitude of 370 km to a full capability system that can deploy the OTN with 9,072 kg of payload and using 150 km of tether were designed and discussed. Results of the cost benefits analyses are discussed. Conclusions and recommendations for implementing a specific design configuration and for future development and study activities are presented.Document ID19870009161Acquisition SourceLegacy CDMSDocument TypeContractor Report (CR)Date AcquiredSeptember 5, 2013Publication DateSeptember 1, 1986Subject CategorySpacecraft Design, Testing And PerformanceReport/Patent NumberMCR-86-1346-VOL-1NAS 1.26:178935NASA-CR-178935DR-04-VOL-1DPD-665-VOL-1Accession Number87N18594Funding Number(s)CONTRACT_GRANT: NAS8-36616Distribution LimitsPublicCopyrightWork of the US Gov. Public Use Permitted.Available DownloadsNameType19870009161.pdfSTIcloud_downloadcontent_copyvisibilityRelated RecordsThere are no records associated with this record.visibility_offNo Preview Available
 No Fear Act | Freedom of Information Act | Office of the Inspector General | Agency Financial ReportsNASA Web Privacy Policy and Important Notices | NASA Guidelines for Quality of InformationDisclaimers, Copyright, Terms of Use | Accessibility | NASA OCIO | USA.gov | NASA.govContact Us | Site MapSTI LogoNASA Official: JoAnne R. Calhoun Site Curator: STI Compliance and Distribution Services Last Modified: September 12, 2024
12794 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 47 / Wednesday, March 11, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

(C) Monitoring, as specified in the 

SMMP, is required. 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2015–05232 Filed 3–10–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 63 

[EPA–HQ–OAR–2014–0471; FRL–9924–36– 

OAR] 

RIN 2060–AS26 

Petition To Add n-Propyl Bromide to 

the List of Hazardous Air Pollutants; 

Extension of Comment Period 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Receipt of a complete petition; 

extension of public comment period. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is announcing that the 

period for providing public comments 

on the February 6, 2015, receipt of a 

complete petition document titled 

‘‘Petition To Add n-Propyl Bromide to 

the List of Hazardous Air Pollutants’’ is 

being extended by 60 days. 

DATES: The public comment period for 

the receipt of a complete petition 

document published in the Federal 

Register on February 6, 2015 (80 FR 

6676), is being extended by 60 days to 

May 7, 2015, in order to provide the 

public additional time to submit 

comments and supporting information. 

ADDRESSES: Written comments on the 

receipt of a complete petition document 

may be submitted to the EPA 

electronically, by mail, by facsimile or 

through hand delivery/courier. Please 

refer to the Federal Register document 

(80 FR 6676) for the addresses and 

detailed instructions. 

Docket. Publicly available documents 

relevant to this action are available for 

public inspection either electronically at 

http://www.regulations.gov or in hard 

copy at the EPA Docket Center, Room 

3334, 1301 Constitution Avenue NW., 

Washington, DC. The Public Reading 

Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 

p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding 

legal holidays. A reasonable fee may be 

charged for copying. The official public 

docket for this rulemaking is Docket ID 

No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2014–0471. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. 

John Schaefer, Policy and Strategies 

Group (D205–02), Sector Policies and 

Programs Division, Office of Air Quality 

Planning and Standards, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 

27711; Telephone number: (919) 541– 

0296; Fax number (919) 541–5600; 

Email address: schaefer.john@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Comment Period 

After considering a request received 

to extend the public comment period, 

the EPA has decided to extend the 

public comment period for an 

additional 60 days. Therefore, the 

public comment period will end on May 

7, 2015, rather than March 9, 2015. This 

extension will help ensure that the 

public has sufficient time to review the 

proposed rule, the supporting technical 

documents and data available in the 

docket. 

Dated: March 2, 2015. 

Stephen D. Page, 

Director, Office of Air Quality Planning and 

Standards. 

[FR Doc. 2015–05550 Filed 3–9–15; 11:15 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 


Rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

EASTERN DIVISION

The Ohio State University,

Plaintiff

 v.

Skreened, Ltd. and Daniel Fox,

Defendants

:

:

:

:

:

Civil Action 2:12-cv-00662

Judge Frost

Magistrate Judge Abel

ORDER

Plaintiff The Ohio State University’s February 26, 2013 motion to vacate

mediation (doc. 27) is DENIED.

The Notice of Settlement Conference states that a party wishing to cancel the

mediation must initiate a telephone conference with the Magistrate Judge. Plaintiff

failed to do so. 

One reason that I require counsel to participate in a telephone conference is to

determine if amendments to the scheduling order are necessary. In its motion, plaintiff

indicates that it intends to file a motion for leave to file an amended complaint. The

scheduling order established November 17, 2012 as the deadline for amending the

pleadings. If plaintiff demonstrates good cause for its proposed amendment, Rule 16(b)

of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the scheduling order may have to be amended. 

While I do not force parties to mediate, I expect the parties to explain to me in a

telephone conference why they choose not to mediate. Counsel for plaintiff is

Case: 2:12-cv-00662-GLF-MRA Doc #: 29 Filed: 02/28/13 Page: 1 of 2 PAGEID #: <pageID>
ORDERED to initiate a telephone conference call with counsel and the Magistrate

Judge. It is further ORDERED that a client representative of both parties participate in

the telephone conference. 

The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to send a copy of this order to the Settlement

Week Mediator, Stephen Fitch, 65 S. State St., Ste. 1000, Columbus, Ohio 43215.

s/Mark R. Abel 

United States Magistrate Judge

2

Case: 2:12-cv-00662-GLF-MRA Doc #: 29 Filed: 02/28/13 Page: 2 of 2 PAGEID #: <pageID>
# Official Journal C 218/2010

| | ISSN 1725-2423
  doi:10.3000/17252423.C_2010.218.eng |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 218 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 5312 August 2010 |

ISSN 1725-2423

doi:10.3000/17252423.C_2010.218.eng

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 218

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 5312 August 2010

---

| Notice No | Contents | page |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | II   Information |
| | INFORMATION FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES |
| | European Commission |
| 2010/C 218/01 | Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case COMP/M.5836 — Bilfinger Berger/Hertel Group/Friday Eurotech) (1) | 1 |

Notice No

Contents

page

II   Information

INFORMATION FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

European Commission

2010/C 218/01

Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case COMP/M.5836 — Bilfinger Berger/Hertel Group/Friday Eurotech) (1)

1

---

| | IV   Notices |
| --- | --- |
| | NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES |
| | European Commission |
| 2010/C 218/02 | Euro exchange rates | 2 |
| | NOTICES FROM MEMBER STATES |
| 2010/C 218/03 | Summary information communicated by Member States on State aid granted in conformity with Commission Regulation (EC) No 736/2008 on the application of Articles 87 and 88 of the EC Treaty to State aid to small and medium-sized enterprises active in the production, processing and marketing of fisheries products (1) | 3 |
| 2010/C 218/04 | Information communicated by Member States regarding State aid granted under Commission Regulation (EC) No 1857/2006 on the application of Articles 87 and 88 of the Treaty to State aid to small and medium-sized enterprises active in the production of agricultural products and amending Regulation (EC) No 70/2001 | 4 |

IV   Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

European Commission

2010/C 218/02

Euro exchange rates

2

NOTICES FROM MEMBER STATES

2010/C 218/03

Summary information communicated by Member States on State aid granted in conformity with Commission Regulation (EC) No 736/2008 on the application of Articles 87 and 88 of the EC Treaty to State aid to small and medium-sized enterprises active in the production, processing and marketing of fisheries products (1)

3

2010/C 218/04

Information communicated by Member States regarding State aid granted under Commission Regulation (EC) No 1857/2006 on the application of Articles 87 and 88 of the Treaty to State aid to small and medium-sized enterprises active in the production of agricultural products and amending Regulation (EC) No 70/2001

4

---

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | (1)   Text with EEA relevance |

---

(1)   Text with EEA relevance

1

| EN | |
| --- | --- |

EN
1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

EASTERN DIVISION

Flint E. Topping,

Plaintiff

 v.

Ohio Adult Parole Authority,

Defendant

:

:

:

:

:

Civil Action 2:11-cv-00727

Judge Watson

Magistrate Judge Abel

Order

Plaintiff Flint E. Topping, a state inmate at the Lebanon Correctional Institution,

brings this action against defendant Ohio Adult Parole Authority (“OAPA”). This

matter is before the Magistrate Judge on plaintiff Flint E. Topping’s February 17, 2012

motion for an order to compel production of relevant and necessary documents (doc.

17). 

Allegations in the Complaint. The complaint alleges that in July 2008, OAPA

illegally subjected plaintiff to post-release control. On December 30, 2009, plaintiff was

informed that he had been placed on post-release control improperly and he was forced

to immediately leave the Turtle Creek Center Halfway House. Plaintiff was subjected to

legal and personal risk and injury. He suffered homelessness, harassment,

discrimination, loss of employment, and mental stress and anguish. The complaint also

Case: 2:11-cv-00727-MHW-MRA Doc #: 18 Filed: 03/08/12 Page: 1 of 3 PAGEID #: <pageID>
2

asserts that he was slandered in the newspapers. He was prevented from contacting or

visiting his children and other family members. 

Motion to Compel. Plaintiff seeks an order directing OAPA and other entities to

produce responses to his discovery requests. Plaintiff seeks documents from OAPA, the

Turtlecreek Halfway House, and the Scioto County Jail.

Plaintiff seeks narrative summary reports from defendant OAPA. Plaintiff

maintains that defendant OAPA refused to produce the requested document because it

is not a public record. Plaintiff did not properly serve defendant’s counsel with his

discovery requests. Rather, plaintiff sought the information directly from the OAPA.

Plaintiff is DIRECTED to serve his requests for discovery on defendant’s counsel.

Plaintiff’s motion with respect to Turtlecreek Halfway House and the Scioto

Count Jail is DENIED. Neither of these entities is a party to this case. If plaintiff seeks

discovery from these entities he must comply with Rule 45 of Federal Rules Civil

Procedure. 

Plaintiff Flint E. Topping’s February 17, 2012 motion for an order to compel

production of relevant and necessary documents (doc. 17) is DENIED.

Under the provisions of 28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1)(A), Rule 72(a), Fed. R. Civ. P., and

Eastern Division Order No. 91-3, pt. F, 5, either party may, within fourteen (14) days

after this Order is filed, file and serve on the opposing party a motion for

reconsideration by the District Judge. The motion must specifically designate the

Order, or part thereof, in question and the basis for any objection thereto. The District

Case: 2:11-cv-00727-MHW-MRA Doc #: 18 Filed: 03/08/12 Page: 2 of 3 PAGEID #: <pageID>
3

Judge, upon consideration of the motion, shall set aside any part of this Order found to

be clearly erroneous or contrary to law.

s/ Mark R. Abel 

United States Magistrate Judge 

Case: 2:11-cv-00727-MHW-MRA Doc #: 18 Filed: 03/08/12 Page: 3 of 3 PAGEID #: <pageID>
CAUSE NUMBER 03-15-00318-CR 

JAMAAL BRADLEY X IN THE COURT OF APPEALS X 

V. X TI-HRD DISTRICT X 

THE STATE OF TEXAS X STATE OF TEXAS 

APPELLANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS APPEAL 

TO THE HONORABLE THIRD COURT OF APPEALS: 

COMES NOW THE APPELLANT, JAMAAL BRADLEY, by and 

through his appointed attorney of record, Paul Evans, in the above entitled 

and numbered cause, and pursuant to Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure 

article 42.2(a), moves this Court to DISMISS the appeal at bar. 

WHEREFORE, Appellant requests that, after proper notice is given to 

all parties to this appeal, the motion be heard and this Court enter an order 

dismissing this appeal. 

Respectfully submitted, 

Law Office of Paul M. Evans 

811 Nueces Street 

Austin, Texas 78701 

(512)569-1418 

(512)551-1550 FAX 

pau1matthewevans@hotmail.com

ACCEPTED

03-15-00318-CR

11222327

THIRD COURT OF APPEALS

AUSTIN, TEXAS

6/20/2016 10:31:10 AM

JEFFREY D. KYLE

CLERK

 FILED IN 3rd COURT OF APPEALS AUSTIN, TEXAS 6/20/2016 10:31:10 AM JEFFREY D. KYLE Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM AND CONTENT 

Attorney for Appellant 

2003103 

BY; ‘ au/v\,Ca.a.j 6/ail ' 

J ' 1Bradley,Appe1la TD # 2005200 

Coffield Unit 

2661 FM 2054 

Tennessee Colony, TX 75884
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the above and foregoing 

was delivered by e-service facsimile unto the office of the prosecuting 

attorney for the State of Texas———the Travis County District Attorney, 

mailing address P.O. Box 1748, Austin, TX, 78767, physical address 509 

W. 11"‘ Street, Austin, TX, 78701—on this the Z Q day of 

l Mb ,2016. 

_/s/ Paul M. Evans 

PAUL M. EVANS 

CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE 

I hereby certify that the present document contains 254 words, all 

contents included. 

_/s/ Paul M. Evans 

PAUL M. EVANS
No. 48705.

#### Protest 803289-G of Walter Neuman (New York).

Opinion by

Cline, J.

The record showed that at the time of entry tags marked “Czechoslovia” were attached to the bales and that the importer was required to hand-mark the word “Czechoslovakia” on the bales before they were released from customs custody. The court was of the opinion that the tags, attached to the bales of feathers in this case accomplished a marking of the, goods sufficient to indicate to the consumer the name of the country of origin. The claim that the merchandise is not dutiable at the additional rate of 10 percent was therefore sustained. *Asiam*v. *United States*(25 C. C. P. A. 68, T. D. 49065): followed. *American Hatters & Furriers Co.*v. *United States*(1 Cust. Ct. 111, C. D. 31) and Abstracts 40549, 41128, and 42581 cited.
Exhibit 4.1


 


DESCRIPTION
OF THE REGISTRANT’S SECURITIES 


REGISTERED
PURSUANT TO SECTION 12 OF THE 


SECURITIES
EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934


 


As
of March 31, 2022, the only class of securities of Touchpoint Group Holdings Inc. registered under Section 12 of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”) is its Common Stock.


 


Description
of Common Stock


 


The
following description of our Common Stock is a summary and does not purport to be complete. It is subject to and qualified in
its entirety by reference to our Amended and Restated Articles of Incorporation (the “Articles of Incorporation”)
and our Amended and Restated Bylaws (the “Bylaws”), each of which are incorporated by reference as an exhibit to the
Annual Report on Form 10-K of which this Exhibit 4.1 is a part. We encourage you to read our Articles of Incorporation, our Bylaws
and the applicable provisions of the Delaware General Corporations Law for additional information.


 


Authorized
Capital Shares


 


Our
authorized capital shares consist of 1,750,000,000 shares of common stock, $0.0001 par value per share (“Common Stock”),
and 50,000,000 shares of series preferred stock, $0.0001 par value per share (“Preferred Stock”). The outstanding
shares of our Common Stock are fully paid and nonassessable.


 


Voting
Rights


 


Holders
of Common Stock are entitled to one vote per share on all matters voted on by the stockholders, including the election of directors.
Our Common Stock does not have cumulative voting rights.


 


Dividend
Rights


 


Subject
to the rights of holders of outstanding shares of Preferred Stock, if any, the holders of Common Stock are entitled to receive
dividends, if any, as may be declared from time to time by the Board of Directors in its discretion out of funds legally available
for the payment of dividends.


 


Liquidation
Rights


 


Subject
to any preferential rights of outstanding shares of Preferred Stock, holders of Common Stock will share ratably in all assets
legally available for distribution to our stockholders in the event of dissolution.


 


Other
Rights and Preferences


 


Our
Common Stock has no sinking fund or redemption provisions or preemptive, conversion or exchange rights. Holders of Common Stock
may act by unanimous written consent.


 


Listing


 


The
Common Stock is traded on the OTCQB under the trading symbol “TGHI.”
Exhibit 10(a)

AMENDMENT DATED MAY 11, 2001 TO THE
1997 TRW LONG-TERM INCENTIVE PLAN

TRW Inc., by action of the Compensation Committee of its Board of
Directors, hereby adopts this Amendment dated May 11, 2001 to the 1997 TRW
Long-Term Incentive Plan (the Plan).

I.

Effective as of the close of business on May 11, 2001, Section 2(e) of the
Plan is amended to read in its entirety as follows:



| |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                
| | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| | (e) Fair Market Value. For any particular date,
the average of the high and low sales prices of a
Share on such date on the New York Stock Exchange
Composite Transactions Listing as reported by the
New York Stock Exchange or such other source as may
be approved by resolution of the Committee (or if
there are no sales on such date, then the closing
sale price on such Listing on the nearest date
before such date).
# C_2023045EN.01003402.xml

| 6.2.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 45/34 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.2.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 45/34

---

Order of the General Court of 30 November 2022 — adidas International Trading and Others v Commission

(Case T-24/18) (1)

(2023/C 45/48)

Language of the case: English

The President of the Sixth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 94, 12.3.2018.

---
Order entered August 3 , 2015

In The 

## Court of Appeals **Fifth District of Texas at Dallas**

No. 05

- 15

- 00196

- CR
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellant

V.
ROSENDO M. CASTILLO, Appellee
On Appeal from the 439th Judicial District Court Rockwall County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 2

- 11

- 78



### O RDER

The Court GRANTS appellee’s July 24, 2015 motion to substituted counsel. We
DIRECT the Clerk to substitute April Smith as appellee’s retained attorney of record in place of
John F. Gussio III. We note that contemporaneously with the motion to substitute counsel, Ms. Smith filed a motion to extend time to file appell ee ’s brief. The motion was granted on July 27, 2015, granting an extension until August 25, 2015 to file appell ee ’s brief. It does not appear, however,
that a c opy of the order granting the extension request was sent to Ms. Smith. Accordingly, we
DIRECT the Clerk to forward to Ms. Smith, with this order, a copy of the Ju ly 27, 2015 order granting the extension of time to file appell ee’ s brief.
/s/ ADA BROWN JU STICE
Pursuant to 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5 , the court has determined that this opinionsho uld not * be publishe d an d is not precede nt except under the limit ed circu mstance s set forth in 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5 .4. 

### INTHE UNI TED S TATESCOU RT OFAPPEALS

FORTHE FIFTH CIRCU IT

N o. 09- 40186 C onfer enc e C al endar
UN I TE D S TA TE S OF AM ERI CA, P l ai n t i f f

- A pp el l ee
v. J OSE GONZAL EZ

- GARZ A , D e fe nda nt
- Appe l l ant

A pp ealf

rom t h e U n i t ed S t ates D i st ri ctC ou rt f or t h e S ou t h ern D i st ri ctof T exas U SD C N o. 7: 07- C R

- 541- 1
B ef ore G A R Z A , D E N N IS, an d E L R O D , C i rcui tJu dg es. P E R C U R I A M: * A pp eal i n g t h e Ju dg m en ti n a C ri m i n alC ase, Jose G on zal ez- G arza rai ses ar gum ent s t hat are f or ec l os ed by Un ited S ta tes v . B eta n co u rt, 586 F. 3d 303, 308- 09 ( 5t h Ci r . 2 00 9) , w hi c h r e af f i r m e d t he ho l di ng i n Un i t ed S t ate s v. G am ezG on zal ez , 3 19 F. 3d 6 95 , 7 00 ( 5t h Ci r . 2 00 3) , t hatk n o w l e dg e o f dr ug t yp e a nd qu an t i t y i s not a m ater i alel em en tof t h e of fen se. Th e G overnm en t ’ s m ot i on f or s u m m a r ya ffir m a n c e is G R A N T E D , a n d th e ju d g m e n t o f th e d is tr ic t c o u r t is AF F I RMED. United States Court of App eals Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D Februar y 12, 2010 Cha rl es R. F ulb ru g e II I Clerk Case: 09-40186 Document: 00511027598 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/12/2010
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Stephen J. Markman, Chief Justice

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano 

Richard H. Bernstein

Joan L. Larsen

Kurtis T. Wilder,

Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

 October 31, 2017

s1023

Order 

Clerk

October 31, 2017

154129

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 154129

COA: 332308

Emmet CC: 15-004126-FH

MICHAEL LAVERNE LYONS,

Defendant-Appellant.

_________________________________________/

By order of April 4, 2017, the application for leave to appeal the June 1, 2016 

order of the Court of Appeals was held in abeyance pending the decisions in People v 

Steanhouse (Docket No. 152849) and People v Masroor (Docket Nos. 152946-8). On 

order of the Court, the cases having been decided on July 24, 2017, 500 Mich 453 (2017), 

the application is again considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that 

the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.