alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
FIRST AMENDMENT TO MARKETING LICENSE AGREEMENT

    This First Amendment to the Marketing  License  Agreement (the "MLA") by and
between Summus, Ltd. ("LTD") and High Speed Net Solutions, Inc. ("HSNS") is made
and entered into as of the 16th day of August, 1999.

1.  The MLA is hereby amended to provide that the initial three year term of the
    MLA ends three years from June 15, 1999. Accordingly, the second sentence of
    Section 26.1 is hereby amended by changing "February 23, 2002" to read "June
    15,  2002".  Any  reference in the MLA to the initial three year term of the
    MLA shall mean the three year term ending June 15, 2002.

2.  This Amendment shall become effective upon the consummation of the merger of
    Summus, Ltd. and Summus Technologies, Inc. If the merger is not consummated,
    then this Amendment shall be null and void and of no force or effect.

3.  Except as otherwise  specifically modified herein the remaining terms of the
    MLA, as amended, shall remain in full force and effect.

    IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have signed this First Amendment to the
MLA as of the date first above written.

                                  SUMMUS, LTD.


                                  By:      /S/ Bjorn Jawerth
                                      -----------------------------------------
                                  Its:    President
                                      -----------------------------------------



                                  HIGH SPEED NET SOLUTIONS, INC.


                                  By:      /s/ Michael M. Cimino
                                      -----------------------------------------
                                  Its:     Chairman
                                      -----------------------------------------
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-6443

ADRIAN MARION SMITH,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

WARDEN JOHN MCCALL; CAPTAIN MELVIN BOSEMAN; CAPTAIN TINA 

SYPHERTT; DENNIS PATTERSON, Division of Operations; MAJOR 

MARSH,

Defendants – Appellees,

and

SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; SCDS 

CLASSIFICATION BELLINGER,

Defendants.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Columbia. Margaret B. Seymour, District 

Judge. (3:09-cv-02786-MBS)

Submitted: July 28, 2011 Decided: August 2, 2011

Before SHEDD, AGEE, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Adrian Marion Smith, Appellant Pro Se. Evan Markus Gessner, 

LIDE & PAULEY, LLC, Lexington, South Carolina, for Appellees.
2

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
3

PER CURIAM:

Adrian Marion Smith appeals the district court’s order 

denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) complaint. The 

district court referred this case to a magistrate judge pursuant 

to 28 U.S.C.A. § 636(b)(1)(B) (West 2006 & Supp. 2011). The 

magistrate judge recommended that relief be denied and advised 

Smith that failure to file timely specific objections to this 

recommendation could waive appellate review of a district court 

order based upon the recommendation.

The timely filing of specific objections to a 

magistrate judge’s recommendation is necessary to preserve 

appellate review of the substance of that recommendation when 

the parties have been warned of the consequences of 

noncompliance. Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th 

Cir. 1985); see also Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985). Smith 

has waived appellate review by failing to file specific 

objections after receiving proper notice. Accordingly, we 

affirm the judgment of the district court.

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and 

legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials 

before the court and argument would not aid the decisional 

process.

AFFIRMED
#### Ellis Silver Co., Inc. *v.*United States

No. 6793.

Entry No. 744372, etc.

Invoices dated Birmingham, England, February 17, 1942, etc.

Certified February 18, 1942, etc.

Entered at New York, N. Y., March 26, 1942, etc.

(Decided January 22, 1947)

*Goldwater & Flynn*for the plaintiff.

*Paul P. Rao,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Lawrence, Judge:

It has been agreed between the parties hereto that the issues herein relating to the above-mentioned merchandise are the same in all material respects as those decided in *United States*v. *Wm. S. Pitcairn Corp.,*33 C. C. P. A. (Customs) 183, C. A. D. 334, and that the record therein may be incorporated herein.

Upon the agreed facts I find the export value, as defined jn section 402 (d), Tariff Act of 1930, to be the proper basis for determining the values of said merchandise, and that such values are the appraised values, less additions made by importer on entries because of advances by the appraiser in similar cases.

Judgment will be entered accordingly.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

GABRIEL G. OCASIO,

Petitioner :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 476 EAL 2016

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from

the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 29th day of March, 2017

, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is

DENIED

.
IV 

110TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. CON. RES. 343 

Congratulating the Surety and Fidelity Association of America on its 100th 

anniversary. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 7, 2008 

Mr. GARY G. MILLER of California submitted the following concurrent 

resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Financial Services 

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 

Congratulating the Surety and Fidelity Association of 

America on its 100th anniversary. 

Whereas the Surety and Fidelity Association of America 

(SFAA) was formed in 1908 as the Surety Association 

of America, and is the association of insurance companies 

that write the vast majority of surety and fidelity bonds 

in the United States; 

Whereas surety and fidelity bonds facilitate commerce, assist 

in economic development, and protect consumers, taxpayers, and businesses; 

Whereas the SFAA has provided assistance to its members 

in the development of rules, procedures, risk classifications, and loss costs for surety and fidelity bonds; 


erowe on PROD1PC71 with BILLS
2 

•HCON 343 IH 

Whereas the SFAA has provided valuable services to the 

State insurance regulators in acting as a statistical agent 

and advisory organization for the States; 

Whereas the SFAA has provided valuable services to Federal 

and State legislatures in providing information and testimony of surety and fidelity issues; 

Whereas the SFAA has an active development and diversity 

function and has implemented its Model Contractor Development Program wherever needed to assist small and 

emerging contractors in obtaining bonding; 

Whereas the SFAA continues to develop and change to meet 

new issues in the industry; and 

Whereas the SFAA has provided outstanding service to the 

surety and fidelity industry and taken a leadership role 

in addressing and coordinating industry issues: Now, 

therefore, be it 

1 Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate 

2 concurring), That Congress congratulates the Surety and 

3 Fidelity Association of America on its 100th anniversary. 

Æ 


erowe on PROD1PC71 with BILLS
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 21-6841

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff - Appellee, 

v. 

DEONTRAYVIA ADAMS, 

Defendant - Appellant. 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, 

at Raleigh. Louise W. Flanagan, District Judge. (5:07-cr-00006-FL-1) 

Submitted: September 14, 2021 Decided: September 20, 2021

Before THACKER and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit 

Judge. 

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

Deontrayvia Adams, Appellant Pro Se. Jennifer P. May-Parker, Assistant United States 

Attorney, Joshua L. Rogers, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED 

STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 
2

PER CURIAM: 

Deontrayvia Adams appeals the district court’s order denying his 18 U.S.C. 

§ 3582(c)(1)(A)(i) motions for compassionate release. After reviewing the record, we 

conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in determining that the 18 U.S.C. 

§ 3553(a) factors weighed against granting compassionate release in Adams’ case. 

See United States v. Kibble, 992 F.3d 326, 329 (4th Cir. 2021) (per curiam) (stating 

standard of review). Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order on this basis. United 

States v. Adams, No. 5:07-cr-00006-FL-1 (E.D.N.C. May 20, 2021). We deny Adams’ 

motion to appoint counsel and dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal 

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would 

not aid the decisional process. 

AFFIRMED
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

RULE 13a-14(b) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934, AS AMENDED AND 

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

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Amendment No. 1 to Annual Report of Aptevo Therapeutics Inc. on Form 10-K/A for the period ending December 31, 2017 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

|   | (1) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and |
|--------|-----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | (2) | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company. |
|--------|-----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

| Date: July 27, 2018 |   | By:    | /s/ Jeff Lamothe                                             |
|---------------------|--------|--------|--------------------------------------------------------------|
|                |   |   | Jeff Lamothe                                                 |
|                |   |   | Senior Vice President, Chief Financial Officer,and Treasurer |

 

 

“This certification accompanies the Form 10-K/A to which it relates, is not deemed filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission and is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of Aptevo Therapeutics Inc. under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (whether made before or after the date of the Form-K), irrespective of any general incorporation language contained in such filing.”
July 30, 2013

Mr. Keith Teague

Keith Teague Air Tours

09424 Ferry Road

East Jordan, MI 49727

Dear Mr. Teague :

This is in response to your June 11 , 2013 letter sent to the public docket ( No. FAA

- 20 13

- 05 83 ) petitioning the Federal Aviat ion Administration for an ex emption from part 120 of

Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations ( 14 CFR) . That exemption, if granted, would allow

you to cover safety

- sensitive employees under one testing program

.

On July 15, 2013 , the FAA published the Combined Drug and Alcohol Testing Programs

final r ule (78 FR 41999) relating to air carrier operators and commuter or on

- demand

operators that also conduct commercial air tour operations to combine the drug and alcohol

testing required for each operation into one testing program . A copy o f this rule change is

enclosed for your information.

If you have any questions, please contact the FAAs Drug Abatement Division at (202) 267

- 8442 or drugabatement@faa.gov

. Because the relief you seek is now co vered under the new

rule, we will take no further action on your petition.

Sincerely,

/s/

Ida M. Klepper

Manager, Airmen and

Airspace Rules Division

Enclosure
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Angel FLORES, Defendant—Appellant.

No. 04-10261.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Sept. 12, 2005.*

Decided Sept. 15, 2005.

Sharon K. Sexton, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Phoenix, AZ, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Tara Allen, Esq., Tempe, AZ, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before: REINHARDT, RYMER and HAWKINS, Circuit Judges.

*

This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Angel Flores appeals his conviction and sentence following his guilty plea to second degree murder, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1153, 1111, 2, and use of a firearm in relation to a crime of violence, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 924(c), 2. Flores’ attorney has moved to withdraw pursuant to *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), on the ground that the appeal presents no arguable issues. Flores has not submitted a pro se supplemental brief, and no government brief has been filed.

Because our independent review of the record pursuant to *Penson v. Ohio,*488 U.S. 75, 82-83, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), indicates that Flores knowingly and voluntarily waived his right to appeal and was sentenced within the terms of the plea agreement, we enforce the waiver and dismiss the appeal. *See United States v. Nguyen,*235 F.3d 1179, 1182 (9th Cir.2000) (stating that an appeal waiver is valid when it is entered knowingly and voluntarily); *see also United States v. Cardenas,*405 F.3d 1046, 1048 (9th Cir.2005) (holding that the changes in sentencing law imposed by *United States v. Booker,*— U.S. -, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005), did not render waiver of appeal involuntary and unknowing).

*824Counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED, and the appeal is DISMISSED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Exhibit
32.2
 
 
 
 Certification
of CFO Pursuant to
 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350,
 As
Adopted Pursuant to
 Section
906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
 
 
 
 In
connection with the Quarterly Report of U.S. Energy Corp. (the "Company") on
Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), Robert Scott Lorimer,
Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, to the best of his knowledge, that:
 
 (1)           The
Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
 
 (2)           The
information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.
 
 
 
 
 /s/  Robert
      Scott LorimerRobert
      Scott Lorimer,Chief
      Financial OfficerMay
      5, 2009
 
 
 This
certification accompanies this Report pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not be deemed filed by the Company for
purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended.
 
 A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to
U.S. Energy Corp. and will be retained by U.S. Energy Corp. and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
Exhibit 32

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

         I, Gordon R. Arnold,  certify,  pursuant to 18 U.S.C.  Section 1350, as
adopted  pursuant to Section  906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002,  that the
quarterly report of Sierra Monitor  Corporation on Form 10-QSB for the quarterly
period ended March 31, 2005,  fully  complies with the  requirements  of Section
13(a) or  15(d)  of the  Securities  Exchange  Act of 1934 and that  information
contained  in such  quarterly  report on Form  10-QSB  fairly  presents,  in all
material respects,  the financial  condition and results of operations of Sierra
Monitor Corporation.

Date:   May 12, 2005                    By:   /s/ Gordon R. Arnold
                                              ------------------------
                                              Gordon R. Arnold
                                              Chief Executive Officer
                                              Chief Financial Officer



                                                                   Page 15 of 15
No. 46384.

#### Protest 45653-K of Greenberg & Josefsberg (New York).

Opinion by

Olivee, P. J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the .■atomizers in question are composed in chief value of decorated glass, similar to those the subject of Abstract 44140, the claim at 60 percent under paragraph 218 (f) was sustained.
(Reap. Dec. 9827)

#### Dorf International, Ltd. *v.*United States

Entry No. 920394.

(Decided October 27, 1960)

Plaintiff not represented by counsel.

*George Oochran Doiib,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Lawrence, Judge:

There was no appearance on behalf of plaintiff when the above-enumerated appeal for a reappraisement was called for hearing. The court thereupon ordered the case submitted.

It is provided by the rules of the court that in such an instance, after the opposite party has had an opportunity to present evidence on the issues, the case may be decided by the court on the record before it.

Accordingly, I have examined the record in the present appeal for a reappraisement and find nothing therein which tends in any way to overcome the presumption of correctness which attaches to the deci*541sion of the appraiser. I find and hold, therefore, that the proper value of the merchandise is the value returned by the appraiser.

Judgment will be entered accordingly.
Exhibit 10.9

----

|   | Reed N.    Brimhall |                           |
|--------|---------------------|--------------------------------|
|   |                |                           |   |
|   | By:                 | /s/ Reed      N. Brimhall |   |
|   |                | Reed      N. Brimhall          |   |
|   |                |                           |   |
|   |                |                           |   |

|   | URS      Corporation,       |                                      |
|--------|-----------------------------|-------------------------------------------|
|   | a      Delaware corporation |                                      |
|   |                        |                                      |   |
|   | By:                         | /s/ H.      Thomas Hicks             |   |
|   |                        | Name:      H. Thomas Hicks           |   |
|   |                        | Title:      Chief Financial Officer  |   |
|   |                        |                                      |   |

----
No. 48129.

#### Protest 93904-K of Dan Brechner & Co. (New York).

Opinion by

Tilson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel and on the authority of Abstract 47141 the antimony figures in question were held dutiable at 3 cents per pound, but not less than *22%*nor more than 45 percent ad valorem, under the provision for “articles or wareg not specially provided for, if composed wholly or in chief value of lead, but not plated with platinum, gold, or silver, or colored with gold lacquer, whether wholly or partly manufactured,” under paragraph 397 and T. D. 49753, as claimed.
Exhibit 32.1
 
 
 
 Certification of CEO Pursuant to
 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,
 As Adopted Pursuant to
 Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
 
 
 
 In connection with the Quarterly Report of U.S. Energy Corp. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), Keith G. Larsen Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of his knowledge, that:
 
 (1)           The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
 
 (2)           The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.
 
 
 
 /s/ Keith G. LarsenKeith G. Larsen,Chief Executive OfficerAugust 9, 2010
 
 
 This certification accompanies this Report pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
 
 A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to U.S. Energy Corp. and will be retained by U.S. Energy Corp. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 85 (Thursday, May 3, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Page 24584]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-8482]


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

FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM


Notice of Proposals to Engage in Permissible Nonbanking 
Activities or to Acquire Companies that are Engaged in Permissible 
Nonbanking Activities

    The companies listed in this notice have given notice under section 
4 of the Bank Holding Company Act (12 U.S.C. 1843) (BHC Act) and 
Regulation Y (12 CFR Part 225) to engage de novo, or to acquire or 
control voting securities or assets of a company, including the 
companies listed below, that engages either directly or through a 
subsidiary or other company, in a nonbanking activity that is listed in 
Sec.  225.28 of Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.28) or that the Board has 
determined by Order to be closely related to banking and permissible 
for bank holding companies. Unless otherwise noted, these activities 
will be conducted throughout the United States.
    Each notice is available for inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank 
indicated. The notice also will be available for inspection at the 
offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their 
views in writing on the question whether the proposal complies with the 
standards of section 4 of the BHC Act. Additional information on all 
bank holding companies may be obtained from the National Information 
Center website at www.ffiec.gov/nic/.
    Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding the applications must be 
received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of 
Governors not later than May 18, 2007.
    A. Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas (W. Arthur Tribble, Vice 
President) 2200 North Pearl Street, Dallas, Texas 75201-2272:
    1. Professional Capital, Inc., Dallas, Texas; to engage de novo in 
management consulting activities, pursuant to section 
225.28(b)(9)(i)(A) of Regulation Y.

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, April 30, 
2007.
Robert deV. Frierson,
Deputy Secretary of the Board.
[FR Doc. E7-8482 Filed 5-2-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6210-01-S