alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Meeting Summary : Pine Oil Registration Review Meeting with Pine Oil Steering Committee/Joint Venture July 25, 2012, 8:30am

- 9:30am Room S

- 8671 , 2777 S. Crystal Drive, Arlington, VA 22202

Participants Pine Oil Steering Committee/Joint Venture: Bill McCormick, Susan Little, Olivia Laird*, Mary Pisculli*, Kimberlee Young*, Mary Beth Enders* EPA: William Hazel, Tim McMahon, Tim Leighton, Michelle Centra, Rebecca von dem Hagen *participated via conference call

Summary On Wednesday, July 25, 2012 the Antimicrobials Division (AD) hosted a meeting with the Pine Oil Steering Committee/Joint Venture . The purpose of the meeting was to discuss ongoing issues regarding the registration review of pine oil. During the meeting, the group discussed the history of t he committee’s submissions to the agency as well as the status of studies currently under review, outstanding issues from the RED, the use of IDREAM in the dietary risk assessment of pine oil, and the overlap of registration review with the post

- RED DCI. The
agency provided clarification on the path forward for both post

- RED and registration review activities. Information on the registration review of pine oil can be found at regulations.gov in docket EPA

- HQ

- OPP

- 2012

- 0005.

Action Items The agency will send the registrant DERs in the near future and clarify data requirements expected to be required by the post

- RED DCI. AD plans to publish the pine oil registration review Final Work Plan in S eptember 2012.
Exhibit 10.2(b)


 Schedule of Secured Convertible Notes (refinancings) Issued by NCT Group, Inc.
             to Carole Salkind and Outstanding as of March 31, 2005



                                                                    Conversion
     Issue Date            Due Date             Principal             Price
     ----------            --------             ---------             ------
      10/21/04             04/21/05          $    479,393           $ 0.0190
      11/23/04             05/23/05               479,901             0.0190
      12/22/04             06/22/05            13,933,585             0.0166
      12/31/04             06/30/05             8,968,594             0.0180
      01/26/05             07/26/05            11,291,006             0.0172
      02/09/05             08/09/05            15,986,794             0.0180
      02/21/05             08/21/05               457,762             0.0195
      03/11/05             09/11/05               457,201             0.0180
      03/23/05             09/23/05             2,001,439             0.0183

                                          ------------------
                                             $ 54,055,675
                                          ==================
Mr. Shawn M. Garvin 

Reg ional Administrator (3RAOO) 

U.S . Environmental Protection Agency 

Reg ion Ill 

1650 Arch Street 

Philadelphia, PA 19103-2029 

Dear Mr. Garvin: 

The purpose of this letter is to submit the encJosed State Implementation Plan (SIP) Revision # 15-02 

containing Maryland's updated Clean Car regulations that reflect the changes made to adopt the 

California Low Emissions Vehicle III Program. The last update to the Maryland regulations occurred 

on March 03, 2014. This SIP Revision includes amendments to Regulation .02 under COMAR 

26.11.34 Low Emissions Vehicle Program. Though this package contains all of the appropriate 

CaJifornia regulations, Maryland is not submitting §2030 Liquefied Petroleum Gas or Natural Gas 

Retrofit Systems from Division 3, Chapter I, Article 5 of Title 13 of the California Code of 

Regulations, for approval as part of Maryland's SIP. 

The Notice of Proposed Action was published in the Maryland Register on December I, 2014. A 

public hearing was held on January 7, 2015. The action was adopted on January 20,2015. The Notice 

of Final Action was published on February 6, 2015 and the action became effective on February 16, 

2015. All required administrative procedures were followed throughout the adoption process. 

I certify that the electronic copy of this SIP submittal (compact disk encJosed) is an exact duplicate of 

the official hard copy. If you have any questions concerning this SIP action, please feel free to call me 

at (410) 537-3084 or Mr. George (Tad) S. Aburn, Jr., Director, Air and Radiation Management 

Administration, at (410) 537-3255. 

Benjamin H. Grumbles 

Secretary 

Enclosure 

cc: Mr. George (Tad) S. Abum Jr., Director, Air and Radiation Management Administration ~ Recycled l'apcr www .mde.maryland.gov TTY Users I·KIKI· 73:i-22.'iK 

V1a Maryland Relay Ser.,.icc
#### WARD v. STATE.

No. 20693.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Oct. 25, 1939.

Sam H. Townsend, of Lufkin, for appellant.

Lloyd W. Davidson, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

CHRISTIAN, Judge.

The offense is assault with intent to murder; the punishment, confinement in the penitentiary for five years.

The record is before us without a statement of facts or bills of exception. No question is presented for review.

The judgment is.affirmed.

PER CURIAM.

The foregoing opinion of the Commission of Appeals has been examined by the Judges of the Court of Criminal Appeals ■ and approved by the Court.
Exhibit 10.4(b)


Schedule of Warrants Issued by NCT Group, Inc. to Carole Salkind in conjunction
              with Refinancing and Outstanding As of March 31, 2005


                                                                   Shares
   Grant Date         Expiration Date       Exercise Price        Granted
   ----------         ---------------       --------------        --------
    10/02/03              10/02/08           $  0.0430             4,000,000
    10/14/03              10/14/08              0.0440            19,250,000
    12/15/03              12/15/08              0.0370            16,500,000
    12/31/03              12/31/08              0.0400            32,250,000
    03/15/04              03/15/09              0.0470            96,500,000
    03/15/04              03/15/09              0.0470            56,500,000
    06/15/04              06/15/09              0.0270            46,000,000
    06/15/04              06/15/09              0.0270            27,000,000
    06/15/04              06/15/09              0.0270           114,000,000
    06/16/04              06/16/09              0.0270             7,750,000
    06/28/04              06/28/09              0.0310            72,250,000
    06/30/04              06/30/09              0.0310            57,250,000
    07/16/04              07/16/09              0.0296           156,000,000
    08/02/04              08/02/09              0.0270           223,750,000
    09/14/04              09/14/09              0.0200            22,250,000
    10/21/04              10/21/09              0.0190             8,000,000
    11/23/04              11/23/09              0.0190             8,000,000
    12/22/04              12/22/09              0.0166           229,500,000
    12/22/04              12/22/09              0.0166            82,500,000
    12/31/04              12/31/09              0.0180           147,750,000
    01/26/05              01/26/10              0.0172           186,000,000
    02/09/05              02/09/10              0.0180           263,250,000
    02/21/05              02/21/10              0.0195             7,750,000
    03/11/05              03/11/10              0.0180             7,750,000
    03/23/05              03/23/10              0.0183            33,000,000

                                                              ----------------
                                                               1,924,750,000
                                                              ================

                                   Page 1 of 1
Exhibit 10.50


 


AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO


 


SEPARATION AGREEMENT AND GENERAL RELEASE


 


This Amendment No. 1 (“Amendment”) to
a Separation Agreement and General Release dated September 19, 2008  (“Agreement”) by
and between Matthew Foster (“Foster”), an
individual, and Ascent Solar Technologies, Inc., a Delaware corporation (“Ascent Solar”):


 


RECITALS


 


It was and is the intent of Foster and Ascent Solar that, as part of
the Separation Benefits, vesting of all of Foster’s unvested stock options be
accelerated, effective October 19, 2008.


 


AGREEMENT


 


Section 3(a) of the Agreement is hereby amended in its
entirety as follows:


 


(a)          Acceleration
of the vesting of all stock options to which Foster is entitled pursuant to
option grants made on November 18, 2005, February 27, 2006 and December 3,
2007 under the Ascent Solar Technologies, Inc. 2005 Stock Option Plan and
Stock Option Agreement, with the acceleration to be effective October 19,
2008.


 


	
  ASCENT SOLAR TECHNOLOGIES, INC.

  	
      MATTHEW FOSTER

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
  By:

  	
    /s/ Mohan Misra

  	
  9/25/08    

  	
      

  	
    /s/ Matthew Foster 

  	
  9/25/08 

  
	
  Chairman of the Board

  	
  Date        

  	
  Date
exv10w2







Exhibit 10.2




SECOND AMENDMENT TO LEASE




	 	 	 
	Amendment date:

	 	August 8, 2008
	Lease date:

	 	June 20, 2005
	 
	 	 
	Tenant:

	 	Pixelworks Inc.
	Landlord:

	 	Union Bank of California, as Trustee for Quest Group Trust
	 

	 	VI
	 
	 	 
	Premises:

	 	8100 SW Nyberg Road Suites 100-400 Tualatin, Oregon
	 

	 	97062





All terms, conditions, and covenants of the original lease and any addendums, exhibits, and/or
attachments to the original lease referenced above shall remain the same, in full force and effect
during the occupancy of tenant, with the addition of the following:





	1.	 	Diminished Premises: As of October 1, 2008, Tenant’s premises shall decrease from 54,683
square feet to 49,472 square feet. The diminished premises shall include Suites 100, 105,
107, 111, 201, 300 and 400 Tualatin, Oregon 97062.






	2.	 	Commencement Date: The term for the diminished premises shall commence on October 1, 2008
and termination shall be February 28, 2009.






	3.	 	Monthly Base Rent: The following chart reflects the amended monthly base rent for the balance
of the lease term:





	 	 	 	 	 
	October 1, 2008- January 31, 2009:

	 	$	102,366	 
	February 1, 2009- February 28, 2009:

	 	$	102,861	 







	4.	 	Operating Expenses: Commencing on October 1, 2008, the Tenant’s Proportion Share per Section
19 of the Lease Agreement shall be decreased from 97.96% to 88.61%. Tenant’s base year shall
remain 2006.
	 
	5.	 	Security Deposit: Landlord is holding $115,772 and no additional security deposit shall be
due.
	 
	6.	 	Lease commission: There is no lease commission for this transaction.
	 
	7.	 	Contingency: This proposal is contingent upon Landlord executing a lease agreement with West
Yost Associates.






 









 





As amended by this Second Amendment to Lease, the Lease shall remain in full force and effect,
including all items in the Second Amendment to Lease now signed. All other terms of the original
lease remain the same.





IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Lease Amendment.




	 	 	 
	Landlord:

	 	Tenant:
	Union Bank of California as

	 	Pixelworks Inc.
	As Trustee for Quest Group VI
	 	 
	 
	 	 
	By:
/s/ Jason Kaufman 


	 	By: /s/ Steven Moore 

	     Jason Kaufman

	 	     Steven Moore
	 
	 	 
	Title:
Assistant Vice President

	 	Title: Chief Financial Officer
	 
	 	 
	Date: 8/20/08

	 	Date: 9/4/2008
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.                  

###### Department of Transportation

###### Surface Transportation Board 

          - [STB Finance Docket No. 33943] 

Progressive Rail, Inc., a Class III rail carrier has filed a verified notice of exemption under 49 CFR 1150.41 to acquire from Canadian Pacific Railway (CPR) and operate CPR's Richfield Line located in Bloomington, Richfield and Minneapolis, MN. The track extends from Auto Club, MN, milepost 25.63, to end of track at Pleasant Avenue South and West 60th Street, Minneapolis, a distance of approximately 9.1 miles. 

The transaction is scheduled to be consummated on December 1, 2000. 

                    If the verified notice contains false or misleading information, the exemption is void                     *ab initio.*                     Petitions to reopen the proceeding to revoke the exemption under 49 U.S.C. 10502(d) may be filed at any time. The filing of a petition to revoke will not automatically stay the transaction.                 

An original and 10 copies of all pleadings, referring to STB Finance Docket No. 33943, must be filed with the Surface Transportation Board, Office of the Secretary, Case Control Unit, 1925 K Street, NW, Washington, DC 20423-0001. In addition, a copy of each pleading must be served on Mr. Dave Fellon, President, Progressive Rail, Inc., 21778 Highview Avenue, Lakeville, MN 55044. 

Board decisions and notices are available on our website at “www.stb.dot.gov.” 

Decided: November 22, 2000. 

By the Board, David M. Konschnik, Director, Office of Proceedings. 

Vernon A. Williams,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 00-30520  Filed 11-29-00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4915-00-P
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

EX PARTE:

REGINALD C. GILBERT

§

§

§

§

§

No. 08-22-00120-CR

Appeal from the

142nd Judicial District Court

of Midland County, Texas

TC # CR57533

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Reginald C. Gilbert, acting pro se, appealed the trial court’s “Order Denying Petition for 

Writ of Habeas Corpus Seeking Bail Reduction,” signed on June 6, 2022.1 On July 22, 2022, this 

Court received notice updating the contact and representation information for Gilbert. On 

August 31, 2022, Gilbert, through new counsel, filed his “Appellant’s Motion to Voluntarily 

Dismiss Appeal” in this Court. See TEX.R.APP.P. 42.2 (governing voluntary dismissals in criminal 

cases). Gilbert and counsel both signed the written motion. See id. The motion is granted.

CONCLUSION

The appeal is dismissed. 

1 This case was transferred from our sister court, the Eastland Court of Appeals, pursuant to the Texas Supreme 

Court’s docket equalization efforts. See TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN. § 73.001. We follow the precedent of the Eastland 

Court of Appeals to the extent they might conflict with our own. See TEX.R.APP.P. 41.3. 
2

September 13, 2022

YVONNE T. RODRIGUEZ, Chief Justice

Before Rodriguez, C.J., Palafox, and Alley, JJ.

(Do Not Publish)
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

 

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

APPLE INC., VISA INC., VISA U.S.A., INC.,

Appellants

v.

UNIVERSAL SECURE REGISTRY LLC,

Appellee

______________________ 

2020-1223, 2020-1243

______________________ 

Appeals from the United States Patent and Trademark 

Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in No. IPR2018-

00813.

______________________ 

Decided: August 26, 2021

______________________ 

MARK D. SELWYN, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and 

Dorr LLP, Palo Alto, CA, argued for all appellants. Apple 

Inc. also represented by MONICA GREWAL, Boston, MA.

 MATTHEW A. ARGENTI, Wilson, Sonsini, Goodrich & 

Rosati, PC, Palo Alto, CA, for appellants Visa Inc., Visa 

U.S.A., Inc. Also represented by MICHAEL T. ROSATO, Seattle, WA.

 CHRISTOPHER MATHEWS, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & 

Case: 20-1223 Document: 66 Page: 1 Filed: 08/26/2021
2 APPLE INC. v. UNIVERSAL SECURE REGISTRY LLC

Sullivan, LLP, Los Angeles, CA, argued for appellee. Also 

represented by TIGRAN GULEDJIAN. 

 ______________________ 

Before TARANTO, WALLACH,* and STOLL, Circuit Judges.

STOLL, Circuit Judge. 

In our opinion in Universal Secure Registry LLC v. Apple, Inc., No. 20-2044 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 26, 2021), issued concomitantly with this opinion, we held claims 1–35 of U.S. 

Patent No. 9,100,826 at issue in this appeal ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101. These thirty-five overlapping claims 

were at issue in the underlying inter partes review proceeding. Accordingly, for the reasons we explained in Apple Inc. 

v. Voip-Pal.com, Inc., 976 F.3d 1316, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2020), 

the appeal of these overlapping claims is rendered moot in 

light of our decision in Universal Secure. We vacate the 

Board’s final written decision and remand for the Board to 

dismiss Apple’s petition as to the overlapping claims.

This leaves us with proposed substitute claim 50, 

which depends from proposed substitute claim 45. The 

Board held this claim eligible. We conclude that proposed 

substitute claim 50 is ineligible under § 101 for the same 

reasons we found representative claim 10 ineligible in Universal Secure. While proposed substitute claim 50 includes 

more specific limitations not found in claim 10, our conclusion under Alice steps one and two remains the same: proposed substitute claim 50 is directed to an abstract idea 

and does not recite an inventive concept that transforms 

the abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention. Alice 

Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 217–21 (2014). 

* Circuit Judge Evan J. Wallach assumed senior status 

on May 31, 2021.

Case: 20-1223 Document: 66 Page: 2 Filed: 08/26/2021
APPLE INC. v. UNIVERSAL SECURE REGISTRY LLC 3

Accordingly, we reverse the Board’s eligibility determination as to substitute claim 50. 

REVERSED IN PART, VACATED IN PART, AND 

REMANDED

COSTS

Costs to Appellants. 

Case: 20-1223 Document: 66 Page: 3 Filed: 08/26/2021
**EXHIBIT 23.1**
**CONSENT OF ERNST & YOUNG LLP, INDEPENDENT AUDITORS**
We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements(Form S-8 Nos. 333-18357, 333-46084, 333-67331, 333-89377, and 333-91518)pertaining to the Amended 1991 Employee Stock Purchase Plan and the Amended1999 Stock Incentive Plan of Cygnus, Inc., in the Registration Statements (FormS-3 Nos. 333-39275, 333-49020, 333-60598, 333-60962, 333-71524,333-85801, 333-91949 and 333-100301) of Cygnus, Inc. and in the related Prospectuses, of our report datedJanuary 30, 2004, except for Note 12, as to which the dateis March 23, 2004, with respect to the consolidated financial statements ofCygnus, Inc. included in the Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year endedDecember 31, 2003.    /s/ Ernst & Young LLPPalo Alto, California  March 23, 2004
In the

Court of Appeals

Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Worth

No. 02-19-00010-CV

J.K., Appellant

V.

A.K., Appellee

§

§

§

§

On Appeal from the 16th District 

Court

of Denton County (16-04048-16)

November 7, 2019

Opinion by Justice Bassel

JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that there 

was no error in the trial court’s judgment. It is ordered that the judgment of the trial 

court is affirmed.

It is further ordered that Appellant J.K. shall pay all of the costs of this appeal, 

for which let execution issue.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS 

By /s/ Dabney Bassel

 Justice Dabney Bassel
#### FIRST NAT. BANK IN DALLAS et al. v. HANNAY, District Judge, et al.

No. 11045.

Supreme Court of Texas.

Dec. 30, 1933.

Coke & Coke, Thos. G. Murnane, and Scott Hughes, all of Dallas, for relators.

PEE OUEIAM.

Eespondent Humble Oil & Eefining Company sued relators in a district court of Harris county. Belators filed pleas of privilege to be sued in Dallas county. Controverting affidavits were filed and a hearing had on the issues thus made, the court taking the matter under advisement. Thereafter the Humble Company filed an amended controverting affidavit, and, when the parties appeared for a hearing on that affidavit and before the court announced his decision or what his decision would be on the question of venue, the Humble Company stated in open court that it would take a nonsuit. Whereupon, over the objections of relators, the court entered an order of dismissal. A few days after the entry of such order, the Humble Company again filed suit against relators in another district court of Harris county on the same cause of action.

Eelators present a motion for leave to file petitions praying for the issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the district judge to set aside the order of dismissal entered in the first suit and to proceed to judgment in accordance with the issues as made by the pleadings and evidence, contending that, after issue is joined by the filing of a plea of privilege and a controverting affidavit, it does not lie within the power of the plaintiff to defeat that issue by moving a nonsuit.

The motion is overruled, on the authority of Atlantic Oil Producing Co. v. W. T. Jackson, District Judge, et al., 116 Tex. 570, 296 S. W. 283, and H. H. Watson Co. v. Cobb Grain Co. (Tex. Com. App.) 292 S. W. 174. The right conferred on the plaintiff by article 2182 of the Eevised Statutes to take a voluntary nonsuit in a case tried without a jury “at any time before the decision is announced” was not lost by the filing of the plea of privilege, the filing of the controverting affidavit, and the hearing of evidence on the issue. The rule announced by the ease second above cited will protect defendants from the harassment and expense of several contests on the issue of venue, for judgment of dismissal upon voluntary nonsuit by the plaintiff, after the filing of a plea of privilege and a controverting affidavit and before the court has announced his decision on the question of venue, is res adjudicata as to the venue of a subsequent suit on the same cause of action. A plaintiff, who, after filing his controverting affidavit, takes a nonsuit, thereby abandons his contest of the plea of privilege and in effect withdraws his controverting affidavit. Such action amounts to an admission that the plea of privilege is well taken.