alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
* Pursuant to Local Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published

and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in Local Rule 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 95-10467

Summary Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

JOSEPH GUGLIELMO,

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the

Northern District of Texas

(4:94-CR-145-A-1)

March 1, 1996

Before JOHNSON, DUHE, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

This is an appeal from the district court’s decision to depart upward from appellant’s

guideline sentence. Because we have found no reversible error on the part of the district court,

we affirm.

AFFIRMED.
In The Matter Of: 

SCOTTTICE 

Respondent 

SERVED: November 21,2013 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

W ASiiiNGTON, DC 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Docket No. FAA-2013-0042 

Case No. 2012NE700211 

ORDER CORRECTING JUNE 13, 2013 TRANSCRIPT 

On September 26, 2013, an Order Setting Deadline to Answer Respondent's Motion to 

Correct the Transcript was filed. This Order required the FAA to file, on or before October 4, 

2013, any objections to the proposed correction contained in the Respondent's Motion to Correct 

the June 13, 2013 Transcript. 

On November 14, 2013 the parties convened for a Motion Conference. At that time, the 

FAA stated that it had no objection to the proposed correction. The Respondent's Motion to 

Correct the Transcript was orally granted. This written Order codifies the oral ruling. 

Pursuant to 14 C.P.R.§ 13.205(a)(6) and (8) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(a), and after 

reviewing all pleadings and documents, as well as all relevant caselaw, decisions, regulation, 

statutory authority, and being fully advised; 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 

The June 13, 2013 Transcript is corrected as follows: 

PAGE LINE 

31 7 

ERRONEOUSLY READS 

circling 

Attachment: Service List 

CORRECTED TO READ 

cynical 
SERVICE LIST- BY U.S. MAIL 

ORIGINAL & ONE COPY 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence A venue, S. W. 

Washington, DC 20591 

Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2W1 0001 

Mr. R. Bennett Sargent 

Complainant's Counsel 

Office of the Regional Counsel, ANE-7 

New England Region 

Federal Aviation Administration 

12 New England Executive Park 

Burlington, MA 01821 

TEL: 781-238-7058 

FAX: 781-238-7055 

Mr. Scott Tice 

Pro se Respondent 

21125 Timberland Road 

Barronett, WI 54813-9540 

scott@ticetech.com 

Judge J.E. Sullivan 

U.S. Administrative Law Judge 

Office of Hearings, M-20 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. (Ell-310) 

Washington, DC 20590 

TEL: 202-366-2132 

FAX: 202-366-7536 

ONE COPY 

FDMS No. FAA-2013-0042 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

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 2Wl000, Washington, 

DC 20591; Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430.
OPM.gov / 

Skip to main content

### In this section

### Resources For

          - New / Prospective Employees
          - Federal Employees
          - Retirees or Family Members
          - Benefits Officers

# Special Notice regarding Death of Annuitants

## Special Notice regarding Death of Annuitants

### Death of Annuitants

Survivors, family, or estate representatives are **required** to notify OPM in the event of the benefit recipient's death. Life Events, such as **marriage/divorce, death of spouse** or **reemployment** can affect benefits and **must be reported to OPM immediately**. We can be contacted by email: retire@opm.gov. Or by telephone at (888) 767-6738 — TTY: 1 (855) 887-4957; our hours of operation are 7:40 A.M. until 5:00 P.M (Eastern Time).

**All** payments received from OPM after the annuitant's date of death **must** be returned to the Treasury Department. If payments are made by check, please write the beneficiary's date of death on the check and return the check to the Treasury Department address on the envelope. If payments are made by **electronic deposit**, please inform the financial institution of the death.
#### FORESYTH v. PIKE *&*KRAMER, Inc.

No. 8726.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. San Antonio.

Jan. 27, 1932.

Rehearing Denied March 4, 1932.

Tom J. Newton and J. M. Woods, both of San Antonio, for appellant.

McCormick, Bromberg, Leftwich & Car-rington, of Dallas, for appellee.

FLY, C. J.

This suit was instituted by appellant against E. S. Price, A. F. Barnhill, and Pike *&*Kramer, Inc., and Dorsey Company. The somewhat complicated and involved prayer is as follows:

> “Wherefore, premises considered, plaintiff prays that citation issue hereon to the defendants herein as required by law; that the writ of injunction heretofore issued herein restraining ‘ the defendants Price and Barnhill from disposing of the $850.00 during the pendency of this suit be continued in full force and effect; that upon a hearing hereof both said $850.00 note . and said $1,000.0(1 note be cancelled, and that in event • that it be decreed, upon a trial of this cause, that Pike & Kramer, Inc., are entitled to a judgment against this plaintiff upon said $1,000.00 note; and further, that in the event that it be decreed that the Dorsey Company is entitled to a judgment against this plaintiff upon said $850 note, then that this plaintiff have judgment over and against said defendants Price and Barnhill for such sum of money as either the said Pike *&*Kramer, Inc., or the Dorsey Company, or both of them, may recover against this plaintiff; and further, that this plaintiff have judgment against the defendant E. S. Price for the said sum of $250.00, cash paid by this plaintiff to the said E. S. Price; and that the temporary injunction granted herein be made permanent; and for costs of Court, and for such other and further relief; special and *734general, in law and in equity, to which he may be entitled.”

Pike & Kramer, Inc., filed a plea of privilege to be sued in Dallas county, which was sustained by the court. Appellant sought to have the order granting the plea of privilege set aside and annulled, but this was denied by the court. The appeal seems to have been perfected from the order of the court dismissing the motion to set aside the order granting the change of venue. No appeal was perfected from the order granting the change of venue.

The order granting the change of venue was rendered on November 18, 1930. No controverting affidavit to the plea of privilege was filed until March 30, 1931, more than four months after the order changing the venue had been granted. The plea of privilege had been on file more than two months before the court took any action on it. This is a novel proceeding and probably unprecedented in the courts of Texas.

The plea complied with the requirements of article 2007, Revised Statutes, and under the law states that the filing of such plea is prima facie proof of everything alleged, and the court could have taken no action except to grant the change of venue. Russell Grader Mfg. Co. of Texas v. McMillin (Tex. Civ. App.) 271 S. W. 124; Green v. Brown (Tex. Civ. App.) 271 S. W. 394; Schumacher Co. v. Dolive, 112 Tex. 564, 250 S. W. 673.

The propositions are all overruled, and the judgment is affirmed.
August 28 , 2015

Mr. Greg Sullivan

2033 East 4400 North Filer, ID 83328

Dear Mr. Sullivan :

This is in response to your letter sent to the docket ( No. FAA

− 20 1 5

− 1107 ) on April 22, 2015, petitioning the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) for an exemption

from Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations ( 14 CFR)

. You requested to conduct agricultural water use and crop health monitoring and to support local realtors using an unmanned aerial

system

.

The information you submitted did not comply with the requirements of 14 CFR 11.81. On July 8, 2015 , the FAA sent you a letter stating that we were unable to process your request

without further information. Specifically, we asked you t o provide the foll owing:

 The specific section or sections of 14 CFR from which you seek relief and the extent of the relief you seek.

 The reasons why granting the request would be in the public interest; that is, how it would benefit the public as a whole.

 The reasons wh y the exemption would not adversely affect safety or how the exemption would provide a level of safety at least equal to that provided by the rule from which you seek an exemption.

 Any additional information, views, or arguments available to support your request.

On August 3, 2015 , the FAA received additional information. The FAA has reviewed the information and finds that you did not provide the reasons why granting the request would be in the public interest.2

Because your petition lacks sufficient inf ormation to proceed, the FAA has close d your exemption request. Should you wish to provide the additional information please resubmit your petition for exemption to the public docket.

Sincerely,

/s/

Lirio Liu

Director

, Office of Rulemaking
Exhibit 4.1


 





ALLONGE #2 TO COMMON STOCK PURCHASE WARRANT


 


Allonge #2 (this “Allonge”)
to that certain Common Stock Purchase Warrant, as amended (the “Warrant”), attached hereto as Exhibit 1 from
Bionik Laboratories Corp. (the “Company”), and issued to [_____], as Holder (the “Holder”).


 


The Company and Holder
agree that the Warrant shall be revised as follows:


 


		1.	The definition of “Exercise Price” in Section 2(b) shall be amended and replaced to
read as follows:



 


“Exercise Price. The
exercise price per share of the Common Stock under this Warrant shall be based on the lesser of (A) the lowest issuance (or conversion)
price of New Round Stock in case there is more than one tranche of New Round Stock in a Qualified Financing or (B) the average
VWAP for the sixty (60) Trading Days immediately prior to January 30, 2018, or (C) twenty-five cents ($0.25) , in all cases subject
to adjustment hereunder (the “Exercise Price”).


 


Except as
expressly reflected herein, the Warrant will remain in full force and effect. This Allonge is intended to be attached to and made
a permanent part of the Warrant.


 


 


Dated as of the 28th
day of September, 2017.


 





	The Company:	BIONIK LABORATORIES CORP.
	 	 	 	 
	 	 	By:	 
	 	 	Name:	 
	 	 	Title:	 
	 	 	 	 
	Holder:	[_____]	 	 
	 	 	 	 
	 	 	By:	 
	 	 	Name:	 
	 	 	Title:
**Exhibit 23.1****Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm**We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements (Forms S-3 No.333-111532 and No. 333-126186) of Natural Resource Partners L.P. and in the related Prospectus ofour reports dated February 27, 2007, with respect to the consolidated financial statements ofNatural Resource Partners L.P., Natural Resource Partners L.P. management’s assessment of theeffectiveness of internal control over financial reporting and the effectiveness of internalcontrol over financial reporting of Natural Resource Partners L.P., and the consolidated balancesheet of NRP (GP) LP (Exhibit 99.1) included in this Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year endedDecember 31, 2006.ERNST & YOUNG LLPHouston, Texas
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-21-00223-CV

In re Blue Water Vista Ridge, LLC

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING FROM TRAVIS COUNTY

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

The petition for writ of mandamus is denied. See Tex. R. App. P. 52.8(a).

__________________________________________

Chari L. Kelly, Justice

Before Chief Justice Byrne, Justices Triana and Kelly

Filed: September 10, 2021
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff - Appellee,

 v.

JAMES ROBERT SORRELL,

 Defendant - Appellant.

No. 14-30159

D.C. No. 2:11-cr-00058-RHW

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Washington

Robert H. Whaley, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted June 22, 2015**

Before: HAWKINS, GRABER, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.

James Robert Sorrell appeals from the district court’s judgment and 

challenges the 18-month sentence imposed upon revocation of supervised release. 

We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

 

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision 

without oral argument. Appellant’s motion to submit this case on the briefs is 

granted. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

FILED

JUN 25 2015

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 14-30159

Sorrell contends that the district court erred by relying on impermissible 

sentencing factors and by failing to explain adequately the sentence imposed. We 

review for plain error, see United States v. Miqbel, 444 F.3d 1173, 1176 (9th Cir. 

2006), and find none. The record reflects that the district court considered the 18 

U.S.C. § 3583(e) sentencing factors, did not consider impermissible sentencing 

factors, and sufficiently explained its reasons for imposing the above-Guidelines 

sentence. See United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 992 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc). 

AFFIRMED.
Exhibit 31.2

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL
OFFICER


I, AL Kennedy, certify that:

1.           I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form
10-Q for the quarterly period ended September 30,
2008 of Illusion Digital Systems, Inc. (the
"Company");

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

3.           Based on my knowledge, the financial
statements, and other financial information included
in this quarterly report, fairly present in all material
respects the financial condition, results of operations
and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the
periods presented in this quarterly report;

4.           The registrant's other certifying officer and I
are responsible for establishing and maintaining
disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the
registrant and we have:

       (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)           Evaluated the effectiveness of the
registrant's disclosure controls and procedures and
presented in this 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

       (c)           Disclosed in this report any change
in the registrant's internal control over financing
reporting that occurred during the registrant's most
recent fiscal quarter (the registrant's fourth fiscal
quarter in the case of an annual report) that has
materially affected, or is reasonably likely to
materially affect, the registrant's internal control over
financial reporting; and

5.           The registrant's other certifying officer and I
have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation
of internal control over financial reporting, to the
registrant's auditors and the audit committee of the
registrant's board of directors (or persons performing
the equivalent functions):

       (a)           All significant deficiencies and
material weaknesses in the design or operation of
internal control over financial reporting which are
reasonable 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 involved management or other employees who
have a significant role in the registrant's internal
control over financial reporting.


Illusion Digital
Systems, Inc.





Date:  November 13,
2008
By
:
/s/ AL Kennedy



Name:  AL Kennedy



Title:  Chief
Financial Officer
```

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3465 Introduced in House (IH)]

114th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 3465

 To enhance the services of the Office of Contracts and Procurement at 
the Department of Transportation to assist modal agencies, States, and 
  grant recipients with certain design and procurement practices and 
                               contracts.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           September 9, 2015

  Mr. Sean Patrick Maloney of New York introduced the following bill; 
       which was referred to the Committee on Transportation and 
                             Infrastructure

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To enhance the services of the Office of Contracts and Procurement at 
the Department of Transportation to assist modal agencies, States, and 
  grant recipients with certain design and procurement practices and 
                               contracts.

    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 ``Public-Private Partnership 
Infrastructure Investment Act''.

SEC. 2. ASSISTANCE WITH PROCUREMENT.

    (a) In General.--The senior procurement executive of the Department 
of Transportation shall enhance the services of the Office of Contracts 
and Procurement by--
            (1) working with modal agencies, States, and other grant 
        recipients on implementing design-bid-build, design-build, and 
        public-private partnerships (P3s) procurement best practices, 
        including model contracts; and
            (2) shall develop suggested best practices to encourage 
        standardizing state P3 authorities and practices, including 
        fair and balanced assumptions made in the calculations, 
        consistency on unsolicited bids, non-compete clauses, and other 
        major elements.
    (b) Definition.--For purposes of this section, the term ``P3'' 
means contractual agreements formed between a public agency and a 
private sector entity that allow for greater private sector 
participation in the delivery and financing of transportation projects.
                                 <all>
```
N OTE : This disposition is nonprecedential.



# United States **Court of Appeals**  **for the Federal Circuit**

______________________

PROVEPHARM INC., Appellant

v.

WISTA LABORATORIES L TD., Appellee

ANDREI IANCU, UNDER SECRETARY OF
COMMERCE FOR INTELLECTUAL PROPERT Y
AND DIRECTOR OF THE UNITED STATES
PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE

, Intervenor

______________________

2019

- 2372, 2019

- 2373

______________________
Appeals from the United States Patent and Trademark Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board i n No s . IPR2018

- 00182, IPR2018

- 00323.

______________________

JUDGMENT

______________________

C HRISTOPHER R ICCIUTI

, Oblon, McClelland, Maier and Neustadt, LLP, Alexandria, VA, argued for appellant. Also represented by T IA F ENTON

, G RACE K IM

. Case: 19-2372 Document: 87 Page: 1 Filed: 12/14/2020N ATHAN R. S PEED

, Wolf, Greenfield & Sacks, PC, Boston, MA, argued for appellee. Also represented by R ICHARD G IUNTA

, E RIC J. R UTT

, E DWARD R. G ATES

.

P ETER J OHN S AWERT , Office of the Solicitor, United States Patent and Trademark Office, Alexandria, VA, for
interve nor. Also represented by T HOMAS W. K RAUSE

, F ARHEENA Y ASMEEN R ASHEED

.

______________________

T HIS C AUSE ha ving been heard and considered, it is

O RDERED and A DJUDGED :

P ER C URIAM (D YK

, M OORE

, and O’M ALLEY

, Circuit Judges ).

AFFIRMED. See Fed . Cir. R. 36.

E NTERED BY O RDER OF THE C OURT

December 14, 2020
Date /s/ Peter R. Marksteiner
Peter R. Marksteiner
Clerk of Court Case: 19-2372 Document: 87 Page: 2 Filed: 12/14/2020
[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 192 (Thursday, October 3, 2024)]
[Notices]
[Page 80624]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-22812]


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

SURFACE TRANSPORTATION BOARD


Release of Waybill Data

    The Surface Transportation Board has received a request from the 
University of Colorado Boulder (WB24-49--9/23/24) for permission to use 
data from the Board's 1990-2018 unmasked Carload Waybill Samples. A 
copy of this request may be obtained from the Board's website under 
docket no. WB24-49.
    The waybill sample contains confidential railroad and shipper data; 
therefore, if any parties object to these requests, they should file 
their objections with the Director of the Board's Office of Economics 
within 14 calendar days of the date of this notice. The rules for 
release of waybill data are codified at 49 CFR 1244.9.
    Contact: Alexander Dusenberry, (202) 245-0319.

Eden Besera,
Clearance Clerk.
[FR Doc. 2024-22812 Filed 10-2-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4915-01-P
```

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3274 Enrolled Bill (ENR)]

        H.R.3274

                     One Hundred Fourteenth Congress

                                 of the

                        United States of America

                          AT THE SECOND SESSION

           Begun and held at the City of Washington on Monday,
           the fourth day of January, two thousand and sixteen

                                 An Act

 
To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 
  4567 Rockbridge Road in Pine Lake, Georgia, as the ``Francis Manuel 
                          Ortega Post Office''.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. FRANCIS MANUEL ORTEGA POST OFFICE.
    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 4567 Rockbridge Road in Pine Lake, Georgia, shall be known 
and designated as the ``Francis Manuel Ortega Post Office''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Francis 
Manuel Ortega Post Office''.

                               Speaker of the House of Representatives.

                            Vice President of the United States and    
                                               President of the Senate.
```
.......... ll f/IM 

,...._ 

...,. ............ ..... ..._. ... .,,.,.. ... .... 

28 

... I (tit~fe9~~~. work