alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Justice

###### Antitrust Division 

                    Notice is hereby given that, on December 17, 2007, pursuant to Section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301*et seq.*                     (“the Act”), Ultrafine Grained Titanium for Near-net Shape Forging—A Pathway to Titanium Market Expansion has filed written notifications simultaneously with the Attorney General and the Federal Trade Commission disclosing (1) the identities of the parties to the venture and (2) the nature and objectives of the venture. The notifications were filed for the purpose of invoking the Act's provisions limiting the recovery of antitrust plaintiffs to actual damages under specified circumstances.                 

Pursuant to Section 6(b) of the Act, the identities of the parties to the venture are: ATI AIlvac, Monroe, NC; and GE Global Research, Niskayuna, NY. The general area of this group research project's planned activity is to develop a novel ultrafine grained titanium billet process that will enable both near-net shape forging of standard alloys into complex components for aviation, energy, transportation and military markets. 

Patricia A. Brink, 

Deputy Director of Operations,  Antitrust Division.

 [FR Doc. E8-10139 Filed 5-8-08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4410-11-M
# C_2015198EN.01000301.xml

| 15.6.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 198/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.6.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 198/3

---

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 16 April 2015 — European Parliament v Council of the European Union

(Joined Cases C-317/13 and C-679/13) (1)

1

((Action for annulment - Police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters - New psychoactive substance subjected to control measures - Determination of legal basis - Legal framework applicable following the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon - Transitional provisions - Secondary legal basis - Consultation of Parliament))

(2015/C 198/03)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: European Parliament (represented by: F. Drexler, A. Caiola and M. Pencheva, Agents)

Applicant:

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: K. Pleśniak and A.F. Jensen, Agents)

Defendant:

Intervener in support of the defendant: Republic of Austria (represented by: C. Pesendorfer, Agent)

Intervener in support of the defendant:

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls Council Decision 2013/129/EU of 7 March 2013 on subjecting 4-methylamphetamine to control measures and Council Implementing Decision 2013/496/EU of 7 October 2013 on subjecting 5-(2-aminopropyl)indole to control measures; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls Council Decision 2013/129/EU of 7 March 2013 on subjecting 4-methylamphetamine to control measures and Council Implementing Decision 2013/496/EU of 7 October 2013 on subjecting 5-(2-aminopropyl)indole to control measures;

| 2. | Declares that the effects of Decision 2013/129 and Implementing Decision 2013/496 are to be maintained until the entry into force of new acts intended to replace them; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Declares that the effects of Decision 2013/129 and Implementing Decision 2013/496 are to be maintained until the entry into force of new acts intended to replace them;

| 3. | Orders the Council of the European Union to pay the costs; |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the Council of the European Union to pay the costs;

| 4. | Orders the Republic of Austria to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Orders the Republic of Austria to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 226, 3.8.2013.

1

OJ C 52, 22.2.2014.

---
# C_2014282EN.01000802.xml

| 25.8.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 282/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.8.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 282/8

---

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 19 June 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundespatentgericht- Germany) — Bayer CropScience AG v Deutsches Patent- und Markenamt

(Case C-11/13) (1)

1

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Patent law - Plant protection products - Supplementary protection certificate - Regulation (EC) No 1610/96 - Articles 1 and 3 - Terms ‘product’ and ‘active substances’ - Safener))

2014/C 282/11

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Referring court

Bundespatentgericht

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Bayer CropScience AG

Applicant:

Defendant: Deutsches Patent- und Markenamt

Defendant:

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The term ‘product’ in Article 1.8 and Article 3(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1610/96 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 July 1996 concerning the creation of a supplementary protection certificate for plant protection products, and the term ‘active substances’ in Article 1.3 of that regulation, must be interpreted as meaning that those terms may cover a substance intended to be used as a safener, where that substance has a toxic, phytotoxic or plant protection action of its own.

---

(1)  OJ C 86, 23.3.2013.

1

---
No. 43211.

#### Protest 941618-G of B. A. McKenzie & Co., Inc. (Seattle).

Opinion by

Tilson, J.

On the question of whether or not the skirts are composed in part of braid the original decision was adhered to and they were held to be entireties dutiable at 90 percent under paragraph 1529. The separate jumpers were held dutiable at 50 cents per pound and 50 percent ad valorem under paragraph 1114 as claimed.
# C_2013114EN.01004802.xml

| 20.4.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 114/48 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.4.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 114/48

---

Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 27 February 2013 — Kimman v Commission

(Case F-16/12) (1)

1

2013/C 114/74

Language of the case: French

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

---

(1)  OJ C 138, 12.5.2012, p. 33.

1

---
exv10w3



 





Exhibit 10.3




Description of Compensation Payable to Non-Employee Directors




     The non-employee directors of Endwave Corporation (the “Company”) will receive for fiscal year
2008 and thereafter, until changed by the Board of Directors, fees for service on the Company’s
Board of Directors as listed in the table below. The members of the Board of Directors are also
eligible for reimbursement for travel expenses incurred in connection with attendance at Board of
Directors and committee meetings in accordance with Company policy.



	 	 	 	 	 
	Board Membership Fees Payable to Non-Employee Directors	 	 	 	 
	Non-Employee Director Annual Retainer
	 	$	25,000	 
	Board Chair Annual Retainer
	 	$	10,000	 
	Audit Committee Chair Annual Retainer
	 	$	16,000	 
	Audit Committee Member Annual Retainer
	 	$	6,000	 
	Compensation Committee Chair Annual Retainer
	 	$	8,000	 
	Compensation Committee Member Annual Retainer
	 	$	3,000	 
	Nominating and Governance Committee Chair Annual Retainer
	 	$	3,000	 
	Nominating and Governance Committee Member Annual Retainer
	 	$	0	 
	Board Meeting Fee (in person)
	 	$	0	 
	Board Meeting Fee (telephonic)
	 	$	0	 
	Committee Meeting Fee (in person)
	 	$	0	 
	Committee Meeting Fee (telephonic)
	 	$	0	 






     Non-employee directors are eligible to receive automatic option grants made under the
Company’s 2000 Non-Employee Director Plan and the Company’s 2007 Equity Incentive Plan. Pursuant
to these plans, each non-employee director is granted an option, referred to as an initial option,
to purchase 20,000 shares of common stock automatically upon his or her initial election or
appointment to the Board of Directors. Each non-employee director is also granted an option,
referred to as an annual option, to purchase an additional 10,000 shares of common stock each year
after his or her election or appointment to the Board of Directors. Such annual option is granted
on May 1. In either case, if any non-employee director has not served in that capacity for the
entire period since the preceding grant date, then the number of shares subject to the annual grant
will be reduced, pro rata, for each full quarter the director did not serve during the previous
period. All such options expire after ten years and have an exercise price equal to the fair
market value on the date of grant. All initial options vest over four years at the rate of 1/48 of
the total option shares per month. Annual options granted after February 2008 vest over one year
at the rate of 1/12 of the total option shares per month. The Company’s non-employee directors are
also eligible to participate in the Company’s 2007 Equity Incentive Plan on a discretionary basis.
No. 39219.

#### Protest 876854-G of S. Lisk & Bro. (New York).

Opinion by

Sullivan, J.

The official sample consists of a colored cardboard box with a picture of a boy and girl using these sets. The box encloses 28 small blocks of wood with letters pasted thereon, also a small metal box containing an ink pad. It was found that the picture and general get-up of the article indicates it is designed to be used by children. The court said that even if plaintiffs had established by competent proof.it. is not a. toy there is nothing in the record to bring it within any of the claims made. The protest was therefore overruled.
No. 96-449.

#### Johnston *v.*United States.

C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 62113.

#### The Borregaard Co., Inc., and F. L. Kraemer Co. et al. *v.*United States,

protests 243631-K, etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise, facts, and issues are the same in all material respects as those the subject of *R. J. Saunders & Co., Inc.*v. *United States*(37 Cust. Ct. 267, C. D. 1834), the collector was directed to reliquidate the entries, assessing duty upon the basis of the unit appraised value per conditioned pound or kilo, multiplied by the total number of conditioned pounds or kilos, as set forth in the invoices.
See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 12.31 (mandating automatic life sentence, without 1

the possibility of parole, in capital cases where the State does not seek the death penalty). 

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

OF TEXAS

NO. PD-0963-10

SCOTTIE LOUIS FORCEY, Appellant

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS

ON APPELLANT’S PETITION FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW

FROM THE TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

JOHNSON COUNTY

KEASLER, J., delivered the opinion of the Court in which KELLER, P.J., PRICE,

WOMACK, HERVEY, and COCHRAN, JJ., joined. MEYERS and JOHNSON, JJ., dissented.

O P I N I O N

A jury convicted Scottie Louis Forcey of capital murder, committed in 2008, when

Forcey was a juvenile, and the judge sentenced Forcey to life imprisonment without the

possibility of parole. Among other points of error, Forcey raised the following three related 1

complaints on appeal challenging the constitutionality of his sentence: (1) that his sentence
FORCEY—2

 Forcey v. State, No. 10-09-00335-CR, 2010 Tex. App. LEXIS 3820, at *1 (Tex. 2

App.—Waco May 19, 2010) (not designated for publication). 

 Id. at *8-9. 

3

 No. PD–0123-10, 2010 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 1568, at *15 (Tex. Crim. App. 4

Nov. 17, 2010).

 Cf. Pena v. State, 285 S.W.3d 459, 464 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009) (“We hold that, 5

by failing to distinguish the rights and protections afforded under the Texas due course of

law provision from those provided under the Fourteenth Amendment before the trial

judge in this context, Pena failed to preserve his complaint that the due course of law

provides greater protection for appellate review.”).

violates the federal and state constitutional prohibitions against cruel and unusual

punishment; (2) that the trial judge erred in ruling that Texas Penal Code Section 12.31, as

applied to juvenile defendants, before the September 1, 2009, amendment, is not

unconstitutional because a life sentence, without the possibility of parole, for capital murder

is cruel and unusual and disproportionate; and (3) that his sentence is disproportionate

punishment for capital murder. The Waco Court of Appeals rejected Forcey’s claims. We 2 3

granted Forcey’s petition for discretionary review to review the court of appeals’s resolution

of these issues. 

Recently, in Meadoux v. State, we held that the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition

against cruel and unusual punishment does not bar a juvenile from being sentenced to life

imprisonment without the possibility of parole. Forcey has never argued that the Texas 4

Constitution’s prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment provides any greater

protection than the Eighth Amendment. Accordingly, in light of our decision in Meadoux,

5
FORCEY—3

we affirm the court of appeals’s resolution of Forcey’s first two points of error. We also

agree with the court of appeals’s resolution of Forcey’s third point of error. Forcey presented

no evidence to support his claim that his sentence is disproportionate for the capital crime

he committed. The judgment of the court of appeals is affirmed. 

DATE DELIVERED: January 12, 2011

DO NOT PUBLISH
Exhibit 32


                            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  California  Clean Air, Inc. (the
"Company")  on Form 10-QSB for the period ended March 31, 2006 as filed with the
Securities  and  Exchange  Commission  on the date  hereof  (the  "Report")  the
undersigned  hereby  certifies  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 results of operations of the
Company.


Dated: May 15 , 2006                  /s/ STEPHEN D. WILSON
                                      ------------------------------------------
                                      Stephen D. Wilson
                                      Title: President, Chief Executive Officer,
                                      Secretary, Chief Financial Officer, Chief
                                      Accounting Officer, Director
#### Brian THOMASON, Movant/Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent/Respondent.

No. 73178.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Two.

Sept. 29, 1998.

Dave Hemingway, Asst. Sp. Public Defender, St. Louis, for appellant.

Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., Kenneth P. Ferguson, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.

Before JAMES R. DOWD, P.J., and CRAHAN and RICHARD B. TEITELMAN, JJ.

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Brian Thomason (Movant) filed a Rule 24.035 motion for post-conviction relief after he pleaded guilty to several charges in two separate cases. The motion court denied his motion without a hearing. Movant appeals from this judgment, arguing he is entitled to a hearing on his two claims of ineffective assistance of counsel.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and conclude the trial court’s determination is not clearly erroneous. Rule 24.035(k). An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum opinion for the use of the parties only setting forth the reasons for our decision. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).
# C_2013164EN.01001201.xml

| 8.6.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 164/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.6.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 164/12

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil régional d’expression française de l’ordre des médecins vétérinaires (Belgique) lodged on 27 March 2013 — Jean Devillers

(Case C-167/13)

2013/C 164/21

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Referring court

Conseil régional d’expression française de l’ordre des médecins vétérinaires

Party to the main proceedings

Party to the main proceedings

Applicant: Jean Devillers

Applicant:

Question referred

Question referred

Must Article 3 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2005 of 22 December 2004 on the protection of animals during transport and Annex I thereto, Chapter I, entitled ‘Fitness for transport’, (1) paragraphs 1, 2 and 3, which provide that in cases of doubt veterinary advice is to be sought regarding the fitness for transport of an injured animal and, more specifically, regarding the assessment of the additional suffering that the transport would cause, be interpreted as precluding Article 11(4) of the Royal Decree of 9 July 1999 concerning the protection of animals during transport, (2) which allows the transport of an injured animal only where that transport does not cause unnecessary suffering?

1

2

---

(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2005 of 22 December 2004 on the protection of animals during transport and related operations and amending Directives 64/432/EEC and 93/119/EC and Regulation (EC) No 1255/97 (OJ 2005 L 3, p. 1).

1

(2)  Royal Decree of 9 July 1999 concerning the protection of animals during transport and the conditions of registration of transporters and certification of traders, starting points and assembly centres (Moniteur belge, 2 September 1999, p. 32437).

2

Moniteur belge

---
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1998             DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JAN-30-1998             DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                             408                   2,605
<SECURITIES>                                         0                       0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    1,130                   1,091
<ALLOWANCES>                                       133                     133
<INVENTORY>                                          0                       0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 3,552                   5,694
<PP&E>                                          31,601                  33,030
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (9,226)                 (7,856)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  73,623                  74,398
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           13,773                  13,640
<BONDS>                                              0                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0                       0
<PREFERRED>                                          5                       5
<COMMON>                                             6                       6
<OTHER-SE>                                      32,725                  31,625
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    32,736                  31,636
<SALES>                                         48,995                  80,980
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                48,995                  80,980
<CGS>                                           42,142                  69,858
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   46,034                  78,918
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0                       0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,044                   2,047
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  1,984                   (186)
<INCOME-TAX>                                       833                   (250)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              1,151                   (436)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0                   (449)
<CHANGES>                                            0                       0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,151                   (885)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    $0.18                 $(0.09)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    $0.15                 $(0.16)
        

</TABLE>
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

## FILED April 11, 2006 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 04-41548 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus GREGORY KYLE WILSON, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas USDC No. 1:03-CR-232-8

-------------------- Before JONES, Chief Judge, and JOLLY and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Gregory Kyle Wilson appeals the sentence imposed following his guilty plea to interstate travel in aid of racketeering. Wilson argues that (1) his sentence violates United States v. Booker , 543 U.S. 220 (2005), (2) the Feeney Amendment violates the Separation of Powers Clause, and (3) his base offense level calculation violated Booker . The Government seeks to enforce the waiver. By its plain language and the circumstances surrounding sentencing, Wilson’s knowing and voluntary appeal waiver bars hisNo. 04-41548 -2- challenge to his sentence. See United States v. Burns , 433 F.3d 442, 450-51 (2005); United States v. Bond , 414 F.3d 542, 545 (5th Cir. 2005).
AFFIRMED.