alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNITED
      STATES


SECURITIES
      AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION


Washington,
      D.C.  20549








FORM
      8-K





CURRENT
      REPORT





Pursuant
      to Section 13 or 15(d) of the


Securities
      Exchange Act of 1934








Date
                of Report (date of earliest event reported):
            August
                13, 2007








TERABEAM,
                INC.(Exact
                name of registrant as specified in its
                charter)








Delaware
            000-29053
            04-2751645(State
                or other jurisdiction of incorporation)
            (Commission
                file number)
            (IRS
                employer identification no.)








2115
                O’Nel Drive, San Jose, CA
            95131(Address
                of principal executive offices)
            (Zip
                code)








Registrant’s
                telephone number, including area code:
            (408)
                731-2700








Not
                Applicable(Former
                name or former address, if changed since last
                report)








Check
      the
      appropriate box below if the Form 8-K filing is intended to simultaneously
      satisfy the filing obligation of the registrant under any of the following
      provisions (see General Instruction A.2. below):




oWritten
      communications
      pursuant to Rule 425 under the Securities Act (17 CFR 230.425)




o  Soliciting
      material pursuant to Rule 14a-12 under the Exchange Act (17 CFR
      240.14a-12)




o  Pre-commencement
      communications pursuant to Rule 14d-2(b) under the Exchange Act (17 CFR
      240.14d-2(b))




o  Pre-commencement
      communications pursuant to Rule 13e-4(c) under the Exchange Act (17 CFR
      240.13e-4(c))









Item
          2.02  Results of Operations and Financial
          Condition.
 
 On
          August
          13, 2007, Terabeam, Inc. issued a press release announcing financial results
          for
          its second quarter ended June 30, 2007.  A copy of that press release
          is attached hereto as Exhibit 99.1.
 
 
 Item
          9.01  Financial Statements and Exhibits.
 
 (c)           Exhibits
 
 See
          Exhibit
          Index.




SIGNATURE





Pursuant
      to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the registrant
      has
      duly caused this report to be signed on its behalf by the undersigned hereunto
      duly authorized.





TERABEAM,
                INC.Dated:
                August 13, 2007
            By:
            /s/ Brian
                J.
                SeredaBrian
                J. SeredaChief
                Financial Officer





EXHIBIT
      INDEX











Number
            Title99.1
            Press
                release dated August 13, 2007.





2
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1140 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

109th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1140

 To designate the State Route 1 Bridge in the State of Delaware as the 
                ``Senator William V. Roth, Jr. Bridge''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                              May 26, 2005

 Mr. Carper (for himself and Mr. Biden) introduced the following bill; 
 which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and 
                              Public Works

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To designate the State Route 1 Bridge in the State of Delaware as the 
                ``Senator William V. Roth, Jr. Bridge''.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. DESIGNATION OF SENATOR WILLIAM V. ROTH, JR. BRIDGE.

    The State Route 1 Bridge over the Chesapeake and Delaware Canal in 
the State of Delaware is designated as the ``Senator William V. Roth, 
Jr. Bridge''.

SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

    Any reference in a law (including regulations), map, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the bridge described in 
section 1 shall be considered to be a reference to the Senator William 
V. Roth, Jr. Bridge.
                                 <all>
```
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 151 (Wednesday, August 6, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 42245-42246]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-20708]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
[Docket No. RP97-160-004]


Western Gas Interstate Company; Notice of Tariff Filing

July 31, 1997.
    Take notice that on July 29, 1997, Western Gas Interstate Company 
(WGI) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff, Fourth 
Revised Volume No. 1, the following tariff sheets, to be effective June 
20, 1997:

Second Revised Sheet No. 247
First Revised Sheet No. 248

    WGI states that the filing reflects the removal of certain 
standards of the Gas Industry Standards Board (GISB) pertaining to 
electronic data interchange, electronic delivery mechanisms, and 
related capacity release standards adopted by the Commission in Order 
No. 587, et seq. WGI states that, by Notice issued June 20, 1997, it 
was granted an extension of time to and including June 1, 1998 to 
explore alternatives for practical implementation of these standards.
    WGI states that copies of the filing were served upon its customers 
and upon the official service list compiled by the Secretary in this 
proceeding.
    Any persons desiring to protest said filing should file a protest 
with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, N.E., 
Washington, D.C. 20426, in accordance with Sec. 385.211 of the 
Commission's Rules and Regulations. All such protests must be filed as 
provided in Sec. 154.210 of the Commission's Regulations. Protests will 
be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action 
to be taken, but will not serve to make the protestants parties to the 
proceeding.

[[Page 42246]]

Copies of this filing are on file with the Commission and are available 
for public inspection in the Public Reference Room.
Lois D. Cashell,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 97-20708 Filed 8-5-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
#### L. E. McCullough *& Co. v.*United States

No. 7667.

Invoices dated North Bay, Canada, September 11, 1947, etc.

Certified September 12, 1947, etc.

Entered at St. Louis, Mo., September 29, 1947, etc.

Entry Nos. 352; 140; 1031.

(Decided February 18, 1949)

*Tompkins & Tompkins (J. Stuart Tompkins*of counsel) for the plaintiff.

*David N. Edelstein,*Assistant Attorney General *(Charles J. Miville,*special attorney), for the defendant.

OliveR, Chief Judge:

These appeals for reappraisement have been submitted for decision upon the following stipulation of counsel for the parties hereto:

> IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED, subject to the approval of the Court, that the issues in the appeals for reappraisement listed in the attached schedule are the same in all material respects as the issues decided in *C. J. Tower & Sons*v. *United States,*R. D. 7624, and that the record in said case may be incorporated herein.

> IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that the appraised values of the merchandise involved in each of the cases enumerated in the attached schedule, less the additions made by the importers on entry because of advances by the appraiser in similar cases, is equal to the price, at the time of exportation of such merchandise to the United States, at which such or similar merchandise is freely offered for sale to all purchasers in the principal markets of the country from which exported, in the usual wholesale quantities in the ordinary course of trade, for exportation to the United States, and that the foreign value of such or similar merchandise is no higher.

> IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that these cases may be submitted on the foregoing stipulation.

*409On the agreed facts I find the export value, as that value is defined in section 402 (d) of the Tariff Act of 1930, to be the proper basis for the determination of the value of the merchandise here involved, and that such values are the appraised values, less the additions made by the importer on entry because of advances by the appraiser in similar cases.

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
No. 44409.

#### Protests 906378-G (A), etc., of Max Landau & Co. (New York).

Opinion by

Keefe, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel and on the authority of *Stokby*v. *United States*(4 Cust. Ct. 343, C. D. 358) it was held that 10 percent allowance should have been made for the weight of the gelatinous material in question.
#### United States *v.*Jose Ferrer

No. 6002.

Invoice dated Monterrey, Mexico, February 19, 1943.

Certified February 19, 1943.

Entered at Corpus Christi, Tex., March 8, 1943.

Entry No. 63-C.

(Decided May 9, 1944)

*Paul P. Bao,*Assistant Attorney General *(Richard H. Welsh,*special attorney), for the plaintiff.

Defendant not represented by counsel.

Walker, Judge:

This appeal for reappraisement has been submitted for decision upon the following stipulation entered into by and between the respective parties hereto:

> It is hereby stipulated and agreed, subject to the approval of the court, that the market value or price at the time of exportation of the merchandise involved herein, at which such or similar merchandise was freely offered for sale to all purchasers in the principal markets of the country from which exported, in the usual wholesale quantities and in the ordinary course of trade, including the cost of all containers and coverings of whatever nature, and all other costs, charges, and expenses incident to placing the merchandise in condition packed ready for shipment to the United States, is as follows:

> Certified consular invoice No. 492 from Monterrey, N. L., Mexico, dated February 19, 1943 — •

> 238 boxes sugar candy at 1.05 Mexican pesos each,

> 72 boxes sugar-candy at 1.05 Mexican pesos each,

> 126 boxes sugar candy at 1.05 Mexican pesos each,

> 32 boxes sugar candy at 1.05 Mexican pesos each,

> 230 boxes sugar candy at 1.05 Mexican pesos each,

> 92 boxes sugar candy at 1.05 Mexican pesos each,

> 210 boxes sugar candy at 1.05 Mexican pesos each,

> 102 boxes sugar candy at 1.75 Mexican pesos each,

> plus 29 cartons at .80 Mexican pesos each, plus taxes invoiced, net.

> It is further stipulated and agreed that there was no higher export value for the merchandise herein at the time of exportation.

> It is further agreed that this case may be submitted on the foregoing stipulation.

On the agreed facts I find the foreign value, as that value is defined in section-402 (c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, to be the proper basis for the determination of the value of the merchandise here involved, and that such values are as follows:

*447238 boxes sugar candy at 1.05 Mexican pesos each,

72 boxes sugar candy at 1.05 Mexican pesos each,

126 boxes sugar candy at 1.05 Mexican pesos each,

32 boxes sugar candy at 1.05 Mexican pesos each,

230 boxes sugar candy at 1.05 Mexican pesos each,

92 boxes sugar candy at 1.05 Mexican pesos each,

210 boxes sugar candy at 1.05 Mexican pesos each,

102 boxes sugar candy at 1.75 Mexican pesos each,

plus 29 cartons at .80 Mexican pesos each, plus taxes invoiced, net.

Judgment -will be rendered accordingly.
Exhibit 32.2

                           INTRAOP MEDICAL CORPORATION

                            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 Intraop Medical Corporation (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended December 31, 2008, as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, JK
Hullett, Chief Financial Officer 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:

     (3)  The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
          15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

     (4)  The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
          material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
          of the Company.


                                            /s/   JK Hullett
                                        ----------------------------------------
                                            JK Hullett
                                            Chief Financial Officer

                                            Date:  February 13, 2009

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to Intraop Medical Corporation and will be retained by Intraop Medical
Corporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff
upon request.
No. 00-694.

#### Doherty et al. *v.*American Home Products Corp.

C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.
#### United States *v.*Taylor Bros.

No. 6003.

Invoices dated Mexico, D. F., April 19 and 17, 1943.

Certified May 6, 1943.

Entered at Corpus Christi, Tex., May 11, 1943.

Entry No. 82-C.

(Decided May 10, 1944)

*Paul P. Rao,*Assistant Attorney General *(Richard H. Welsh,*special attorney), for the plaintiff.

Defendant not represented by counsel.

Waliceb, Judge:

This appeal for reappraisement has been submitted for decision upon the following stipulation entered into by and between the respective parties hereto:

> It is hereby stipulated and agreed, subject to the approval of the court, that the market value or price at the time of exportation of the merchandise involved herein, at which such or similar merchandise was freely offered for sale to all purchasers in the principal markets of the country from which exported, in the usual wholesale quantities and in the ordinary course of trade, including the cost of all containers and coverings of whatever nature, and all other costs, charges, and expenses incident to placing the merchandise in condition packed ready for shipment to the United States, is as follows:

> Invoice No. 2 — 13 watch cases_ 8.65 pesos each, net

> Invoice No. 3 — 9 watch cases_ 15.00 pesos each, net

> It is further stipulated and agreed that there was no higher export value for the merchandise herein at the time of exportation.

> It is further agreed that this case may be submitted on the foregoing stipulation.

On the agreed facts I find the foreign value, as that value is defined in section 402 (c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, to be the proper basis for the determination of the value of the merchandise here involved, and that such values are as follows:

Invoice No. 2 — 13 watch cases_ 8.65 pesos each, net

Invoice No. 3 — 9 watch cases_ 15.00 pesos each, net

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
* 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. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-31237 Conference Calendar

ARTHER LEE TAYLOR, JR., Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus RICHARD L. STALDER; WILLIAM J. FLENIKEN; WILLIAM L. GOODE, Defendants-Appellees.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana

USDC No. 97-CV-1561

- - - - - - - - - - August 25, 1999 Before KING, Chief Judge, and DAVIS and SMITH, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Arther Lee Taylor, Jr., Louisiana prisoner #82818, appeals the denial of his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion which sought reconsideration of the dismissal of his pro se , in forma pauperis complaint as barred by Heck v. Humphrey , 512 U.S. 477 (1994). Taylor filed his complaint against Richard L. Stalder, in his capacity as Secretary of the Department of Public Safety and Corrections; Williams J. Fleniken, in his capacity as district court judge for Caddo Parish; and William L. Goode, in hisNo. 98-31237 -2- capacity as the assistant district attorney for Caddo Parish. He argued that (1) racial discrimination in the selection of the grand jury foreman violated his Fourteenth Amendment right to equal protection; (2) the defendants conspired to deprive him of equal protection of the law; (3) the indictment was invalid; and (4) the trial judge was biased. Taylor has failed to brief the district court’s dismissal of his complaint as barred by Heck . Arguments must be briefed in order to be preserved. Yohey v. Collins , 985 F.2d 222, 225 (5th Cir. 1993). Claims not adequately argued in the body of the brief are deemed abandoned on appeal. Id . at 224-25. Thus, Taylor is deemed to have abandoned the issue on appeal. The district court's dismissal of the present case and our dismissal of this appeal count as two strikes against Taylor for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). We caution Taylor that once he accumulates three strikes, he may not proceed IFP in any civil action or appeal filed while he is incarcerated or detained in any facility unless he is under imminent danger of serious physical injury. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). Taylor should review any pending appeals to ensure that they do not raise frivolous arguments.
APPEAL DISMISSED; SANCTION WARNING ISSUED.
#### In re Sider SWANSON v. STATE of Alabama. Ex parte STATE of Alabama ex rel. ATTORNEY GENERAL.

SC 2370.

Supreme Court of Alabama.

April 22, 1977.

William J. Baxley, Atty. Gen., and Jack A. Blumenfeld, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State, petitioner.

Donald W. Stewart of Stewart & Colvin, Anniston, for respondent.

JONES, Justice.

The record filed in the office of the clerk of the Court of Criminal Appeals on December 21, 1976, discloses full compliance with the mandate of that Court’s opinion and order of October 19, 1976, 346 So.2d 1162, which order directed, alternatively, that the trial Court proceed to construct a correct transcript of the evidence pursuant to Tit. 7, § 827(3), Code.

This cause is remanded to the Court of Criminal Appeals for consideration of the merits of the appeal.

REMANDED.

*1166All the Justices concur.

On remand, Ala.Cr.App., 346 So.2d 1166.
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 91 (Friday, May 9, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Page 26466]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-10186]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration


Notice of Opportunity for Public Comment on Surplus Property 
Release at Myrtle Beach International Airport

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: Under the provisions of Title 49, U.S.C. Section 47 153(c), 
notice is being given that the FAA is considering a request from Horry 
County to waive the requirement that a 0.389 acre parcel of surplus 
property. located at the Myrtle Beach International Airport, be used 
for aeronautical purposes.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before June 9, 2008.

ADDRESSES: Comments on this notice may be mailed or delivered in 
triplicate to the FAA at the following address: Atlanta Airports 
District Office, Attn: Parks Preston, Program Manager, 1701 Columbia 
Ave., Suite 2-260, Atlanta, GA 30337-2747.
    In addition, one copy of any comments submitted to the FAA must be 
mailed or delivered to Robert J. Kemp, Director of Airports, at the 
following address: Myrtle Beach International Airport, 1100 Jetport 
Road, Myrtle Beach, SC 29577.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Parks Preston, Program Manager, 
Atlanta Airports District Office, 1701 Columbia Ave., Suite 2-260, 
Atlanta, GA 30337-2747, (404) 305-7149. The application may be reviewed 
in person at this same location.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The FAA is reviewing a request by Horry 
County to release 0.389 acres of surplus property at the Myrtle Beach 
International Airport. The property will be purchased to allow for the 
realignment of Shine Avenue. The net proceeds from the sale of this 
property will be used for airport purposes. The proposed use of this 
property is compatible with airport operations.
    Any person may inspect the request in person at the FAA office 
listed above under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.
    In addition, any person may, upon request, inspect the request, 
notice, and other documents germane to the request in person at the 
Myrtle Beach International Airport.

    Issued in Atlanta, Georgia on March 25, 2008.
Larry F. Clark,
Acting Manager, Atlanta Airports District Office, Southern Region.
 [FR Doc. E8-10186 Filed 5-8-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-M
#### RESNICK DEVELOPERS SOUTH, INC., and Jack Resnick & Sons of Florida, Inc., a Florida Corporation, Appellants, v. BRIDGE LUMBER CO., a Florida Corporation, Appellee.

No. 76-1435.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

June 14, 1977.

Rehearing Denied July 18,1977.

Abrams, Anton, Robbins, Resnick & Schneider and David L. Kline, Hollywood, for appellants.

Savitt, Kotzen, Riskin & France, North Miami Beach, and Martin G. Brooks, Hollywood, for appellee.

Before BARKDULL and NATHAN, JJ. and CHARLES CARROLL (Ret.), Associate Judge.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. *Boyer v. Dye,*51 So.2d 727 (Fla.1951); *Yost v. Miami Transit Company,*66 So.2d 214 (Fla.1953); *Harrison*v. *Consumers Mortgage Company,*154 So.2d 194 (Fla. 1st DCA 1963).
(Reap. Dec. 9964)

#### S. S. Kresge Company *v.*United States

Entry Nos. 50957; 742764; 763046.

(Decided April 5, 1961)

*SJiarretts, Paley & Garter*for the plaintiff.

*William E. Orriek, Jr.,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

OliveR, Chief Judge:

These three appeals for reappraisement involve certain mechanical toys exported from Japan and entered at the port of New York.

Stipulated facts, upon which the cases have been submitted for decision, establish that the proper basis for appraisement of the merchandise in question is export value, as defined in section 402(d) of the Tariff Act of 1930, and that such statutory values therefor are the appraised values, less the amounts shown on the invoices for handling charge or buying commission.

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
PUBLIC LAW 111–141—FEB. 27, 2010 124 STAT. 37 

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY—H.R. 3961: 

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD: 

Vol. 155 (2009): Nov. 19, considered and passed House. 

Vol. 156 (2010): Feb. 24, considered and passed Senate, amended. 

Feb. 25, House concurred in Senate amendments. 

Æ 

Public Law 111–141 

111th Congress 

An Act 

To extend expiring provisions of the USA PATRIOT Improvement and Reauthorization Act of 2005 and Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 

until February 28, 2011. 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 

the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

SECTION 1. EXTENSION OF SUNSETS. 

(a) USA PATRIOT IMPROVEMENT AND REAUTHORIZATION ACT

OF 2005.—Section 102(b)(1) of the USA PATRIOT Improvement 

and Reauthorization Act of 2005 (Public Law 109–177; 50 U.S.C. 

1805 note, 50 U.S.C. 1861 note, and 50 U.S.C. 1862 note) is amended 

by striking ‘‘February 28, 2010’’ and inserting ‘‘February 28, 2011’’. 

(b) INTELLIGENCE REFORM AND TERRORISM PREVENTION ACT

OF 2004.—Section 6001(b)(1) of the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 (Public Law 108–458; 118 Stat. 

3742; 50 U.S.C. 1801 note) is amended by striking ‘‘February 28, 

2010’’ and inserting ‘‘February 28, 2011’’. 

Approved February 27, 2010. 

50 USC 1805, 

1861, 1862. 

Feb. 27, 2010 

[H.R. 3961] 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1 with PUBLIC LAWS