alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### In the Matter of Epic Security Corporation et al., Petitioners, v Department of State, Division of Licensing Services, Respondent.

Determination of the respondent Department of State dated August 3, 1989, which, *inter alia,*indefinitely suspended the license of petitioners Epic Security Corporation as a private investigator and Mark J. Lerner and Patrick J. Lappin as qualifying officers, is unanimously confirmed, the petition denied and the proceeding brought pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this court by order of Sup Ct, NY County, Norman C. Ryp, J., entered Jan. 29, 1990) is unanimously dismissed, without costs and without disbursements.

Upon review of the record we find that there was substantial evidence to support the respondent’s determination that the insignia worn as shoulder patches on the uniforms of employees of petitioner, Epic Security Corporation, was not in conformity with the requirements of General Business Law *184§ 80 and the regulations promulgated thereunder (19 NYCRR 171.1 *et seq.).*Petitioner violated these provisions by not obtaining prior written approval from the Division of Licensing Services for the use of such insignia. Petitioners’ attack upon the constitutionality of the statute and the regulations is wholly without merit. Moreover, to the extent that petitioners seek to review a subsequent denial of authorization by respondent with respect to petitioners’ proposed use of substitute patches, petitioners have failed to exhaust their administrative remedies pursuant to CPLR 7804, and such denial is not ripe for review by this court. Concur—Murphy, P. J., Ross, Ellerin and Rubin, JJ.
**EXHIBIT 32.2**

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

In connection with the quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Network Engines, Inc. (the “Company”) for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), the undersigned, Douglas G. Bryant, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, 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.

 

 
| Dated:  May 9, 2008 | /s/  Douglas G. Bryant                              |
|--------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------|
|                     | **Douglas G.  Bryant*****Chief Financial Officer*** |

 

1
#### George KEAN, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.

No. 27263.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Nov. 10, 1954.

No attorney on appeal for appellant.

Wesley Dice, State’s Atty., Austin, for the State.

PER CURIAM.

The conviction is for the offense of burglary; the punishment, two years in the penitentiary.

Appellant has now filed his personal affidavit requesting the dismissal of the appeal. The request is granted.

The appeal is dismissed.
# Rupprecht Law P. A.
324 Datura Street, Suite 200 | West Palm Beach, FL 33401 P: (561) 222

- 6979 | E: jon@jrupprechtlaw.com | W: www.jrupprechtlaw.com

August 24, 2015 U. S. Department of Transportation Docket Management System 1200 New Jersey Ave., SE, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12

- 140, Washington, DC 20590
Re: Petition for Amendment to A dd A ircraft to Precision Aerial Filmworks, Inc ’ s
. Exemption. (Exemption # 12008 in Docket No. FAA

- 2015

- 1055) Dear Sir or Madam:
Precision Aerial Filmworks, Inc. (Exemption # 12008 in Docket No. FAA

- 2015

- 1055) was granted an exemption to conduct aerial d ata collection and closed set TV /movie filming using a DJI S900, Cinestar 8, and Vulcan Raven x8

. There is no request for additional relief from any further regulations. Preci sion Aerial Filmworks,
Inc. requests for an amendment to th at exemption to add onto its fleet the Freefly Systems Alta

. Granting this ex emption would not affect safety but will benefit the public because instead of dangerous helicopters being used, safer and quieter unmanned aircraft can b e used under the restric tions outlined in the prev ious ly granted exemption. Precision Aerial Filmworks, Inc. agrees to operate under the same restrictions in the exemption. T he Alta ’ s manuals are located here:

Alta Starter Guide http://d27w8s76bjlz9v.cloudfront.net/wp

- content/uploads/2015/07/24212006/FFASG.pdf Alta User Manual http://d27w8s76bjlz9v.cloudfront.net/wp

- content/ uploads/2015/07/28175748/ALTA_Manual_RevB.pdf2

Precision Aerial Filmworks, Inc. will operate only within the limitations in the previously granted exemption and the limitations listed in the manuals . The limitations, from the previously granted exemption, will be followed if there is a conflict with the manuals.

Since the Freefly Systems Alta platform has been previously granted in other exemptions (Exemption No. 12362 , etc. ) and would not set any precedent , there is good cause to waive the publishing of this petition in the Federal Register.

Sincerely,

________________________ Jonathan B. Rupprecht, Esq.
Exhibit 4.384

 

FEDERAL SERVICE FOR SUPERVISION IN THE SPHERE OF TELECOM, 
 INFORMATION TECHNOLOGIES AND MASS COMMUNICATIONS

 

LICENSE

 

No. 170433 dated February 17, 2019

 

To render

 

intra zonal communications services

 

This license has been granted to

 

Public Joint Stock Company

 

“Mobile TeleSystems”

 

Legal Entity (Individual Entrepreneur) 
 Primary State Registration Number 
 (PSRN/OGRN, OGRNIP)

 

1027700149124

 

Tax Identification Number (TIN/INN)

 

7740000076

 











 

Principal place of business (residence):

 

109147, Moscow, Marksistskaya St., 4

 

The territory of the services is specified in appendix hereto.

 

This license is valid through:

 

February 17, 2024

 

This license is issued based on the decision of the licensing authority - Order No. 816-рчс dated November 30, 2018

 

This license has an appendix as an integral part, which is executed on two sheets

 

	
Deputy Head
    	
/signature/ A.A. Pankov
    
	
 
    	
 
    
	
Stamp here
    	
 
    
	
Official   seal:

MINISTRY OF TELECOM AND   MASS
   COMMUNICATIONS
   OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION
   FEDERAL SERVICE FOR SUPERVISION
   IN THE SPHERE
   OF COMMUNICATIONS, INFORMATION
   TECHNOLOGY
   AND MASS MEDIA
   PSRN 1087746736296
<TABLE> <S> <C>




<ARTICLE> 5

<LEGEND>

This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
financial statements at May 31, 1999 (Unaudited) and is qualified in
its entirety by reference to such financial statements.

</LEGEND>


<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                        9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                  AUG-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                       MAY-31-1999
<CASH>                                  1,833
<SECURITIES>                           63,773
<RECEIVABLES>                             831
<ALLOWANCES>                                0
<INVENTORY>                                 0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                       72,105
<PP&E>                                 22,704
<DEPRECIATION>                         19,704
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                         75,105
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                   1,780
<BONDS>                                     0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                       0
<PREFERRED>                                 0
<COMMON>                              391,437
<OTHER-SE>                           (318,112)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>           75,105
<SALES>                                     0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                        3,291
<CGS>                                       0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                        7,725
   <LOSS-PROVISION>                         0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                          0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                        (4,434)
<INCOME-TAX>                                0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                    (4,434)
<DISCONTINUED>                              0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                             0
<CHANGES>                                   0
<NET-INCOME>                           (4,434)
<EPS-BASIC>                          (0.001)
<EPS-DILUTED>                          (0.001)





</TABLE>
Exhibit
23.1





Consent
of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm





The Board
of Directors and Stockholders of


Cleveland
BioLabs, Inc.:





We
consent to the use in the Form 10-K of Cleveland BioLabs, Inc. (the “Company”)
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2009 and the incorporation by reference
in the registration statement on Form S-8 (No. 333-140687) and the registration
statement on Form S-3 (No. 333-160648) of the Company of our report dated March
15, 2010, with respect to the balance sheets of Cleveland BioLabs, Inc. as of
December 31, 2009 and 2008, and the related statements of operations,
stockholders’ equity, and cash flows for each of the years in the three-year
period ending December 31, 2009, which report appears in the December 31, 2009
annual report on Form 10-K of the Company.





/s/
Meaden & Moore, Ltd.





Cleveland,
Ohio


March 18,
2010
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

BOYS & GIRLS CLUBS OF EL

PASO/SANDRA CISNEROS,

 Appellant/Cross-Appellee,

v.

SANDRA CISNEROS/BOYS & GIRLS

CLUBS OF EL PASO,

 Appellee/Cross-Appellant.

§

§

§

§

§

 § 

No. 08-07-00338-CV

Appeal from the

346th District Court 

of El Paso County, Texas 

(TC#2006-644) 

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Pending before the Court is a joint motion to set aside the trial court’s judgment and remand

for entry of an agreed judgment pursuant to TEX. R. APP. P. 42.1(a)(2)(B). The motion is granted.

We therefore set aside the trial court’s judgment without regard to the merits and remand the cause

to the trial court for rendition of judgment in accordance with the parties’ agreement. We further

order costs be assessed against the party incurring same.

GUADALUPE RIVERA, Justice

January 8, 2009

Before Chew, C.J., McClure, and Rivera, JJ.
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 185 (Friday, September 22, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 57321]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-24331]


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

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Office of the Secretary


Renewal of the Joint Advisory Committee on Nuclear Weapons Surety

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Joint Advisory Committee on Nuclear Weapons Surety 
(JACNWS) has been renewed in consonance with the public interest, and 
in accordance with the provisions of Public Law 92-463, the ``Federal 
Advisory Committee Act.''
    The JACNWS provides advice and recommendations to the Secretary of 
Defense and the Secretary of Energy on nuclear weapons systems surety 
matters. The Committee undertakes studies and prepares reports on 
national policies and procedures to ensure the safe handling, 
stockpiling, maintenance, disposition and risk reduction of nuclear 
weapons.
    The Committee will continue to be composed of four to seven 
members, both government and non-government individuals, who are 
acclaimed experts in nuclear weapons surety measures. Efforts will be 
made to ensure that there is a fairly balanced membership in terms of 
the functions to be performed and the interest groups represented.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Please contact Mr. Bill Daitch, 
Defense Threat Reduction Agency, telephone: 703-325-0581.

Patricia L. Toppings,
Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
[FR Doc. 00-24331 Filed 9-21-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 5001-10-M
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

January 24, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

134142 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman,

 Justices 

v SC: 134142 

 COA: 267663 

Monroe CC: 05-034568-FH 

TIMOTHY GERARD MOORE,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the April 19, 2007 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court. 

s0117 

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

January 24, 2008 

 Clerk
Exhibit 10-32
 AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT
BY AND BETWEEN
 TELECOMMUNICATION SYSTEMS, INC. AND DREW A. MORIN
 WHEREAS Company Employee Employment Agreement
 WHEREAS
 WHEREAS
 NOW THEREFORE
 1.
    
    Section 3.3(a) is amended in its entirety to read as follows:
 (a)
    
    In any given calendar year, Executive shall not sell or
otherwise dispose of a number of shares of common stock of the Company
acquired under Incentive Stock Awards in excess of the greater of:
 (i)
    
    40,000 shares (as adjusted to reflect any stock
dividend, stock split or reverse stock split, of the Class A
common stock of the Company); or(ii)
    
    the product of (A) ten percent (10%) times
(B) the sum of (I) the number of shares of common stock of the
Company to which Executive holds title, determined as of the
date immediately before the proposed sale or disposition date,
that were issued pursuant to an Incentive Stock Award, plus
(II) seventy percent (70%) of the number of shares of common
stock of the Company for which Incentive Stock Awards are
exercisable determined as of the date immediately before the
proposed sale or disposition date.
 2.
    
    Section 3.3(b) is amended in its entirety to read as follows:
 (b)
    
    In any given calendar quarter, Executive shall not sell or
otherwise dispose of a number of shares of common stock of the Company
acquired under Incentive Stock Awards in excess of the greater of:




---



##### 



(i)
    
    10,000 shares (as adjusted to reflect any stock
dividend, stock split or reverse stock split, of the Class A
common stock of the Company); or(ii)
    
    the product of (A) two and one-half percent
(2.5%) times (B) the sum of (I) the number of shares of common
stock of the Company to which Executive holds title, determined
as of the date immediately before the proposed sale or
disposition date, that were issued pursuant to an Incentive
Stock Award, plus (II) seventy percent (70%) of the number of
shares of common stock of the Company for which Incentive Stock
Awards are exercisable determined as of the date immediately
before the proposed sale or disposition date.
 3.
    
    Section 5.1.2 is amended by changing 30 days to be 90 days where used therein.4.
    
    Section 5.2.2 is amended by changing 30 days to be 90 days where used therein.5.
    
    In all other respects, the Employment Agreement is hereby ratified and confirmed.
 IN WITNESS WHEREOF
 WITNESS/ATTEST
    
    TELECOMMUNICATION SYSTEMS, INC./s/ Bruce A. White
    
    By:
    
    /s/ Richard A. YoungTitle:
    
    Exec. VP & COODate:
    
    05/03/2010EMPLOYEE/s/ Bruce A. White
    
    /s/ Drew A. MorinDate:
    
    05/03/2010
FILED

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

MAR 19, 2010

JOHN LEY

 CLERK

[PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 09-13277

________________________

D. C. Docket No. 08-02755-CV-RLV-1

FAYE COFFIELD,

JASON CROWDER,

BEATRICE WILLIAMS,

Plaintiffs-Appellants,

versus

KAREN C. HANDEL,

in her official capacity as Georgia

Secretary of State and Chairperson of

the Georgia State Election Board,

Defendant-Appellee.

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Georgia

_________________________

(March 19, 2010)
Before EDMONDSON and MARCUS, Circuit Judges, and BARBOUR, District

*

Judge.

PER CURIAM:

Appellant-Plaintiff Coffield sought access to the 2008 general election ballot

as an independent candidate to represent Georgia’s Fourth Congressional District

in the United States House of Representatives. She was not on the ballot. Briefly

stated, she was unable to collect a sufficient number of signatures to satisfy

Georgia’s requirement that an independent candidate submit a nomination petition

signed by at least 5% of the total number of registered voters eligible to vote in the

last election for the position the candidate seeks. GA. CODE ANN. § 21-2-170. This

appeal presents one issue: whether the district court erred when it dismissed

Coffield’s constitutional challenge for failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6).

We conclude it did not.

Coffield claims that Georgia’s 5% rule is too burdensome; she alleges no

independent candidate for the House of Representations in Georgia has met the

requirement since 1964 and that no minor party candidate has ever met it. But she

does not allege how many candidates have tried. According to the Complaint,

Coffield’s own petitioning effort resulted in about 2000 signatures, less than 1% of

Honorable William Henry Barbour, Jr., United States District Judge for the Southern *

District of Mississippi, sitting by designation.

2
the eligible pool and about 13,000 signatures short of what the rule required.

Our Court and the Supreme Court have upheld Georgia’s 5% rule before.

See Jenness v. Fortson, 91 S. Ct. 1970, 1974-76 (1971) (stressing lack of

restrictions on write-in candidates and on the obtaining of signatures for

nominating petitions); Cartwright v. Barnes, 304 F.3d 1138, 1140-42 (11th Cir.

2002); see also Swanson v. Worley, 490 F.3d 894, 910 (11th Cir. 2007) (upholding

Alabama’s 3% requirement where no independent or minor party candidate had

obtained ballot access when nothing indicated that similar potential candidates had

sought ballot access). The pertinent laws of Georgia have not changed materially

since the decisions in Jenness and Cartwright were made.

AFFIRMED.

3
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.1

                                  Certification
                       Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,
                                   As Adopted
                         Pursuant to Section 906 of the
                                   Sarbanes -
                                Oxley Act of 2002

In connection with the quarterly report of China Energy and Carbon Black
Holdings, Inc. (the "Company"), on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended September
30, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") on the
date hereof (the "Report"), the undersigned officer of the Company certifies,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of his knowledge:

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

         ii.      the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in
                  all material respects, the financial condition and results of
                  operations of the Company.

A signed original of this written statement has been provided to the Company and
will be retained by the Company and will be furnished to the SEC or its staff
upon request.

/s/ Guo Yuan Wang
---------------------------------------
Guo Yuan Wang
Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
November 22, 2004

This Certification of Chief Executive Officer pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 is not "filed" for purposes of Section 18 of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 but is instead furnished as provided by
applicable rules of the Securities Exchange Commission.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### National Science Foundation

In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, as amended), the National Science Foundation announces the following meeting.

*Name:*                         Special Emphasis Panel in Mathematical Sciences (1204).                    

*Date/Time:*                         March 1-3, 2001, 8 am—4:30 pm.                    

*Place:*                         National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson Blvd., Rooms 1020 and 1060, Arlington, VA.                    

*Type of Meeting:*                         Closed.                    

*Contact Person:*                         Harry Warchall, Program Director, National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, VA 22230. (703) 292-4861.                    

*Purpose of Meeting:*                         To provide advice and recommendations concerning proposals submitted to NSF for finanacial support.                    

*Agenda:*                         To review and evaluate proposals concerning the Materials & Mechanics Panel as part of the selection process for awards.                    

*Reason for Closing:*                         The proposals being reviewed include information of a proprietary or confidential nature, including technical information; financial data, such as salaries and personal information concerning individuals associated with the proposals. These matters are exempt under 5 U.S.C. 552b(c), (4) and (6) of the Government in the Sunshine Act.                    

Dated: September 19, 2000.

Karen J. York,

Committee Management Officer.

[FR Doc. 00-24410  Filed 9-21-00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7555-01-M