alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### CRITES PATENTS, Inc., v. RCA PHOTOPHONE, Inc., a Corporation, and RKO Studios, Inc., a Corporation. CRITES PATENTS, Inc., v. ELECTRICAL RESEARCH PRODUCTS, Inc., a Corporation, and Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Corporation, a Corporation.

No. 9360.

Circuit Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Nov. 20, 1939.

Appellant acting in its own behalf by V. C. Crites, its president.

Leonard S. Lyon, of Los Angeles, Cal., for appellees.

Before DENMAN, MATHEWS, and HEALY, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Upon stipulation of respective parties, and good cause therefor appearing, ordered appeals in above cause dismissed, without costs to any party, that a decree of dismissal be filed and entered accordingly, and the mandate of this court issued forthwith.
# Tennessee_county_differentials_
<PAGE>   1
                                                                     EXHIBIT 3.6


                       AMENDED CERTIFICATE OF DESIGNATIONS
                           OF SERIES H PREFERRED STOCK
                                 OF ALTEON INC.


         Pursuant to Section 151 of the General Corporation Law of the State of
Delaware, Alteon Inc. (the "Corporation"), a corporation organized and existing
under the laws of the State of Delaware, DOES HEREBY CERTIFY:

         1.       No shares of the Series H Preferred Stock of the Corporation
(the "Preferred Stock") have been issued by the Corporation as of the date of
this Amended Certificate of Designations.

         2.       The Board of Directors of the Corporation on March 16,
1998 adopted the following resolution amending the Certificate of
Designations of the Preferred Stock:

         RESOLVED, that Section 5(h) of the Certificates of Designations for the
         Company's Series G Preferred Stock and Series H Preferred Stock (the
         "Certificates of Designations") be amended by adding the following
         sentence to such sections: "The Board of Directors of the Corporation
         or any officer designated by the Board of Directors of the Corporation
         may waive the provisions of this Section 5(h) for any one transaction
         or for any series of transactions."


         IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Amended Certificate of Designations is made
this 8th day of May, 1998.


                                                     ALTEON INC.



                                                     By: /s/ James J. Mauzey
                                                         -----------------------
                                                         James J. Mauzey
                                                         Chairman and
                                                         Chief Executive Officer
EXHIBIT 32.1





CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY
ACT OF 2002 (18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)



In connection
with the accompanying Quarterly Report of Equus Total Return, Inc. (the “Fund”) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30,
2023 (the “Report”), I, John A Hardy, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section
1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



| | (1) | To my knowledge, the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



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







Dated: August 14, 2023













|EQUUS TOTAL RETURN, INC.
|------------------------
|                        
|/s/ John A. Hardy       
|John A. Hardy           
|Chief Executive Officer
Order entered September 22, 2020

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-19-01545-CV

IN THE MATTER OF DEMPSTER A. ROSS

On Appeal from the 416th Judicial District Court

Collin County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 416-02315-2019

ORDER

Before the Court is appellant’s second motion for extension of time to file 

his brief. We GRANT the motion and ORDER the brief be filed no later than 

November 20, 2020. As the brief was first due June 19, 2020, we caution that

further extensions will not be granted absent exigent circumstances.

/s/ ROBERT D. BURNS, III

CHIEF JUSTICE
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Morris Scott, Appellant.

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Clifford Scott, J.), rendered April 18, 1990, convicting defendant after a jury trial of murder in the second degree, criminal use of a firearm in the first degree, and criminal possession of a weapon in the second and third degrees, and sentencing him to concurrent terms of incarceration of 15 years to life, *8-Vs*to 25 years, 5 to 15 years, and *2-Vs*to 7 years, respectively, unanimously affirmed.

The *Sandoval*ruling, limiting inquiry as to whether defendant had been convicted of a felony, did not result in undue prejudice to defendant *(see, People v Ricks,*135 AD2d 844, 845, *lv denied*73 NY2d 895, 74 NY2d 746). We note that the prosecutor, in fact, did not elicit this testimony, and did not refer to it in summation. The prosecutor’s summation, was reasoned response to that of the defendant. Concur—Murphy, P. J., Milonas, Ellerin, Wallach and Smith, JJ.
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

JUDGMENT

No. 04-15-00115-CV

Gerald VERGOTT,

Appellant

v.

BIRDY APARTMENTS, LLC,

Appellee

From the County Court at Law No. 5, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2015CV00393

Honorable David J. Rodriguez, Judge Presiding

BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE MARION, JUSTICE ANGELINI, AND JUSTICE PULLIAM

In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, this appeal is DISMISSED.

SIGNED April 15, 2015.

_________________________________

Jason Pulliam, Justice
# C_2012326EN.01004701.xml

| 26.10.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 326/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.10.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 326/1

---

CONSOLIDATED VERSION OF THE TREATY ON THE FUNCTIONING OF THE EUROPEAN UNION

CONSOLIDATED VERSION OF THE TREATY ON THE FUNCTIONING OF THE EUROPEAN UNION

PART SIX

INSTITUTIONAL AND FINANCIAL PROVISIONS

INSTITUTIONAL AND FINANCIAL PROVISIONS

TITLE I

INSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS

INSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS

CHAPTER 1

THE INSTITUTIONS

SECTION 5

SECTION 5

THE COURT OF JUSTICE OF THE EUROPEAN UNION

Article 281

(ex Article 245 TEC)

(ex Article 245 TEC)

The Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union shall be laid down in a separate Protocol.

The European Parliament and the Council, acting in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure, may amend the provisions of the Statute, with the exception of Title I and Article 64. The European Parliament and the Council shall act either at the request of the Court of Justice and after consultation of the Commission, or on a proposal from the Commission and after consultation of the Court of Justice.

---
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA

F OURTH D ISTRICT

JAMIE WILSON
, Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA
, Appellee

.

No. 4D 17

- 0700

[ February 8, 2018 ]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit, Okeechobee County ; Dan L. Vaughn , Judge; L.T. Case No.

472016CF000039

.

Carey Haughwout, Public Defender, and Alan T. Lipson, Assistant Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and James J. Carney, Senior Assistant Attorney G eneral, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

P ER C URIAM

.

Affirmed.

W ARNER
, M AY and D AMOORGIAN

, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
# C_2016203EN.01004701.xml

| 7.6.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 203/47 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.6.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 203/47

---

Article 191

The Community shall enjoy in the territories of the Member States such privileges and immunities as are necessary for the performance of its tasks, under the conditions laid down in the Protocol on the privileges and immunities of the European Union.

---
Exhibit 31.1
 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
SECTION 302 OF
THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
      (a)
    
    Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure
controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material
information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made
known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which
this quarterly report is being prepared;(b)
    
    Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such internal
control over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to provide
reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the
preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generally
accepted accounting principles;(c)
    
    Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and
procedures and presented in this quarterly report our conclusions about the
effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures as of the end of the period
covered by this report based on such evaluation; and(d)
    
    Disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control over
financial reporting that occurred during the registrants first fiscal quarter that has
materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants
internal control over financial reporting; and
  (a)
    
    All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation
of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely
affect the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial
information; and(b)
    
    Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees
who have a significant role in the registrants internal control over financial
reporting.
  /s/ Joseph F. Furlong, IIIJoseph F. Furlong, IIIChief Executive Officer
SERVED FEBRUARY 24, 2010 

u.s. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 


OFFICE OF HEARINGS 


WASHINGTON, DC 


IN THE MATTER OF 

FRONTIER AIRLINES, INC. 

FAA DOCKET NO. CP09NM0013 


(Civil Penalty Action) 


DMS No. FAA-2009-1040 


AMENDED PROCEDURAL ORDER 

Paragraph #2 ofthe Procedural Order is amended as follows: 

WHEREFORE, the parties be and are hereby ORDERED to adhere to the 

following procedural schedule: 

... On or before May 1, 2010, the parties shall conclude all discovery including, 

but not limited to, depositions, document production, responses to production 

requests and/or interrogatories. lfthe parties cannot resolve a discovery dispute 

they shall submit the dispute to the undersignedfor resolution in a timely 

1 

manner ... 

Richard C. Goodwin 

U.S. Administrative Law Judge 

Attachment - Service List 

I The court does not anticipate scheduling this case prior to 1 May 2010. 

,'IIW". 
FAA Docket No. CP09NM0013 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

SERVICE LIST 

ORIGINAL & ONE COPY 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Washington, D.C. 20591 

Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2WlOOOl 

ONE COPY 

Jennifer E. Trock, Respondent's Counsel 

Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP 

2300 N Street, N.W. 

Washington, DC 20037~1122 

TEL: 202-663-9179 

FAX: 202~663-8007 

Scott R. Morris, Complainant's Counsel 

Northwest Mountain Region, ANM-7 

Federal Aviation Administration 

1601 Lind Avenue S.W. 

Renton, WA 98057-3356 

TEL: 425-227~1417 

FAX: 425-227-1007 

The Honorable Richard C. Goodwin, Administrative Law Judge 

Administrative Law Judge 

Office of Hearings, M-20 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. 

East Building Ground Floor 

Room E12-320 

Washington, DC 20590 

TEL: Attorney-Advisor 202-366-2139 

Legal Assistant 202-366-5121 

FAX: 202 366~7536 

1 Service was by U.S. Mail. For service in person or by expedited courier, use the following address: Federal 

Aviation Administration, 600 Independence Avenue, S.W., Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2WlOOO, Washington, 

DC 20591; Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430.
[No. 37340.

Department One.

April 8, 1965.]

#### Walter H. Philipp, *Appellant,*v. Lee I. Kueckelhan, Respondent.*

*Walter H. Philipp,*pro se.

*The Attorney General*and *Basil L. Badley, Assistant,*for respondent.

*

Reported in 400 P.2d 769.

Per Curiam.

Appellant, appearing pro se, brought this action in what he designates as a “Petition for Review of Commissioner’s Order Refusing Hearing,” apparently to review the refusal by the Insurance Commissioner of the State of Washington to conduct a hearing into a surety bond required of certain officers and employees of a state chartered credit union.

The trial court, on motion, dismissed the action, seemingly for the reason that it could find no allegation or claim stated therein upon which relief in law could be granted. Rule of Pleading, Practice and Procedure 12(b), RCW vol. 0; 3 Orland, Wash. Prac. 305.

Mr. Philipp appeals the order of dismissal. We have studied the transcript and the briefs, and have heard appellant’s oral argument. The record contains no statement of facts, and we are unable to discern anywhere any claim or complaint on which relief can be granted. Finding no error in the order of dismissal, the same is affirmed.

June 4, 1965. Petition for rehearing denied.
116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 136 

AN ACT 

To amend title 5, United States Code, to protect unpaid 

interns in the Federal Government from workplace harassment and discrimination, and for other purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 
2 

•HR 136 EH

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Federal Intern Protec3 tion Act of 2019’’. 

4 SEC. 2. PROHIBITED PERSONNEL PRACTICES. 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 2302 of title 5, United 

6 States Code, is amended by adding at the end the fol7 lowing: 

8 ‘‘(g)(1) All protections afforded to an employee under 

9 subparagraphs (A), (B), and (D) of subsection (b)(1) shall 

10 be afforded, in the same manner and to the same extent, 

11 to an intern and an applicant for internship. 

12 ‘‘(2) For purposes of the application of this sub13 section, a reference to an employee shall be considered a 

14 reference to an intern in— 

15 ‘‘(A) section 717 of the Civil Rights Act of 

16 1964 (42 U.S.C. 2000e–16); 

17 ‘‘(B) sections 12 and 15 of the Age Discrimina18 tion in Employment Act of 1967 (29 U.S.C. 631, 

19 633a); and 

20 ‘‘(C) section 501 of the Rehabilitation Act of 

21 1973 (29 U.S.C. 791). 

22 ‘‘(3) In this subsection, the term ‘intern’ means an 

23 individual who performs uncompensated voluntary service 

24 in an agency to earn credit awarded by an educational in25 stitution or to learn a trade or occupation.’’. 
3 

•HR 136 EH

1 (b) CONFORMING AMENDMENT.—Section 3111(c)(1) 

2 of title 5, United States Code, is amended by inserting 

3 ‘‘section 2302(g) (relating to prohibited personnel prac4 tices),’’ before ‘‘chapter 81’’. 

Passed the House of Representatives January 15, 

2019. 

Attest: 

Clerk. 
116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 136 

AN ACT 

To amend title 5, United States Code, to protect 

for other purposes. workplace harassment and discrimination, and unpaid interns in the Federal Government from
September 20, 2016

Exemption No. 11797C

Regulatory Docket No. FAA–2015–1053

Mr. Jeffrey J. Antonelli

Ms. Amelia Niemi

Antonelli Law

Counsel for Leading Edge Technologies, Inc.

35 E Wacker Drive, Suite 1875

Chicago, IL 60601

Dear Mr. Antonelli and Ms. Niemi:

This letter is to inform you that we have granted your petition for an amendment. It explains 

the basis for our decision, describes its effect, and lists any changes to the original conditions 

and limitations.

By letter dated July 28, 2016, you petitioned the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) on 

behalf of Leading Edge Technologies, Inc. (hereinafter petitioner or operator) for an 

amendment to your current exemption. That exemption from §§ 61.23(a) and (c), 

61.101(e)(4) and (5), 61.113(a), 61.315(a), 91.7(a), 91.119(c), 91.121, 91.151(a)(1), 

91.405(a), 91.407(a)(1), 91.409(a)(1) and (2), and 91.417(a) and (b) of Title 14, Code of 

Federal Regulations (14 CFR) allows the petitioner to conduct UAS operations. You 

requested an amendment to change the company name from Leading Edge Technologies, 

LLC to Leading Edge Technologies, Inc.

In your petition, you indicate that there has been no change in the conditions and reasons 

relative to public interest and safety that were the basis for granting the original exemption.

The FAA has determined that good cause exists for not publishing a summary of the petition 

in the Federal Register because the requested amendment to the exemption would not set a 

precedent, and any delay in acting on this petition would be detrimental to the petitioner. 
2

Our Decision

The FAA has determined that the justification for the issuance of Exemption No. 11797B

remains valid and is in the public interest. Therefore, under the authority contained 

in 49 U.S.C. 106(f), 40113, and 44701, delegated to me by the Administrator, the operator is 

granted an amendment to change the operator name.

The operator shall add this amendment to its original exemption.

 

Conditions and Limitations

In this grant of amendment, Leading Edge Technologies, Inc. is hereafter referred to as the 

operator. All conditions and limitations within Grant of Exemption No. 11797B remain in 

effect. 

Failure to comply with any of the conditions and limitations of this grant of exemption will be 

grounds for the immediate suspension or rescission of this exemption. 

This exemption terminates on June 30, 2017, unless sooner superseded or rescinded.

Sincerely,

/s/

John S. Duncan

Director, Flight Standards Service
# C_2016203EN.01002301.xml

| 7.6.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 203/23 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.6.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 203/23

---

Article 48

The Council may, acting unanimously on a proposal from the Commission, make applicable to each Joint Undertaking any or all of the advantages listed in Annex III to this Treaty; each Member State shall for its part ensure that these advantages are conferred.

The Council may, in accordance with the same procedure, lay down the conditions governing the conferment of these advantages.

---
#### Barbara Lynn JEPPSON, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Charles Belnap JEPPSON, Defendant and Appellant.

No. 15962.

Supreme Court of Utah.

July 2, 1979.

Roe & Fowler, William G. Marsden, Salt Lake City, for defendant and appellant.

Clyde & Pratt, John T. Evans, Salt Lake City, for plaintiff and respondent.

PER CURIAM:

Each party has appealed from a modification of the original divorce decree, entered by the District Court of Salt Lake County in 1970.

The District Court, on the basis of petitions filed by both parties to modify the 1970 decree as well as an order to show cause concerning contempt for defendant’s failure to pay prior alimony and support obligations, conducted a hearing on June 22, 1978.

The Court found defendant in contempt for failure to pay these past obligations, sentenced him to serve fifteen days in jail, but suspended sentence on the basis of prompt payment by defendant of future alimony and support obligations, adding these words to the order: “If payments are not made on the days and in the amounts ordered, Defendant shall begin serving his sentence forthwith and without further hearing based on an affidavit being filed with this Court . reduced plaintiff’s alimony from $275 to $150 per month; and raised child support from $75 to $200 per month for one child.

Defendant contends that it was error (1) not to eliminate the alimony altogether, (2) to increase the support money, (3) to sentence him for contempt since he had paid the delinquencies after action was commenced but before hearing (in fact full payment was made before the order was signed), (4) to order defendant to serve his sentence without a hearing if future delinquencies occur, and (5) to charge him attorney’s fees below. Plaintiff contends that the Court erred (a) in reducing the alimony, and (b) in not giving her more support money; she further seeks additional attorney’s fees for this appeal.

A further recitation of facts is not deemed necessary, nor would it be illuminating. All arguments raised by the parties are without merit except the one noted *infra.*

The only meaningful matter that we shall address is the one concerning defendant’s being required to serve his sentence if future delinquency occurs *without*a hearing. See *Limb v. Limb,*113 Utah 385, 389, 195 P.2d 263, 265, where this Court held a finding of contempt would not lie if one “. . . puts forth every reasonable *1346effort to comply with a court order and still is unable to do so . . . The same principle applies with respect to future punishment for contempt. Hence a hearing would be needed to determine whether defendant exerted “every reasonable effort” to comply. If he did, no punishment could be meted out.

Affirmed in all respects except as to the matter just discussed, and this case is remanded for the purposes of amending the Court’s order below to provide that no execution on the sentence for contempt, heretofore rendered by the Court, can be made without a hearing, consonant with this opinion. No costs are awarded, nor is plaintiff awarded attorney’s fees for this appeal.
June 20, 2019

TRADE MITIGATION SPECIFICATION 

FOR FRESH PLUMS ver.2

COMMODITY SPECIFICATION

for FRESH FRUIT JULY 2017

This specification is for Trade Mitigation purchases only.

New text is in blue, links to information are underlined.

This purchase must meet all relevant requirements of the Commodity Specification for Fresh Fruit July 

2017, with additional requirements shown below.

For information regarding Food Safety Audit requirements please see attached link: Trade Mitigation Food 

Safety Requirements. 

All Fresh Plums must be of 100% domestic origin. When requested, the vendors will make all paperwork 

available to SCI that confirms 100% domestic origin traceback from the destination inspection certificate to the 

origin orchard, including all steps in the process and a narrative of those steps.

Inspection will be at destination.

1. Grade – U.S. No. 1

2. Type of pack – 28 lb. cartons, loose pack.

3. Species – Japanese only (European or Japanese/American hybrid species and Italian or European type 

prunes are prohibited).

4. All varieties and color types of the above species are allowed.

5. Size 55 or larger – Standard Pack

6. Must be loaded into a refrigerated trailer capable of holding air temperature not to exceed 36° F.

7. Refrigerated shipment at 32° to 36° F, (32° to 34° F, optimal).

8. Truckload case count – 1,360 cases. 

9. WBSCM material code – 111130.

Failure to meet all Master Solicitation, Solicitation/IFB, and Commodity Specification requirements will 

result in automatic rejection of the load at destination. It is the vendor’s responsibility to ensure the delivery of 

acceptable product. The replacement of any failed deliveries with acceptable product, will be the vendor’s 

responsibility.

All other terms and conditions remain unchanged.

Specialty 1400 Independence Avenue, SW.

Crops Room 1536-S, STOP 0240

Program Washington, DC 20250-0240