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

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4683 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

115th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 4683

  To amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to revise the NTAP 
period under the Medicare inpatient prospective payment system and the 
 pass-through period under the Medicare outpatient prospective payment 
                                system.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           December 19, 2017

  Mr. Reichert (for himself, Ms. DelBene, Mrs. McMorris Rodgers, Ms. 
 Sewell of Alabama, and Mrs. Watson Coleman) introduced the following 
  bill; which was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means, and in 
 addition to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, for a period to be 
subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration 
  of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee 
                               concerned

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to revise the NTAP 
period under the Medicare inpatient prospective payment system and the 
 pass-through period under the Medicare outpatient prospective payment 
                                system.

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

SECTION 1. REVISION TO NTAP PERIOD UNDER IPPS AND PASS-THROUGH PERIOD 
              UNDER OPPS FOR NEW DRUGS AND DEVICES.

    (a) Revision to NTAP Period Under IPPS.--Section 
1886(d)(5)(K)(ii)(II) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 
1395ww(d)(5)(K)(ii)(II)) is amended by striking ``not less than two 
years and not more than three years'' and inserting ``five years''.
    (b) Revision to Pass-Through Period Under OPPS.--Section 1833(t)(6) 
of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395l(t)(6)) is amended--
            (1) in subparagraph (B)(iii), by striking ``at least 2 
        years, but not more than 3 years'' and inserting ``5 years''; 
        and
            (2) in subparagraph (C)(i), by striking ``at least 2 years, 
        but not more than 3 years'' and inserting ``5 years''.
                                 <all>
```
EXHIBIT 4.2 





Amended Agreement
between: 



Robert N. O’Brien 
And 
New World Batteries,
Inc 



March 30, 2005 



I, Robert Neville O’Brien and
New World Batteries, Inc., hereby amend the Agreement between them dated September 20,
2004 as follows: 



Robert Neville O’Brien, having
the sole ownership, right, title and interest in the Patents and technology set forth on
Schedule A attached hereto, agree that New World Batteries, Inc and successor companies
will have the exclusive use of US patents listed on Schedule A and U.S. Patents pending in
the research areas related to magnetic stirring of electrolytes in any kind of
electrochemical cell and any international patents that are granted based on the US
patent(s) for the entire life of the patent(s). This agreement includes research in
progress utilizing the above method for which patents may be filed in the future.
Exclusive use of the patents and work in progress means all commercial and scientific use
of the patents, including but not limited to manufacture and sale of products based
thereon or the sub-license of the technology. 



   Except:





In the event that New World
Batteries, Inc or its successor companies becomes insolvent, is wound down, or is unable
to carry on business for whatever reason, all rights to the patents revert to my heirs or
myself. 



In the event that an acceptable
takeover offer for NWB is received and approved by the board, Dr. Robert O’Brien
agrees to dissolve this agreement and transfer the ownership of all patents in their
entirety as provided for in the takeover offer. 



















		
	/s/ Robert N. O’Brien 

Robert N. O’Brien 







For New World Batteries, Inc 





/s/ Patrick O’Brien

Patrick O’Brien CEO 
	















Exhibit A to Amended
Agreement dated March 30, 2005 



US patent # 6,194,093 (Magnetized
Current Collector Plates with a Magnetic Shielding Means) granted February 2001; 



US patent # 6,741,440 (Mechanically
Pulsed Magnetizer Kit the “O’Brien Magnetizer”) granted May 2004.. 



US patent # 6,556,424 (Supercapacitor
with Magnetized Parts, the “supercapacitor”) granted April 2003. 



US patent # 5,051,157/Canada
1,335,442 (Spacer for electrochemical Apparatus) granted September 1991.   US patent
# 6,836,098 (Battery Charging Method Using Supercapacitors in Two Stages) granted
December 2004.
#### Sam W. POLK et al. v. HELMERICH *&*PAYNE, Inc.

No. 1944.

Circuit Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.

Nov. 14, 1939.

Slay & Simon, of Fort Worth, Tex., and Foulston, Siefkin, Foulston & Morris, of Wichita, Kan., for appellants.

Monnet & Savage, of Tulsa, Old., and Brooks & Fleeson, of Wichita, Kan., for appellee.

Before LEWIS and PHILLIPS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Appeal dismissed with prejudice, at appellants’ costs, attorney’s docket fee of appellee being expressly waived, pursuant to stipulation.
[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 4 (Friday, January 5, 2024)]
[Notices]
[Page 781]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-00027]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL OP-OFA-104]


Environmental Impact Statements; Notice of Availability

    Responsible Agency: Office of Federal Activities, General 
Information 202-564-5632 or https://www.epa.gov/nepa.

Weekly receipt of Environmental Impact Statements (EIS)
Filed December 22, 2023 10 a.m. EST Through December 29, 2023 10 a.m. 
EST
Pursuant to 40 CFR 1506.9.

Notice

    Section 309(a) of the Clean Air Act requires that EPA make public 
its comments on EISs issued by other Federal agencies. EPA's comment 
letters on EISs are available at: https://cdxapps.epa.gov/cdx-enepa-II/public/action/eis/search.

EIS No. 20240000, Draft, NRC, MD, Site-Specific Environmental Impact 
Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants Supplement 7a, Second 
Renewal Regarding Subsequent License Renewal for North Anna Power 
Station Units 1 and 2, Comment Period Ends: 02/20/2024, Contact: Tam 
Tran 301-415-3617.

    Dated: December 30, 2023.
Julie Smith,
Acting Director, NEPA Compliance Division, Office of Federal 
Activities.
[FR Doc. 2024-00027 Filed 1-4-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
| 1. | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and |
|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

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

| Date:  August 14, 2012 | By:    | /s/ Michael L. Peterson                               |
|----------------------------------|--------|-------------------------------------------------------|
|                             |   | Michael L. Peterson                                   |
|                             |   | Executive Vice President, Chief Financial Officer and |
|                             |   | Principal Accounting Officer                          |

----
# C_2008260EN.01001601.xml

| 11.10.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 260/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.10.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 260/16

---

Action brought on 4 August 2008 — G-Star Raw Denim v OHIM — ESGW Holdings (G Stor)

(Case T-309/08)

(2008/C 260/29)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: G-Star Raw Denim Kft. (Budapest, Hungary) (represented by: G. Vos, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: ESGW Holdings Ltd (Tortola, British Virgin Islands)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal:

Form of order sought

| — | Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 14 April 2008 in case R 1232/2007-1; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 14 April 2008 in case R 1232/2007-1;

| — | Reject the registration of the Community trade mark application No 4 195 368; and |
| --- | --- |

—

Reject the registration of the Community trade mark application No 4 195 368; and

| — | Order the defendant to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for the Community trade mark: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Applicant for the Community trade mark:

Community trade mark concerned: The figurative mark ‘G Stor’ for goods in class 9

Community trade mark concerned:

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The applicant

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings:

Mark or sign cited: Benelux trade mark registration No 545 551 of the word mark ‘G-STAR’ for goods in class 25; Community trade mark registration No 3 445 401 of the word/figurative mark ‘G-STAR’ for goods in class 9 and 25; Community trade mark registration No 3 444 262 of the word mark ‘G-Star’ for goods in class 9 and 25; earlier well-known trade mark ‘G-Star’ protected in various countries for goods in class 25; Community trade mark registration No 3 444 171 of the mark ‘G-STAR RAW DENIM’ for goods in class 9 and 35; Dutch trade name G-Star International B.V.

Mark or sign cited:

Decision of the Opposition Division: Allowed the opposition and rejected the application in its entirety

Decision of the Opposition Division:

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Annulment of the contested decision and rejection of the opposition

Decision of the Board of Appeal:

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(5) of Council Regulation No 40/94 as the Board of Appeal applied the wrong criteria when assessing the required similarity between the trade marks concerned and the required detriment to the earlier trade marks. In addition, the Board of Appeal also made an incorrect assessment of the facts with regard to the abovementioned assessments.

Pleas in law:

---
EXHIBIT 4.2

NUMBER                  [EMBLEM OF EAGLE]                   SHARES

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



                  This Certifies that NAME OF STOCKHOLDER is the owner of NUMBER
                  OF SHARES OF SERIES B PREFERRED STOCK fully paid and
                  non-assessable Shares of the above Corporation transferable
                  only on the books of the Corporation by the holder hereof in
                  person or by duly authorized Attorney upon surrender of this
                  Certificate properly endorsed.

                  In Witness Whereof, the said Corporation has caused this
                  Certificate to be signed by its duly authorized officers and
                  to be sealed with the Seal of the Corporation. Dated





------------------------                                ------------------------
             , President                                             , Secretary

                               LOYALTYPOINT, INC.
                                 CORPORATE SEAL
#### Leona RICHARDSON, Administratrix, etc., Appellant, v. NEW YORK CENTRAL RAILROAD COMPANY.

No. 11351.

Circuit Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

May 29, 1939.

PER CURIAM.

Appeal dismissed on motion of appellee, at costs of appellant, for failure to print record and file briefs.
```

[Federal Register: April 21, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 76)]
[Notices]               
[Page 20806-20807]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr21ap10-24]                         

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

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Agricultural Research Service

 
Notice of Intent To Grant Exclusive License

AGENCY: Agricultural Research Service, USDA.

ACTION: Notice of intent.

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

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that the U.S. Department of 
Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service, intends to grant to ORO 
AGRI INC. of TROPHY CLUB, TEXAS, an exclusive license to U.S. Patent 
No. 7,579,183, ``SAPROPHYTIC YEAST, PICHIA ANOMALA'', issued on AUGUST 
25, 2009, and to U.S. Patent Application Serial No. 12/507,057, 
``GROWTH MEDIA AND SAPROPHYTIC USE FOR PICHIA ANOMALA'', filed on JULY 
21, 2009.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before May 21, 2010.

ADDRESSES: Send comments to: USDA, ARS, Office of Technology Transfer, 
5601 Sunnyside Avenue, Rm. 4-1174, Beltsville, Maryland 20705-5131.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: June Blalock of the Office of 
Technology Transfer at the Beltsville address given above; telephone: 
301-504-5989.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Federal Government's patent rights in 
these inventions are assigned to the United States of America, as 
represented by the Secretary of Agriculture. It is in the public 
interest to so license these inventions as ORO AGRI INC. of TROPHY 
CLUB, TEXAS, has submitted a complete and sufficient application for a 
license. The prospective exclusive license will be royalty-bearing and 
will comply with the terms and conditions of 35 U.S.C. 209 and 37 CFR 
404.7. The prospective exclusive license may be granted unless, within 
thirty (30) days from the date of this published Notice, the 
Agricultural Research Service receives written evidence and argument 
which establishes that the grant of the license would not be consistent 
with the

[[Page 20807]]

requirements of 35 U.S.C. 209 and 37 CFR 404.7.

Richard J. Brenner,
Assistant Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2010-9109 Filed 4-20-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-03-P
```
```

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4811 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

115th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4811

  To provide for grants from the Attorney General to local education 
   agencies to purchase and install devices that would allow for the 
 immediate notification of appropriate officials in case of emergency, 
                        and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 17, 2018

Mr. Bost (for himself and Mr. Schneider) introduced the following bill; 
which was referred to the Committee on Education and the Workforce, and 
   in addition to the Committee on the Judiciary, for a period to be 
subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration 
  of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee 
                               concerned

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To provide for grants from the Attorney General to local education 
   agencies to purchase and install devices that would allow for the 
 immediate notification of appropriate officials in case of emergency, 
                        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 ``Securing Our Schools Act of 2018''.

SEC. 2. PILOT PROGRAM.

    (a) In General.--For each of fiscal years 2019 through 2022, the 
Attorney General may make a grant to a local education agency to 
acquire and install a device that allows for immediate notification of 
emergency response personnel, law enforcement, or other appropriate 
officials (as determined by the local education agency) in the case of 
an emergency, including a health emergency, reports of an assailant 
armed with a weapon, an act of terrorism, a natural disaster, or other 
similar emergency, as determined by the local education agency.
    (b) Application.--An application for a grant under this section 
shall be submitted at such time, in such manner, and containing such 
information as the Attorney General may require.
    (c) Matching Requirement.--The portion of the costs of a device 
acquired and installed pursuant to this section that is provided by a 
grant under subsection (a) may not exceed 75 percent.
    (d) Maximum Amount of Grant.--A grant under this section may not be 
in an amount greater than $200,000 for fiscal year.
    (e) Term of Grant.--A grant under this section shall be for a term 
of one fiscal year.
                                 <all>
```
<PAGE>

                                                                 EXHIBIT 10.26.1



                                November 13, 2001


Bay City Capital LLC
750 Battery Street, Suite 600
San Francisco, CA  94111
Attn: Sanford S. Zweifach


        Re:    Extension of Letter Agreement between Epoch Biosciences, Inc.
               and Bay City Capital BD LLC


Dear Mr. Zweifach:

        Reference is made to the Letter Agreement between Epoch Biosciences,
Inc. (the "Company") and Bay City Capital BD, LLC., (the "Advisor") dated
November 7, 2000 with respect to the engagement of Advisor by the Company (the
"Agreement").

        Pursuant to Paragraph 13 of the Agreement, the term of Advisor's
engagement ends effective November 7, 2001. This Letter is to document our
mutual agreement that the term of Advisor's engagement shall continue until May
7, 2002, pursuant to the terms of the Agreement. All other provisions of the
Agreement shall remain in full force and effect.

        If the foregoing correctly sets forth the understanding agreement
between Advisor and Company, please so indicate in the space provided below,
whereupon this letter shall constitute a binding amendment and extension of the
Agreement.



                                            Very truly yours,


                                            EPOCH BIOSCIENCES, INC.



                                            /s/ William G. Gerber
                                            ------------------------------------
                                            William G. Gerber, M.D.,
                                            Chief Executive Officer


Agreed to and accepted this 15th day of November, 2001



/s/ Sanford S. Zweifach
--------------------------------------
Bay City Capital BD LLC

By:   Sanford S. Zweifach
Its:  President
## UNIVERSIT Y



## o f HAWAl' r MANO A /•rARTMENTO F

• i OPERATION

S ^'t 3 - 2 A !M{ 1 Joh n A . Burn s Schoo l o f Medicin e Departmen t o f Nativ e Hawaiia n Healt h

Thursday , 1 3 Januar

y 201 1 Kevin Schlemme

r EAS an d Domesti c Analysi s Divisio n U.S . Departmen

t o f Transportatio n 120 0 New Jersey Avenue , S E Washington , D.C . 2059 0 Dea r Mr . Schlemmer : I wholeheartedly suppor

t Makan i Ka i Ai r Charter' s bi d to provide schedule d ai r servic e t o Kalaupap ao n th e island o f Moloka'i . I a

mth e physicia

n who regularly travel s to Kalaupap ato serv e m

y patient s there . Makan

i Ka i Ai r Charter s ha s flow

n m e to Moloka' i o n anumbe r o f occasions , an

d I hav e foun

d their servic e t o b e excellen

t an d reliable . During th e seve

n year s I hav e serve d th e patient s ther e a s facult y of th e Universit

y of Hawai' i Schoo l o

f Medicine , I hav e flown t

o Kalaupap awit

h severa l othe r companies , an d in m y opinio n Makan

i Ka i Ai r Charter s i s th e bes t

offerin g servic e to tha

t destination . Th e pilot s ar e professional s an

d the aircraf

t ar e maintaine d in fine condition . Richar d Schuman , th e owne

r o f Makan i Kai , i s dedicate d to goo d custome r service , an

d tha t philosoph y i s eviden

t i n th e company' s daily operations . Thi s fine compan y shoul d receiv e you

r ever y consideratio n fo

r providin g essentia

l air servic e to Kalaupapa . Than k you fo r you r time an d attention ! 

# ^W ^ S . Kalan i BradyiMD , MPH , HAC

P Associat e Professo r an d InterimChai

r

67 7 Al a Moan a Boulevard , Suit e 1016 B Honolulu , Hawai' i 9681 3 Telephone : (808 ) 587-857 0 Fax : (808 ) 587-856 5 A n Equa l Opportunity/Affirmativ e Actio n Institutio n
#### WILSON v. WILSON.

No. 36002.

Supreme Court of Oklahoma.

Dec. 15, 1953.

*734Creekmore Wallace, Pryor, R. R. Linker, Tulsa, for plaintiff in error.

Wilkerson & Wilkerson, Pryor, for defendant in error.

O’NEAL, Justice.

C. W. Wilson obtained a divorce from Ola Wilson. The divorce has become final and Ola Wilson appeals from an adverse order of the trial court respecting alimony and support for the minor child.

 A motion to dismiss has been filed for the reason that the appeal was not taken within three months of the order overruling the motion for new trial or a valid order extending the time for appeal. The motion is uncontested. In Sheets v. Sheets, 204 Okl. 88, 226 P.2d 915, 916, we said:

> “12 O.S.1941 § 972 as amended, S.L. 1949, p. 97, § 1, 12 O.S.A.Supp. § 972, provides that appeals must be taken within three months from the rendition of the judgment or final order complained of, but that the trial court in its discretion may extend the time for not to exceed six months. Under the provisions of this amendment, where no order is made by the trial court within three months from the rendition of the judgment or final order complained of, extending the time within which to file and appeal in this court, such judgment becomes, final, and the trial court is thereafter without jurisdiction to extend the time within which to file such appeal.

> “An order made by the trial court, extending the time within which to malee and serve case made beyond the statutory time within which an appeal is required to be effected, does not extend the time to appeal.”

Since the appeal was not filed in this court within three months from the date of the order overruling the motion for new trial or a valid order extending the time for appeal said appeal is dismissed.

HALLEY, C. J., JOHNSON, V. €. J., and CORN, WILLIAMS and BLACKBIRD, JJ., concur.