alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

PUBLIC MEETING ON TEST PROCEDURES FOR

SMALL ELECTRIC MOTORS AND ELECTRIC MOTORS

U.S. Department of Energy

1000 Independence Avenue, SW.

Washington, DC 20585

Thursday, January 29, 2009

Room 1E­245

Purpose

The Department of Energy (DOE) seeks comments, information, and data from interested parties

on the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NOPR) addressing test procedures for small electric

motors and electric motors. The NOPR proposes new test procedures for small electric motors,

both single­phase and polyphase. The NOPR also proposes to update referenced industry

standards in DOE’s existing test procedure for electric motors, including materials incorporated

by reference.

Agenda

9:00 – 9:15 am Welcome, Introductions, Opening Statements

Ron Lewis, Presiding Officer,

Supervisor – Regulatory, Building Technologies Program

Jim Raba, Facilitator

9:15 – 9:30 am Rulemaking Overview

Summary of the statutory background, rulemaking process, and the

issues on which DOE seeks input during today's public meeting.

9:30 – 10:30 am Small Electric Motors Test Procedures

Presentation and discussion of definitions concerning small electric

motors, test procedures for the measurement of energy efficiency, and the

alternative efficiency determination method.

10:30 – 10:45 am Break

10:45 – 12:00 pm Electric Motor Test Procedure

Presentation and discussion of definitions concerning electric motors,

updates to citations to industry standards, and clarification of motors

covered by the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007.

12:00 – 1:00 pm Lunch

1:00 – 1:15 pm Other Issues

Presentation and discussion of miscellaneous updates to the Code of

Federal Regulations.

1:15 – 1:45 pm Closing Remarks

EERE-2008-BT-TP-0008 COMMENT 06
# C_2022171EN.01003401.xml

| 25.4.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 171/34 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.4.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 171/34

---

Judgment of the General Court of 2 March 2022 — Laboratorios Ern v EUIPO — Beta Sports (META)

(Case T-192/21) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the EU word mark META - Earlier national word mark METALGIAL - Relative ground for refusal - No likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

(2022/C 171/44)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Laboratorios Ern, SA (Barcelona, Spain) (represented by: T. González Martínez, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: J. Ivanauskas, acting as Agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Beta Sports LLC (Coconut Creek, Florida, United States)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 22 January 2021 (Case R 1152/2020-2), relating to opposition proceedings between Laboratorios Ern and Beta Sports.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Laboratorios Ern, SA to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Laboratorios Ern, SA to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 217, 7.6.2021.

---
#### Workmen’s Compensation Appeal Board of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and Smittie J. Brown *v.*Neville Chemical Company and American Mutual Insurance Companies, Insurance Carrier, Appellants.

*463Argued May 9, 1975,

July 25, 1975:

before Judges Kramer, Mencer and Rogers, sitting as a panel of three.

*Herbert Grigsby,*with him *Ralph A. Davies*and *Thomson, Rhodes & Grigsby,*for appellants.

*Smittie J. Brown,*appellee, for himself.

*James N. Diefenderfer,*for appellee, Workmen’s Compensation Appeal Board.

*Thomas W. Scott,*with him *John D. Killian*and *Killian & Gephart,*for amicus curiae, Life Fellowship of Pennsylvania.

Opinion by

Judge Rogers,

This case is companion to *Workmen’s Compensation Appeal Board v. Overmyer Mold Company,*20 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 342, 342 A.2d 439 (1975). Here, too, pursuant to Section 306(f) of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, Act of June 2, 1915, P.L. 736, *as amended,*77 P.S. §531, the employer designated five physicians for treatment of injured employes. The referee found on substantial competent evidence that the instant claimant, Smittie J. Brown, had actual knowledge of the designation. He nevertheless refused to consult any of the desig*464nated physicians and was attended by a chiropractor who charged $424.00 for a course of treatment. The employer refused reimbursement, but a referee, affirmed by the Workmen’s Compensation Board, awarded reimbursement of the chiropractor’s charges. The employer has appealed.

In *Workmen’s Compensation Appeal Board v. Overmyer Mold Company, supra,*we interpreted Section 306 (f) as requiring employes to consult physicians designated by the employer and as relieving the employer from the obligation to pay for medical expenses incurred otherwise, without authorization of the employer or one of the physicians designated. The same considerations apply here and the same result must obtain.

Order

And Now, this 25th day of July, 1975, it is ordered that the decision of the Workmen’s Compensation Appeal Board be and it hereby is reversed.
wyy_ex41





 







Exhibit 4.1


 



DESCRIPTION OF THE REGISTRANT’S SECURITIES



REGISTERED PURSUANT TO SECTION 12 OF THE



SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934


 


As of
December 31, 2020, WidePoint Corporation (“we” or
“our”) had one class of securities, common stock, par
value $0.001 per share (“Common Stock”), registered
under Section 12 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended. The following description of our Common Stock is a summary
and is subject to, and is qualified in its entirety by reference
to, the provisions of our Amended and Restated Certificate of
Incorporation, as amended, and our Bylaws, copies of which are
incorporated by reference as Exhibits 3.1, 3.1.1 and 3.2,
respectively, to our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended
December 31, 2020 of which this Exhibit 4.1 is a part.


 


Our
authorized capital stock consists of 30,000,000, shares of Common
Stock, $.001 par value per share, and 7,954,286 shares of preferred
stock, $0.001 par value per share. As of December 31, 2020,
8,876,514 shares of Common Stock were issued and outstanding and no
shares of preferred stock were issued and outstanding.


 


Our
Common Stock is traded on the NYSE MKT under the symbol
“WYY.” Holders of our Common Stock are entitled to one
vote for each share held on all matters submitted to a vote of
stockholders and do not have cumulative voting rights. Holders of
Common Stock are entitled to receive ratably such dividends, if
any, as may be declared by the board of directors out of funds
legally available therefore, subject to a preferential dividend
right of outstanding preferred stock. Upon the liquidation,
dissolution or our winding up, the holders of Common Stock are
entitled to receive ratably our net assets available after the
payment of all debts and other liabilities and subject to the prior
rights of any outstanding preferred stock. The rights, preferences
and privileges of holders of Common Stock are subject to, and may
be adversely affected by the rights of the holders any series of
preferred stock that we may designate and issue in the
future.
```

[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 229 (Friday, November 28, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Page 70914]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-28097]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

 DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Intelligent Transportation Systems Program Advisory Committee; 
Notice of Meeting

AGENCY: ITS Joint Program Office, Office of the Assistant Secretary for 
Research and Technology, U.S. Department of Transportation.

ACTION: Notice.

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

    The Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) Program Advisory 
Committee (ITSPAC) will hold a teleconference on December 16, 2014, 
from 3:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m. (EST).
    The ITSPAC, established under Section 5305 of Public Law 109-59, 
Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A 
Legacy for Users, August 10, 2005, and re-established under Section 
53003 of Public Law 112-141, Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st 
Century, July 6, 2012, was created to advise the Secretary of 
Transportation on all matters relating to the study, development, and 
implementation of intelligent transportation systems. Through its 
sponsor, the ITS Joint Program Office (JPO), the ITSPAC makes 
recommendations to the Secretary regarding ITS Program needs, 
objectives, plans, approaches, content, and progress.
    The following is a summary of the meeting tentative agenda: (1) 
Call to Order, Welcome, and Roll Call, (2) Meeting Work Plan Review, 
(3) Discussion of Potential Study Topics, (4) Review Action Items and 
Next Steps.
    The teleconference will be open to the public, but limited 
conference lines will be available on a first-come, first-served basis. 
Members of the public who wish to participate in the teleconference 
must submit a request to: Mr. Stephen Glasscock, the Committee 
Designated Federal Official, at (202) 366-9126, not later than December 
9, 2014. In addition, for planning purposes, your request must also 
indicate whether you wish to present oral statements during the 
teleconference.
    Questions about the agenda or written comments may be submitted by 
U.S. Mail to: U.S. Department of Transportation, Office of the 
Assistant Secretary for Research and Technology, ITS Joint Program 
Office, Attention: Stephen Glasscock, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., HOIT, 
Washington, DC 20590 or faxed to (202) 493-2027. The ITS JPO requests 
that written comments be submitted not later than December 9, 2014.
    Notice of this teleconference is provided in accordance with the 
Federal Advisory Committee Act and the General Services Administration 
regulations (41 CFR part 102-3) covering management of Federal advisory 
committees.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on the 21st day of November 2014.
John Augustine,
Managing Director, ITS Joint Program Office.
[FR Doc. 2014-28097 Filed 11-26-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-22-P
```
#### Otis Alfonso DAVIS, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 72-55.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

June 20, 1972.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
H. Res. 51

In the House of Representatives, U. S.,

January 27, 1993.

Resolved, That the following named Members, Resident

Commissioner, and Delegates, be, and they are hereby, elected as Chairmen and Members as the case may be, to the following standing committees of the House of Representatives:

COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES: Ronald V. Dellums,

California, Chairman; Pete Geren, Texas; Elizabeth Furse,

Oregon; and [vacancy].

COMMITTEE ON MERCHANT MARINE AND FISHERIES:

Gary L. Ackerman, New York.

COMMITTEE ON POST OFFICE AND CIVIL SERVICE: Greg

Laughlin, Texas; Sanford D. Bishop, Jr., Georgia; Sherrod

Brown, Ohio; and Alcee L. Hastings, Florida.

COMMITTEE ON THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA: Fortney

Pete Stark, California, Chairman.

Attest:

Clerk.
# C_2023071EN.01002001.xml

| 27.2.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 71/20 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.2.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 71/20

---

Judgment of the General Court of 21 December 2022 — Pshonka v Council

(Case T-243/21) (1)

(Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures taken in view of the situation in Ukraine - Freezing of funds - List of the persons, entities and bodies covered by the freezing of funds and economic resources - Maintenance of the applicant’s name on the list - Council’s obligation to verify that the decision of an authority of a third State was taken in accordance with the rights of defence and the right to effective judicial protection)

(2023/C 71/25)

Language of the case: Czech

Parties

Applicant: Viktor Pavlovych Pshonka (Kiev, Ukraine) (represented by: M. Mleziva, lawyer)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Vobořil, R. Pekař and S. Van Overmeire, Agents)

Re:

By his action based on Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks annulment of Council Decision (CFSP) 2021/394 of 4 March 2021 amending Decision 2014/119/CFSP concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine (OJ 2021 L 77, p. 29) and of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/391 of 4 March 2021 implementing Regulation (EU) No 208/2014 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine (OJ 2021 L 77, p. 2), in so far as those acts maintain his name on the list of persons, entities and bodies subject to those restrictive measures.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls Council Decision (CFSP) 2021/394 of 4 March 2021 amending Decision 2014/119/CFSP concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine, and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/391 of 4 March 2021 implementing Regulation (EU) No 208/2014 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine, in so far as the name of Mr Viktor Pavlovych Pshonka was maintained on the list of persons, entities and bodies subject to those restrictive measures; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls Council Decision (CFSP) 2021/394 of 4 March 2021 amending Decision 2014/119/CFSP concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine, and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/391 of 4 March 2021 implementing Regulation (EU) No 208/2014 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine, in so far as the name of Mr Viktor Pavlovych Pshonka was maintained on the list of persons, entities and bodies subject to those restrictive measures;

| 2. | Orders the Council of the European Union to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

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

---

(1)  OJ C 263, 5.7.2021.

---
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Henry McKenzie, Appellant.

[721 NYS2d 649]

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Carol Berkman, J.), rendered May 21, 1998, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of attempted murder in the second degree, and sentencing him to a term of 8 to 16 years, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant’s motion to set aside the verdict was properly denied after a thorough hearing. The court correctly determined that although the sequestered jury was inadvertently driven past the area where the crime occurred, there was no prejudice since the geography of the crime scene was not a disputed issue in the case. Unlike a juror’s deliberate attempt to gather evidence by visiting a crime scene *(see, People v De Lucia,*20 NY2d 275), an inadvertent, nonprejudicial exposure of jurors to a crime scene does not warrant reversal *(People v Mann,*125 AD2d 711; *see also, People v Brown,*48 NY2d 388, 393-394). The only evidence suggesting the possibility of prejudice was *237contained in testimony that the court properly rejected as incredible.

The court properly granted the People’s request for a missing witness charge with respect to defendant’s failure to call a passenger who was in defendant’s car at the time of the crime. The record establishes that this witness was defendant’s friend, that he was in the car with defendant the entire evening prior to defendant’s arrest, and that defense counsel had interviewed the witness prior to trial and had placed him on a list of witnesses he had originally intended to call. The missing witness charge was warranted as the witness had material, noncumulativé knowledge and was available and within defendant’s control *(see, People v Gonzalez,*68 NY2d 424).

We have considered and rejected defendant’s remaining claims. Concur — Nardelli, J. P., Ellerin, Wallach, Buckley and Friedman, JJ.
#### Herman COHEN, as Trustee, Appellant, v. CORAL GABLES FIRST NATIONAL BANK and Willie James Jackson, a/k/a Willie Gene Jackson, Appellees.

No. 71-1131.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Aug. 1, 1972.

Rehearing Denied Sept. 25, 1972.

*189Melvyn Trute, Miami Beach, for appellant.

Jack H. Cohen and David Goldman, Miami, for appellees.

Before PEARSON and HENDRY, JJ„ and LESTER, M. IGNATIUS, Associate Judge.

PEARSON, Judge.

The appellant was a purchaser of real property at a sheriff’s sale. He brings this appeal from a Civil Court of Record order granting the appellee’s motion to deny confirmation of sale. The order declared the sale void and further held that the property was not subject to execution because it was the appellee’s homestead. Fla. Const. Art. X, § 4, F.S.A.

Two points on appeal are presented for our review. The first point urges that the Civil Court of Record is a court of limited jurisdiction and that under Fla.Const. Art. V, F.S.A.,1 and Fla.Stat. § 222.08, F.S.A., only the circuit courts of this State have the equity jurisdiction to set apart homesteads. The second point urges that the appellee has not proceeded properly to protect his rights under Fla.Stat. § 222.02, F.S.A.

Appellant is correct in his contention that the Civil Court of Record did not have jurisdiction to determine the homestead issue. The issue could be raised in the Civil Court of Record only as a bar to the confirmation of the sale, and should have been accompanied by a copy of a complaint filed or tendered to be filed in the Circuit Court within a short time set.

The jurisdiction of the Civil Court of Record as it existed at the time of the entry of the order appealed is set forth by statute. Fla.Stat. § 33.14 (1969), F.S.A. The Supreme Court of Florida has held that this jurisdiction does not include equity jurisdiction. Hodges v. Lamar, 119 Fla. 566, 161 So. 81 (1934). Also see Hillsborough Inv. Co. v. Wilcox, 152 Fla. 889, 13 So.2d 448 (1943); Bennett v. Bogue, 88 Fla. 109, 101 So. 206 (1924). *190Therefore, the Civil Court of Record cannot set apart a homestead. See Barrs v. State ex rel. Britt, 95 Fla. 75, 116 So. 28 (1928); Blackwelder v. D’Ercole Enterprises, Inc., Fla.App.1961, 126 So.2d 598.

The order appealed is affirmed as to the denial of confirmation of sale, reversed as to declaring the sale void, and the cause is remanded for further proceedings in accordance with the views herein expressed.

Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.

1

. The adoption of new Article V of the Constitution, which will become effective January 1, 1973, has obviated this difficulty for the future.
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 88 Introduced in House (IH)]

103d CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. RES. 88

Providing amounts from the contingent fund of the House for expenses of 
investigations and studies by the Committee on Agriculture in the first 
               session of the One Hundred Third Congress.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           February 17, 1993

Mr. de la Garza submitted the following resolution; which was referred 
                to the Committee on House Administration

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
Providing amounts from the contingent fund of the House for expenses of 
investigations and studies by the Committee on Agriculture in the first 
               session of the One Hundred Third Congress.

    Resolved, That (a) for expenses of investigations and studies by 
the Committee on Agriculture (hereinafter in this resolution referred 
to as the ``Committee''), including expenses for--
            (1) procurement of consultant services under section 202(i) 
        of the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946; and
            (2) provision of assistance for members of professional 
        staff in obtaining specialized training under section 202(j) of 
        such Act;
there shall be paid out of the contingent fund of the House not more 
than $2,341,481.00.
    (b) Not more than $10,000.00 of the amount specified in subsection 
(a) may be used for consultant services referred to in paragraph (1) of 
such subsection and not more than $1,000.00 of such amount may be used 
for specialized training referred to in paragraph (2) of such 
subsection.
    Sec. 2. Payments under this resolution shall be made on vouchers 
authorized by the Committee, signed by the Chairman of the Committee, 
and approved by the Committee on House Administration.
    Sec. 3. Amounts shall be available under this resolution for 
investigations and studies carried out during the period beginning at 
noon on January 3, 1993, and ending immediately before noon on January 
3, 1994.
    Sec. 4. Amounts made available under this resolution shall be 
expended in accordance with regulations prescribed by the Committee on 
House Administration.

                                 <all>
```
EXHIBIT 31.2

CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER CERTIFICATION

I, Ronald W. Guire, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this Annual Report on this Form 10-K/A of Exar Corporation;

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not
misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

Date: May 1, 2006



|                                                  
|--------------------------------------------------
|/s/ RONALD W. GUIRE                               
|Ronald W. Guire                                   
|Executive Vice President, Chief Financial Officer,
|Assistant Secretary and Director                  
|(Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)