alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Case No. 5,581.

#### GOODYEAR et al. v. PHELPS et al.

[3 Blatchf. 91.] 1

Circuit Court, N. D. New York.

Nov. 28, 1853.

Patents — Infringement bt a Corporation — Liability op Its Directors and Agents.

The directors of a manufacturing corporation, who manage and superintend its business, and under whose direction it manufactures and sells articles which are an infringement of a patent, and its agents, who conduct its business of selling such articles, are responsible for such infringement, and will be restrained by injunction.

[Applied in Poppenhusen v. Falke, Case No! 11,279. Cited in Goodyear v. Berry, Id. 5,556; Jones v. Osgood, Id. 7,487; Need-ham v. Washburn, Id. 10,082; American Cotton-Tie Supply Co. v. McCready, Id. 295; Cahoone Barnet Manufg Co. v. Rubber & Celluloid Harness Co., 45 Fed. 584; Edison Electric Light Co. v. Packard Electric Co., 61 Fed. 1006.]

In equity. This was an application [by Charles Goodyear and the New England Car-Spring Company] for a provisional injunction [against Anson G. Phelps and others] to restrain an infringement of letters patent [No. 3,633], granted to Charles Goodyear, June 15th, 1844, and reissued December 25th, 1849 [Nos. 156 and 157], for an “improvement, in India-rubber fabrics.” It appeared that five of the defendants were stockholders in and directors of a Connecticut corporation; that another of the defendants was a stockholder in the corporation, and its secretary and general agent; and that the articles claimed to infringe were made by the corporation at its factory in Connecticut, and sold at its office in New York by. such secretary.and general agent, and by one of said directors, who was its selling agent. It was urged by the defendants, among other things, that they were not liable individually for the infringement charged, but that the corporation alone was liable.

*712James T. Brady, for plaintiffs.

Francis B. Gutting and George Gifford, for defendants.

NELSON, Circuit Justice

(after disposing of various points raised by the defendants). A point has been made, that the defendants are not liable for the infringement charged, as the only participation alleged in the same is as stockholders of an incorporated company, which company is engaged in manufacturing and selling the patented article. However that may be, it appears that the defendants are either directors of the company, who have the management and superintendence of the business, and under whose direction the articles are manufactured and sold, or are the agents of the same, concerned in conducting the business. On this ground, I am of opinion that they are responsible, and are properly made parties defendants. Injunction ordered.

[For other cases involving this patent, see note to Goodyear v. Central R. Co., Case No. 5,563.]
**EXHIBIT 10.1**
On April 29, 2004, the Board of Directors of each of Nortel Networks Corporation (the “Company”)and the Company’s principal operating subsidiary, Nortel Networks Limited (“NNL”), approved initialcompensation arrangements effective April 27, 2004 for our new president and chief executiveofficer, William Owens, subject to later review. The initial compensation arrangements providedthat Mr. Owens would receive a base salary at an annual rate of U.S.$900,000 and would be eligiblefor a target annual bonus of 200% of base salary under the annual bonus plan of NNL, based on thegenerally applicable performance criteria under such plan. The terms of the approved compensationarrangements also provided that Mr. Owens would be eligible to participate in all of the employeebenefit plans of the Company’s U.S. subsidiary, Nortel Networks Inc., and the Company’s ExecutiveRetention and Termination Plan in accordance with the generally applicable terms of such plans.
| (1)   | Such Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2009, 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 such Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2009, fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Comcam, Inc. |
|-----------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Date: May 4, 2010  | By:    | /s/John Dent                |   |
|-------------------------|--------|-----------------------------|--------|
|                    |   | John Dent                   |   |
|                    |   | Principal Financial Officer |   |
|                    |   |                        |   |
No. 74-5436.

No. 74-5816.

#### Horne *v.*United States, Trigg *v.*Tennessee,

*ante,*p. 947; and

*ante,*p. 938. Petitions for rehearing denied.
Exhibit 13.2

CERTIFICATION 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 Annual Report of Minera México, S.A. de C.V. (the "Company") on Form 20-F for the period ending
December 31, 2003, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Héctor Nieto Castilla, Finance Director of the Company, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



|Date: July 14, 2004 |  |     |                                                                            
|------------------- |  | --- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                    |  | By: | /s/HÉCTOR NIETO CASTILLAName: Héctor Nieto Castilla
Title: Finance Director

A
signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Minera México, S.A. de C.V. and will be retained by Minera
México, S.A. de C.V. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its Staff upon request.

---
May29,2015 

U.S. Department ofTranspottation 

Docket Operations 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE 

Washington, DC 20590 

EC 

Avtallon Systems Eng1neenng Company 

Re: Amendment to Section 333 exemption #11509, docket# F AA-20 15-0481 granted Aviation 

Systems Engineering Company and approved May 8, 2015 

Dear Sir/Madam, 

Aviation Systems Engineering Company (ASEC) was issued exemption #11509 (the Exemption) 

under Section 333 of the FAA Modernization and Refonn Act of2012 (the Reform Act) for the purpose 

of conducting umnanned aircraft system (UAS) operations for technical demonstration and training 

purposes. ASEC hereby requests an amendment to the Exemption to include additional types of multirotor aud fixed-wing U AS for operation in full compliance with the conditions set fotth within the 

Exemption. 

ASEC requests petmission to operate the following small UAS (sUAS) based on their type, size, 

weight, and speed under the same terms and conditions contained withiu the Exemption and provided by 

the parameters set forth in regards to capabilities and limitations identified within each sUAS's flight 

operations, user, or maintenance manuals. 

Aircraft Model Class Maximum Max Speed Manufacturer Takeoff Weight 

Prioria Robotics Maveric Fixed-wing, electric 2000 g 26 let 

Prioria Robotics Hex Rotorcraft, electric 6000 g 23 kt 

Prioria Robotics Hex Mini Rotorcraft, elech·ic 2200 g 19 kt 

Precision Hawk Hawkeye Lancaster Fixed-wing, electric 5 lb -

Additionally, ASEC requests pennission to operate the fixed-wing aircraft that are listed above 

within the same terms and conditions contained within the Exemption and provided by the parameters set 

forth in regards to capabilities and limitations identified within the flight operations specifications 

provided by each manufacturer. Although the fixed-wing UAS identified within this request are of a 
EC:: 

Av1ahon Systems Eng1neenng Company 

different platform in comparison to the DTI Inspire l and DJI Phantom previously authorized for ASEC 

use by FAA exemption, these UAS comply with all requirements set fmth in the Reform Act in regards to 

the Secretmy's authority to allow for UAS operations based on the type, size, weight, speed, and other 

operating capabilities of the aircraft. 

ASEC respectfully requests the same finding from the FAA as provided to Aerial Mob, LLC as to its 

amended exemption,# I I 066A, docket ID FAA-2014-0353, dated February 2, 2015. The FAA found the 

amendment request was not precedent setting, that good cause exists for not publishing a summaty of the 

petition in the Federal Register, and that any delay in acting on the petition would be detrimental to the 

organization. 

That1k you for your time in regards to this petition and please send con·espondence to: 

Brent Klavon 

ASEC, Inc. 

904-772-8442 

Brent.klavon@asec-incorporated.corn 

On behalf of ASEC, I look forwm·d to your response. 

Page 2 of2
Amendment to the Employment Agreement between the Company and Mr. Wren



 Exhibit 10.1 
 AMENDMENT TO 
 EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT 
 This Amendment to Employment Agreement (“Amendment”) is made by and between Neutral Tandem, Inc. (the “Company”) and Rian J. Wren (the “Executive”). This Amendment is made as of
January 21, 2008. 
 BACKGROUND 
 1. The Company and Executive entered into an Employment Agreement dated February 6, 2006 (the “Agreement”). 
 2. The
parties wish to amend the Agreement to reflect the following change. 
 THE AGREEMENT 
 The parties agree as follows: 
 1.
Definitions. All capitalized terms not defined in this Amendment have the same meanings given to those terms in the Agreement. 
 2.
Amendment and Restatement of Section 2.1. Section 2.1 of the Agreement is hereby amended and restated in its entirety as follows: 
 Effective as of January 1, 2008, the Executive shall receive for all services rendered under this Agreement an annualized base salary of $350,000, subject to federal and state withholding requirements, payable in accordance with the
Company’s usual payroll practices. Such salary shall be adjusted no less than annually at the discretion of the Compensation Committee of the Board, but in no event will the base salary be reduced. 
 3. Section References. Section titles used in this Amendment have no substantive meaning and are not a part of the parties’ agreement.

 4. Successors and Assigns. This Amendment is binding upon and inures to the benefit of the successors and permitted assigns of the
parties. 
 5. Entire Agreement. Except as expressly modified by this Amendment, the Agreement is and will remain in full force and
effect in accordance with its terms and constitutes the legal and binding obligations of the Company and Executive. This Amendment, including the Agreement, is the complete agreement of the parties and supersedes any prior agreements or
representations, whether oral or written, with respect to the subject matter of this Amendment. 
 The Company and Executive have executed this Amendment as
of the date first set forth above. 
  

									
	 Neutral Tandem, Inc.
	 		 	Rian J. Wren
					
	 By:
	 	  
	 		 	By:	 	  

	 Name:
	 	  
	 		 		 	
	 Title:
JENNIFERM.GRANHOLMGOVERNORDEPARTMENTOFENVIRONMENTAL QUALITYLANSINGSTEVENE.CHESTERDIRECTORSeptember19, 2008Ms.Cheryl NewtonUnited States EnvironmentalProtectionAgencyRegion577WestJackson Boulevard (A-18J)Chicago, Illinois 60604-3507DearMs. Newton:Through this letter,the MichiganDepartmentofEnvironmental Quality(MDEQ) issupplementingtheinformation conveyedtotheU.S.Environmental ProtectionAgency(EPA)onDecember6, 2007, regardingstateauthoritiesnecessarytoimplementtheClean Air Act's,Section 110 infrastructure requirementsforcurrentand prospectivefutureNationalAmbientAirQuality Standards.Section110(a)(2)(G)requires statestoprovideforauthoritytoaddress activities causingimminent and substantial endangermenttopublic health, including contingencyplans toimplementtheemergency episode provisionin theirStateImplementation Plans.The MichiganNatural ResourcesandEnvironmental ProtectionAct,1994PA451,asamended(Act451),MCLR324.5518provides authorityfor theMDEQtorequire immediate discontinuationofaircontaminant discharges that constituteanimminentand substantial endangermenttothe publichealth, safety,orwelfare,ortotheenvironment.Thisauthority is not limitedtoany specificpollutants and certainly encompassesallsize fractions of particulate matter.Asindicatedin theletterofDecember6,2007, theMDEQwillreviseadministrative rulestoimplement emergencyactionplans whentheEPAestablishes revised significantharm levels forPM2,5,ifneeded.Intheinterim,theMDEQ has adequate emergencyepisode authority.Additionally,theMDEQparticipates inongoingprogramssuch asEnviroFlashandAirNowtoalertthepublic about air quality,andprovides current air quality statuson theMDEQ webpages.If you have questions about this issue, please contact Ms. MaryMaupin,AirQuality Division,at5 17-373-7039.cc:Mr.JohnSummerhays, EPAMr. JimSygo,DeputyDirector,MDEQMs.MaryMaupin,MDEQCONSTITUTIONHALL525WEST ALLEGANSTREET*PO.BOX30260LANSING.MICHIGAN48909-7760www.michigan.gov(517)373-7023
# C_2014395EN.01001901.xml

| 10.11.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 395/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.11.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 395/19

---

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 3 September 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Vilniaus apygardos administracinis teismas — Lithuania) — ‘Baltlanta’ UAB v Lietuvos valstybė

(Case C-410/13) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Structural funds - Economic, social and territorial cohesion - Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 - Article 38 - Regulation (EC) No 2792/1999 - Article 19 - Fisheries - Court proceedings at national level - Obligation on the part of the Member State to take the measures necessary to ensure the successful implementation of the decision relating to the grant of funds following court proceedings))

(2014/C 395/23)

Language of the case: Lithuanian

Referring court

Vilniaus apygardos administracinis teismas

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant:‘Baltlanta’ UAB

Defendant: Lietuvos valstybė

Intervening parties: Nacionalinė mokėjimo agentūra prie Žemės ūkio ministerijos, Lietuvos Respublikos žemės ūkio ministerija, Lietuvos Respublikos finansų ministerija

Operative part of the judgment

Article 38(1)(e) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 of 21 June 1999 laying down general provisions on the Structural Funds, Article 19 of Council Regulation (EC) No 2792/1999 of 17 December 1999 laying down the detailed rules and arrangements regarding Community structural assistance in the fisheries sector, as amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 2369/2002 of 20 December 2002, and Sections 6 and 7 of the Guidelines on the closure of assistance (2000 to 2006) from the Structural Funds, adopted by Commission Decision COM(2006)3424 final of 1 August 2006, must be interpreted as neither obliging the State authorities concerned to inform the European Commission of the existence of court proceedings relating to an administrative decision on the eligibility of an application for financial assistance such as that at issue in the main proceedings, nor to take the measures necessary so that funds that have been provided are reserved for the disputed assistance until the question of the award of the assistance has been finally decided.

---

(1)  OJ C 284, 28.9.2013.

---
EXHIBIT 32.1



CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



I, Jo S. Major, Jr., certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Annual Report of Avanex Corporation on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended
June 30, 2006 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 Annual Report on Form 10-K fairly presents in all material respects the financial
condition and results of operations of Avanex Corporation.



Date:

September 27, 2006By:

/s/    JO S. MAJOR,
JR.Name:

Jo. S. Major, Jr.Title:

President and Chief Executive Officer and Chairman of the Board of Directors




I, Cal R.
Hoagland, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Annual Report of Avanex Corporation on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2006 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 Annual Report on Form 10-K fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and results of
operations of Avanex Corporation.



Date:

September 27, 2006By:

/s/    CAL R.
HOAGLANDName:

Cal R. HoaglandTitle:

Chief Financial Officer
#### Holzer & Co. et al. *v.*United States

No. 6893.

Entry No. 726541, etc.

Invoices dated London, England, February 12, 1945, etc.

Certified February 12, 1945, etc.

Entered at New York, N. Y., August 3, 1945, etc.

(Decided February 18, 1947)

*Siegel, Mandell & Davidson*for the plaintiffs.

*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 *397C. 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 in section 402 (d), Tariff Act of 1930, to be the proper basis for determining the value of said merchandise, and that such values are the appraised values, less additions made by importers on entries because of advances by the appraiser in similar cases.

Judgment will be entered accordingly.
No. 96-7330.

#### Daws v. Nevada.

Sup. Ct. Nev. Certiorari denied.
No. 46447.

#### Protests 30071-K etc., of Wendling Nathan Co. et al. (San Francisco).

Opinion by

Walker, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise is similar to that the subject of *Seaboard Lumber Sales Co.*(5 Cust. Ct. 161, C. D. 391), it was held that allowance should have been made for planing or tonguing and grooving, as said tax is only assessable on the net footage imported. The protests were sustained.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK>  0001057234
<NAME> UNIVERSAL COMPRESSION HOLDINGS, INC.

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                           2,927
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   22,469
<ALLOWANCES>                                     (123)
<INVENTORY>                                     10,272
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                37,032
<PP&E>                                         313,171
<DEPRECIATION>                                (17,647)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 437,991
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           13,290
<BONDS>                                        343,927
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                         13
<COMMON>                                             3
<OTHER-SE>                                      80,758
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   437,991
<SALES>                                         43,588
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               129,498
<CGS>                                           36,390
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   67,400
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                65,490
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   240
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              29,313
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (3,392)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (1,031)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (2,361)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (2,361)
<EPS-BASIC>                                          0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
No. 96-286.

#### City of Albuquerque et al. *v.*Church on the Rock et al.

C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 45264.

#### Protests 595045-G, etc., of Biddle Purchasing Co. et al. (New York).

Opinion by

Evans. J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.
EXHIBIT 32.1



CERTIFICATION 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 USIP.Com,  Inc. (the  "Company") on
Form 10-QSB for the period ended June 30, 2004 as filed with the  Securities and
Exchange  Commission  on the  date  hereof  (the  "Report"),  I,  Craig  Burton,
President  of the  Company,  certify,  pursuant to 18 U.S.C.  section  1350,  as
adopted pursuant to section 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002, that to the
best of 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 result of operations of the Company.

s/s Craig Burton
Craig Burton
President, USIP.Com, Inc.


Date: May 9, 2005
### SERVE D JUN E16 , 201 1

U.S . DEPARTMEN T O FTRANSPORTATIO N

OFFIC EO FHEARING S •-^'^l:^f{ l Qi : WASHINGTON , D C • '-^^'^OfiM7|Q\ j I N TH EMATTE RO F' ' ' '• hP^ ; [ , q CORNERSTON EAVIATION , INC . FA A DOCKE T NO . [T O B EASSIGNED ]

(Civi l Penalt y Action ) FDMS NO . FAA-2011-048 1 NOTIC EO FASSIGNMEN T O FPROCEEDIN G Thi s proceedin g (heretofor e designate da s Cas e No . 201INM070022 ) ha s bee n assigne dt o Administrativ e Law Judg e Richar dC . Goodwin . Al l future pleading s an d othe r conununication s regardin g thi s proceedin g shal l b e serve do nth e Judge , th e FA A Hearin g Docket, an dth e othe r person s o nth e attache dServic e List .

Ronni e A . Yode r Chie f Administrativ e La w Judg ' Attachmen t

- Service Lis tFDMS No . FAA-2011-048 1 (Civi l Penalty Action ) SERVIC ELIS T ORIGINA L& ON ECOP Y Federa l Aviatio n Administratio n 80 0 Independenc e Avenue , S.W . Washington , D C 2059 1 Attention : Hearin g Docke t Clerk , AGC-43 0 Wilbu r Wrigh t Building—Suit e 2WI000 ' ON ECOP Y SusanHorstman , Chie f

Executiv e Officer Cornerston e Aviation , Inc. , Responden t 33 7 North237 0 Wes t

#13 0 Sal t Lake City , U T 8411 6 TEL : 801-355-224 4 Jeffrey M . Harper , Complainant' s Counse l Attorney , Offic e o f

th e Regional Counse l Northwes t

Mountai n Region , ANM- 7 Federa l Aviatio n Administratio n 160 1 Lin dAvenue , S.W . Renton , W

A 9805 7 TEL : 425-227-216 1 FAX : 425-227-100 7 Th e Honorabl e Richar dC . Goodwin , Administrativ e Law Judg e Offic e o f Hearings , M-2 0 U.S . Departmen t

o f Transportatio n 120 0 Ne w Jerse y Avenue , S,E . Eas t Buildin g Groun dFloor , Roo mE12-32 0 Washington , D C 2059 0 TEL : 202-366-213 9 Attorney-Adviso r 202-366-512 1 Legal Assistan t FAX : 202-366-753 6

Servic e wa s b y U.S . Mail . Fo r servic e i n perso n or

b y expedite dcourier , us e th e followin g address : Federa l Aviatio n Administration , 60 0 Independenc e Avenue , S.W. , Wilbur Wrigh t Building—Suit e 2W1000 , Washington . D C 20591 ; Attention : Hearin g Docke t Clerk , AGC-430 . - 2 -