alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS Appeal of

-- ) ) Looks Great Services, Inc. ) ) Under Contract No. W912DS-13-C-0018 ) APPEARANCES FORTHE APPELLANT:

APPEARANCES FOR THE GOVERNMENT: ASBCA No. 59087

Karl Dix, Jr., Esq. Harry Z. Rippeon III, Esq.

Smith Currie & Hancock LLP Atlanta, GA Thomas H. Gourlay, Jr., Esq.

Engineer ChiefTrial Attorney Lorraine C. Lee, Esq.

Engineer Trial Attorney U.S. Army Engineer District, New York ORDER OF DISMISSAL The dispute which is the subject ofthe appeal having been settled, the appeal is hereby dismissed with prejudice subject to reinstatement only in the event the settlement is not consummated. Any request to reinstate the subject appeal must be filed within 120 days ofthe date ofthis Order. Dated: 15 October 2014

# ~~# Administrative Judge Vice Chairman Armed Services Board ofContract Appeals I certify that the foregoing is a true copy ofthe Order ofDismissal ofthe Armed Services Board ofContract Appeals in ASBCANo. 59087, Appeal ofLooks Great Services, Inc., rendered in conformance with the Board's Charter. Dated:
JEFFREY D. GARDIN Recorder, Armed Services Board ofContract Appeals
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Andre Johnson, Appellant.

[614 NYS2d 221]

—Application by the appellant for a writ of error coram nobis to vacate a decision and order of this Court dated August 5, 1985 *(People v Johnson,*112 AD2d 951), affirming a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County, rendered April 29, 1982, on the ground of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel.

Ordered that the application is denied.

The defendant has failed to establish that he was denied the effective assistance of appellate counsel *(see, Jones v Barnes,*463 US 745). Thompson, J. P., Bracken, Lawrence and Krausman, JJ., concur.
EXHIBIT 32.2

                            SECTION 906 CERTIFICATION









<PAGE>



                                  Exhibit 32.2

                     CERTIFICATION OF DISCLOSURE 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 30DC,  Inc. (the "Company") on Form
10-Q for the period ending  September 30, 2010, as filed with the Securities and
Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the "Report") I, Theodore A. Greenberg,
Principal  Accounting  Officer  and  Chief  Financial  Officer  of the  Company,
certify,  pursuant to 18 USC section 1350, as adopted pursuant to section 906 of
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge and belief:

         (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: August 30, 2011

/s/ Theodore A. Greenberg
---------------------------------------------------
Theodore A. Greenberg,
Principal Accounting Officer and Chief Financial Officer


This  certification  accompanies  the  Report  pursuant  to  Section  906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002 and shall not,  except to the extent required by the
Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002,  be deemed  filed by the  Company  for  purposes of
Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
#### Inter-Maritime Forwarding Co., Inc. *v.*United States

No. 6900.

Entry No. 738900, etc.

Invoices dated London, England, December 15, 1941, etc.

Certified December 17, 1941, etc.

Entered at New York, N. Y., February 19, 1942, etc.

(Decided February 19, 1947)

*Tompkins &■ Tompkins*(/. *Stuart Tompkins*of counsel) 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 in 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.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 04-6717

PAUL D. BAKER,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Director,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western

District of Virginia, at Roanoke. James C. Turk, Senior District

Judge. (CA-03-296-7-jct)

Submitted: June 10, 2004 Decided: June 21, 2004

Before WILLIAMS and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Paul D. Baker, Appellant Pro Se. Richard Carson Vorhis, William W.

Muse, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond,

Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Paul D. Baker appeals from the dismissal of his 28 U.S.C.

§ 2254 (2000) petition by the district court. An appeal may not be

taken from the final order in a § 2254 proceeding unless a circuit

justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C.

§ 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue

absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional

right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this

standard by demonstrating that jurists of reason would find that

his constitutional claims are debatable and that any dispositive

procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or

wrong. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336 (2003); Slack

v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676,

683 (4th Cir. 2001).

We have reviewed the record and conclude that Baker has

not made the requisite showing. We therefore deny a certificate of

appealability and dismiss the appeal. 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 in the decisional process.

DISMISSED
EX-10.1 SUMMARY OF COMPENSATION ARRANGEMENTS



 





Exhibit 10.1




Compensation Arrangements with Non-Employee Directors




     The following table sets forth the Company’s current compensation arrangements with its
non-employee directors, effective July 1, 2007.



Annual Retainer —  $40,000, paid quarterly (40% automatically paid in deferred stock units under
the Deferred Compensation Plan discussed below)


Additional Annual Retainer for Chairman of the Board — $60,000



Additional Annual Retainer for Chairman of the Audit Committee — $20,000



Additional Annual Retainer for Chairman of the Compensation Committee — $10,000



Board Meeting Fees — $2,500 for attendance in person, $1,000 for telephonic attendance




Committee Meeting Fees — $2,000 for attendance in person at a meeting occurring on a day other
than the day of either a Board meeting or another committee meeting for which a particular
director is compensated, or $500 for telephonic attendance



Options — 15,000 shares upon initial election (vesting 3,000 per year), exercisable at market
price on date of grant





5,000 shares per year upon each re-election, vesting after 6 months and exercisable at market
price on date of grant




Options
granted prior to 2007 remain exercisable for ten years from date of
grant. Those issued in and after 2007 remain exercisable for six
years from date of grant.



Phantom Stock Deferred Compensation Plan — Each director may elect to designate all or a portion
of his remaining cash compensation to purchase phantom EMS share units at current market
prices. Cash payout occurs following retirement as a director or, for voluntary deferrals,
after 5 years, subject to the director’s limited right to further defer. Payment is based on
market value of the common stock at the time paid, and is taxable income to the director only
at that time.



Umbrella Liability Insurance — $3 million personal liability coverage above normal limits under
personally-maintained household/auto policies


The Company also reimburses travel expenses incurred in connection with activities as a member of
the Board and its Committees, and pays an additional $1,000 each way for travel time to any
director who must travel more than two time zones from his/her residence to attend a Board meeting.
#### Unifirst Corporation, Appellant-Respondent, v TriState Industrial Uniform et al., Respondents-Appellants.

[613 NYS2d 102]

—Order unanimously modified on the law and as modified affirmed without costs in accordance with the following Memorandum: Supreme Court properly granted summary judgment dismissing the allegations of the complaint not based on unfair competition arising from the alleged removal of documents. The court erred, however, in denying summary judgment with respect to those allegations based on unfair competition arising from the alleged removal of documents. Defendants met their burden of offering evidentiary proof in admissible form that defendant Anthony DeLeo did not remove confidential information and trade secrets and that defendants did not unlawfully interfere with the relationships of plaintiff with its customers. Plaintiff failed to meet its burden of submitting proof in admissible form establishing that there were unresolved material questions of fact requiring a trial *(see, Zuckerman v City of New York,*49 NY2d 557, 560-562). Plaintiff’s conclusory allegations that DeLeo removed documents are insufficient to raise a factual issue. Moreover, "where * * * past or prospective customers’ names are readily ascertainable from sources outside its business, trade secret protection will not attach” *(Columbia Ribbon & Carbon Mfg. Co. v A-l-A Corp.,*42 NY2d 496, 499). Thus, we grant defendants’ motion for summary judgment in its entirety and dismiss the complaint. (Appeals from Order of Supreme Court, Monroe County, Galloway, J.—Summary Judgment.) Present —Green, J. P., Pine, Balio, Fallon and Doerr, JJ.
# C_2014039EN.01001802.xml

| 8.2.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 39/18 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.2.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 39/18

---

Judgment of the General Court of 12 December 2013 — Sweet Tec v OHIM (Shape of an oval)

(Case T-156/12) (1)

1

(Community trade mark - Application for a three-dimensional Community trade mark - Shape of an oval - Absolute ground for refusal - Lack of distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2)

2014/C 39/30

Language of the case: German

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Sweet Tec GmbH (Boizenburg, Germany) (represented by: T. Nägele, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: D. Walicka, acting as Agent)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 19 January 2012 (Case R 542/2011-1) concerning an application for registration of a three-dimensional sign in the shape of an oval as a Community trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | The action is rejected; |
| --- | --- |

1.

The action is rejected;

| 2. | Sweet Tec GmbH is ordered to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Sweet Tec GmbH is ordered to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 165, 9.6.2012.

1

---
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2193 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

112th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 2193

 To require the Food and Drug Administration to include devices in the 
  postmarket risk identification and analysis system, to expedite the 
 implementation of the unique device identification system for medical 
                    devices, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             March 15, 2012

   Mr. Merkley (for himself, Mr. Grassley, Mr. Bennet, and Mr. Kohl) 
introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the 
          Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To require the Food and Drug Administration to include devices in the 
  postmarket risk identification and analysis system, to expedite the 
 implementation of the unique device identification system for medical 
                    devices, and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Ensuring Safe Medical Devices for 
Patients''.

SEC. 2. ACTIVE POSTMARKET RISK IDENTIFICATION AND ANALYSIS.

    (a) Records and Reports on Devices.--Section 519 of the Federal 
Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 360i) is amended by inserting 
after subsection (c) the following:
    ``(d) Inclusion of Devices in the Postmarket Risk Identification 
and Analysis System.--Not later than 90 days after the date of 
enactment of the Ensuring Safe Medical Devices for Patients, the 
Secretary shall amend the procedures established and maintained under 
section 505(k)(3)(C) in order to expand the postmarket risk 
identification and analysis system established under such section to 
include and apply to devices in a comparable manner as such system 
includes and applies to drugs. The Secretary shall ensure that such 
amendments to the procedures shall give priority for inclusion in the 
postmarket risk identification and analysis system to class III and 
class II devices that are implantable, life-supporting or life-
sustaining, or pose significant risk to users.''.
    (b) Unique Device Identification System.--Section 519(f) of the 
Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 360i(f)) is amended--
            (1) by striking ``The Secretary shall promulgate'' and 
        inserting ``Not later than December 31, 2012, the Secretary 
        shall issue final''; and
            (2) by adding at the end the following:
``The Secretary shall implement the unique device identification system 
under this subsection not later than 1 year after the date on which the 
final regulations are issued.''.
                                 <all>
```
No. 44421.

#### Protest 27276-K of L. Frank & Co., Inc. (New York).

Opinion by

Keep®, 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.
u.-s:-F

DEPARTMENT 

EDERAL AVIATION 

OF AOMI

TRANSPORTATION NISTR,O.TION 

- - xl ~ 

Ill NA!.'E 

~ IIICHAEL KANE II AOORESS 

55 1 SHUftW(ER OR 

ltCN!OEVIl lE, PA 15146- 1023 

0.0.8 

Sl' X >IEtG,_.T WI: tO~ H AJII &.YES 

II 69 175 GRAY HAZEl I
November 1, 1950

No. 7901.

#### Fisher *Scientific Co.*v. *United States.*

Entered at Pittsburgh, Pa. Eeap. Dec. 7878. Motion by defendant.
!(

}"

Gee Creek Campground

Managed by Tennessee Department

of Environment and Conservation

7

£¤411

£¤411

QR30

0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000

Feet /

Apalachia Reservoir

Land Management Plan

Tile: A1

Jul 24, 2008

\\alismurphy\home\mprlm\projects\landplan\Maps\Apalachia_land_plan\Apalachia_land_plan_for_Web.mxd
Exhibit 32.2

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 Planar Systems, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K for the period
ended September 26, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Scott Hildebrandt, Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, 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; and
|--- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



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



|    |  |                                                             
|--- |  | ------------------------------------------------------------
|By: |  | /s/    SCOTT
HILDEBRANDT                                    
|    |  | Scott Hildebrandt Vice President and Chief Financial Officer

Date: December 10, 2008
II 

112TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 2425 

To extend the temporary suspension of duty on mixtures containing n-butyl1,2-benzisothiazolin-3-one and application adjuvants. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

APRIL 26, 2012 

Mr. SCHUMER introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred 

to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To extend the temporary suspension of duty on mixtures 

containing n-butyl-1,2-benzisothiazolin-3-one and application adjuvants. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. MIXTURES CONTAINING N-BUTYL-1,2- 

4 BENZISOTHIAZOLIN-3-ONE AND APPLICATION 

5 ADJUVANTS. 

6 (a) IN GENERAL.—Heading 9902.40.57 of the Har7 monized Tariff Schedule of the United States (relating to 

8 mixtures containing n-butyl-1,2-benzisothiazolin-3-one 

9 and application adjuvants) is amended by striking the date 

10 in the effective period column and inserting ‘‘12/31/2015’’. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with BILLS

2 

•S 2425 IS

1 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

2 subsection (a) applies to goods entered, or withdrawn from 

3 warehouse for consumption, on or after the 15th day after 

4 the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

OF TEXAS

NO. WR-94,315-01

EX PARTE JONATHAN ADRIAN GARCIA, Applicant

ON APPLICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

CAUSE NO. W16-59669-V(A) IN THE 292ND DISTRICT COURT

FROM DALLAS COUNTY

Per curiam.

O R D E R

Applicant originally pleaded guilty to robbery and was placed on deferred adjudication

community supervision for a period of five years. Later, he was adjudicated guilty and sentenced

to four years’ imprisonment. Applicant did not appeal his conviction. Applicant filed this

application for a writ of habeas corpus in the county of conviction, and the district clerk forwarded

it to this Court. See TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. art. 11.07.

Applicant contends that he was denied pre-sentence jail time credit, his continued

incarceration is wrong because he has changed and has a family to support, he cannot fulfill his plans

to be successful while in prison and wants a second chance, and he has learned his lesson. 

Applicant’s claim concerning pre-sentence jail time credit is dismissed. Ex parte Ybarra, 149
2

S.W.3d 147, 148–49 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004) (the appropriate remedy for obtaining pre-sentence jail

time credit is to present the issue to the trial court by way of a nunc pro tunc motion, and if the trial

court fails to respond, to seek relief in the Court of Appeals by way of a petition for a writ of

mandamus). Applicant’s remaining claims are without merit and are denied. Accordingly, this

application is denied in part and dismissed in part. Ex parte Deeringer, 210 S.W.3d 616, 617–18

(Tex. Crim. App. 2006). 

Filed: November 23, 2022

Do not publish
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 153 (Friday, August 8, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 42772]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-20949]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
[Docket No. RP97-431-000]


Natural Gas Pipeline Company of America; Notice of Proposed 
Changes in FERC Gas Tariff

August 4, 1997.
    Take notice that on July 30, 1997, Natural Gas Pipeline Company of 
America (Natural) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff, 
Sixth Revised Volume No. 1, certain tariff sheets to be effective 
September 1, 1997.
    Natural states that the purpose of the filing is to implement new 
procedures in Natural's tariff for the posting, auctioning, allocation 
and awarding of firm capacity.
    Natural requested whatever waivers may be necessary to permit the 
tariff sheets submitted to become effective September 1, 1997.
    Natural states that copies of the filing are being mailed to its 
customers and interested state regulatory agencies.
    Any person desiring to be heard or to protest said filing should 
file a motion to intervene or protest with the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, N.E., Washington D.C. 20426, 
in accordance with Sections 385.214 and 385.211 of the Commission's 
Rules and Regulations. All such motions or protests must be filed as 
provided in Section 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 protestants parties to 
the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a motion 
to intervene. 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. 97-20949 Filed 8-7-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING

MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

OF FLORIDA

SECOND DISTRICT

TIMOTHY JOE CRAMPTON, )

)

Appellant, )

)

v. ) Case No. 2D18-3762

)

STATE OF FLORIDA, )

)

Appellee. )

)

Opinion filed September 11, 2019.

Appeal from the Circuit Court for Sarasota 

County; Stephen Walker, Judge.

Howard L. Dimmig, II, Public Defender, and 

Timothy J. Ferreri, Assistant Public 

Defender, Bartow, for Appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, 

Tallahassee, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. 

KHOUZAM, C.J., and VILLANTI and SLEET, JJ., Concur.