alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# CE2004084EN.01054602.xml

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/546 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/546

---

(2004/C 84 E/0623)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0198/04

by Sebastiano Musumeci (UEN) to the Commission

(22 January 2004)

Subject:   Creation of a Community body for the study of unexplained atmospheric phenomena

Subject:

For a long time now, sightings of unexplained atmospheric phenomena have been reported in all corners of the globe.

Some of these phenomena have been classified as ‘unidentified flying objects’ (UFOs), sightings of which not only cause considerable perplexity but also fuel theories — so far lacking any foundation — on the probable existence of aliens.

The serious study of the phenomena in question by various European space centres and research establishments warrants special attention from the European Commission, since these phenomena do not fall within the scope of individual Member State competence.

In the light of the above, would the Commission not consider it appropriate to promote and coordinate research and information on unexplained atmospheric phenomena at a Europe-wide level, possibly assigning this responsibility to a specialised and experienced body such as SEPRA (Service d'Expertise des Phénomènes Rares Aérospatiaux) in Toulouse or the European Space Agency?

Answer given by Mr Busquin on behalf of the Commission

(1 March 2004)

(1 March 2004)

Following an extensive consultation for the development of the European Space Policy (‘Green Paper’) (1) the Commission adopted in December 2003 a White Paper entitled ‘Space: a new European frontier for an expanding Union’ (2).

1

2

The White Paper, which has been prepared in close collaboration with the scientific community and the European Space Agency, sets an action plan for implementing the future European Space policy. The actions recommended by the Commission to strengthen European excellence in space science are presented in Section 4.2.

On 28 January 2004, the Commission had the opportunity to address some of these issues in its oral reply to the oral question O-84/03 during Parliament's January 2004 session (3) on the content of the White Paper.

3

One specific activity which may be of particular interest to the Honourable Member concerns an action recently launched in the context of the 6th Framework Programme for Research (4). This action aims at promoting cooperation between Europe's national research funding agencies and national research organisations. It includes a task specifically addressing European solar terrestrial and atmospheric research. This endeavour should help to improve the level of understanding of atmospheric phenomena and to provide space weather services.

4

---

(1)  COM(2003) 17 final.

1

(2)  COM(2003) 673 final.

2

(3)  Oral reply, 28.1.2004.

3

(4)  Specific Support Action: European Science Foundation Collaborative Research Programmes Scheme (Eurocores).

4

---
Exhibit 9


Exhibit 10.17







Barry W. Florescue

c/o Renaissance Acquisition Corp.

50 E. Sample Road, Suite 400

Pompano Beach, Florida 33064




September 13, 2008




First Communications, Inc.

3340 West Market Street

Akron, Ohio 44333







Ladies and Gentlemen:




In connection with the Agreement and Plan of Merger, entered into as of the date hereof (the “Merger Agreement”), by and among Renaissance Acquisition Corp. (“Parent”),  FCI MERGER SUB I, INC., FCI MERGER SUB II, LLC, and First Communications, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the “Company”), I agree to comply with my obligations under the Stock Purchase Plan, dated January __, 2007 (the “Stock Purchase Plan”), by and among Parent, Ladenburg Thalmann & Co. Inc. and R.M. Stark & Co. and that the Company shall be a third-party beneficiary of the Stock Purchase Plan in respect of the transactions contemplated by the Merger Agreement.













Very truly yours,










/s/ Barry W. Florescue

BARRY W. FLORESCUE




AGREED TO AND ACCEPTED BY:




FIRST COMMUNICATIONS, INC.







By: /s/ Joseph R. Morris

Name: Joseph R. Morris

Title: Chief Operating Officer
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. R. 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 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 00-50697 Summary Calendar

AN THI MCCAHON,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

FELECIA WILLIAMS,

Defendant-Appellee.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. A-99-CV-436-JN

-------------------- February 9, 2001

Before SMITH, BENAVIDES, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

An Thi McCahon appeals the summary judgment on the ground of

qualified immunity in favor of defendant Felecia Williams regarding

a request for an arrest warrant. McCahon alleges that Williams’s

actions in seeking an arrest warrant were not objectively

reasonable because there was no probable cause to support a

conclusion that McCahon made a false statement to a police officer.

Williams’s affidavit provided sufficient support for a finding of

probable cause. See Malley v. Briggs , 475 U.S. 335, 345 (1986).No. 00-50697
-2-

McCahon also alleges that McCahon’s actions were objectively

unreasonable because McCahon made the report in Collin County and

t herefore she could not be tried for the crime in Travis County,

from which the warrant issued. She has failed to show that the

magistrate judge in Travis County could not have issued the arrest

warrant. S ee T EX

. C RIM

. P. C ODE A NN

. art. 15.03(a)(2) (Vernon 2000).

Williams’s actions in seeking the warrant in Travis County were

therefore objectively reasonable.

McCahon finally a sserts that, even if a finding of probable

cause exists, this court should go beyond that finding to balance

the interests of the individual against the state. Such a

balancing test should be conducted after a finding of probable

cause only in “extraordinary” circumstances involving “searches or

seizures conducted in an extraordinary manner, unusually harmful to

an individual’s privacy or even physical interests[.]” S ee , e.g. ,

Whren v. United States

, 517 U.S. 806, 818 (1996) (direct appeal of

criminal conviction). Williams’s actions in obtaining an arrest

warrant against McCahon did not harm McCahon’s privacy or physical

interests to any unusual degree. The district court’s grant of

summary judgment in favor of Williams on the grounds of qualified

immunity is AFFIRMED.
UNCLASSIFIED

UNCLASSIFIED

NSA Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) Complaints Data

Posted Pursuant to the No Fear Act

FY23 (1st Quarter)

I. Complaints of Discrimination Filed

Number of Complaints Filed 12

Number of Individuals Filing Complaints 11

Number of Individuals Filing Two or More Complaints 1

II. Bases of Complaints Filed

Age 2

Color 2

Disability 4

National Origin 2

Race 6

GINA 2

Religion 4

Reprisal 5

Sex 4

1. Equal Pay Act 0

2. Pregnancy Discrimination Act 0

III. Issues of Complaints Filed

Appointment/Hire 1

Assignment of Duties 1

Awards 1

Disciplinary Action

Warning 0

Removal 0

Suspension 0

Disciplinary 2

Duty Hours 1

Evaluation/Appraisal 2

Examination/Test 0

Harassment (Sexual) 0

(Non-Sexual) 0

Promotion/Non-selection 3

Reasonable Accommodation 0

Reassignment - Denied 0

Termination 1
UNCLASSIFIED

UNCLASSIFIED

Terms and Conditions of Employment 3

Time and Attendance 1

Training 0

IV. Average Complaints Processing Time to Completion

All Investigations

1. Hearing Not Requested 221.91

2. Hearing Requested 120.32

Final Actions by Agency

1. Processing Time Without a Hearing/FAD 210.72

2. Processing Time With a Hearing/Final Order 112.97

V. Dismissals

Number of Dismissals 0

Average Days Pending At the Time of Dismissal 0

VI. Withdrawals

Number of Complaints Withdrawn by Complainants 0

VII. Findings of Discrimination

Findings Rendered with a Hearing

Number of Findings 0

Findings Rendered without a Hearing

Number of Findings 0

Issues of Findings of Discrimination

Number of Issues 0

Bases of Findings of Discrimination

Number of Bases 0

VIII. Pending Complaints Carried Over From Previous FYs

Complaints Open Any Length of Time During Reporting Year

1. Number of Individuals Filing These Complaints 11

2. Number of These Complaints Currently Pending 12

Status of These Cases:

1. Investigation 14

2. Final Agency Action 0

Hearing 0

 Appeal 0

IX. Complaints Pending Any Length of Time This Fiscal Year Not 

Investigated Within 180 Days (plus any authorized extensions)

0
```

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1783 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

114th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1783

 To amend the Omnibus Public Land Management Act of 2009 to clarify a 
  provision relating to the designation of a northern transportation 
                   route in Washington County, Utah.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             July 15, 2015

   Mr. Hatch introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
       referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend the Omnibus Public Land Management Act of 2009 to clarify a 
  provision relating to the designation of a northern transportation 
                   route in Washington County, Utah.

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

SECTION 1. WASHINGTON COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE TRAVEL AND TRANSPORTATION 
              PLAN.

    Section 1977(b)(2) of the Omnibus Public Land Management Act of 
2009 (Public Law 111-11; 123 Stat. 1089) is amended by striking 
subparagraph (A) and inserting the following:
                    ``(A) ensure that the travel management plan--
                            ``(i) designates a northern transportation 
                        route in the County that follows the route 
                        depicted on the map entitled `Washington 
                        Parkway'; and
                            ``(ii) provides that the designation and 
                        construction of the route is not subject to 
                        additional restrictions or requirements from 
                        the United States Fish and Wildlife Service;''.
                                 <all>
```
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. R. 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 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit



## FILED

June 3, 2003

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 02-41666

Summary Calendar

CECIL C. JONES, JR.,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

JANIE COCKRELL, DIRECTOR, TEXAS DEPARTMENT

OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE, INSTITUTIONAL DIVISION;

GARY L. JOHNSON; JOSEPH K. PRICE,

DefendantsAppellees.

--------------------------------------------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. C-02-CV-63

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

Before JONES, STEWART and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Cecil C. Jones, Jr., Texas prisoner # 425998, filed a civil rights complaint pursuant to 42

U.S.C. § 1983 alleging that various prison and governmental o fficials had violated his constitutional

right of access to the courts by their concerted actions which, Jones alleges, resulted in the dismissal-2-

of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition. The district court dismissed Jones’s complaint under 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) for failure to state a claim and Jones now appeals.

After conducting a de novo review of the record, see Black v. Warren

, 134 F.3d 732, 733-34

(5th Cir. 1998), we can discern no error in the district court’s finding that Jones failed to state a claim

of the denial of access to the courts. Because Jones was able to file his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition,

he cannot establish the actual injury necessary to prevail on a denial-of-access-to-the-courts claim.

See Lewis v. Casey , 518 U.S. 343, 351 (1996); Brewer v. Wilkinson , 3 F.3d 816, 820-21 (5th Cir.

1993). Moreover, the district court acted within its authority in dismissing Jones’s complaint before

having submitted the case to a jury. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A.

Any arguments presented by Jones pertaining directly to the dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254

petition are not properly before this court. This appeal is without merit and is frivolous. H oward v.

King

, 707 F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th Cir. 1983). Accordingly, the appeal is DISMISSED. S ee 5 TH C IR

.

R. 42.2.

The district court’s dismissal of Jones’s complaint for failure to state a claim and this court’s

dismissal of his appe al as frivolous count as two strikes under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). A depegba v.

Hammons

, 103 F.3d 383, 385-87 (5th Cir. 1996). Jones is warned that if he accumulates three

“strikes” under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) he will not be able to proc eed in fo rma pauperis in any civil

action or appeal filed while he is incarcerated or detained in any facilit y unless he is under imminent

danger of serious physical injury. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).

APPEAL DISMISSED AS FRIVOLOUS; SANCTIONS WARNING ISSUED.
Jerry E. Robertson, Plaintiff,


### v. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Civil Action No. 

## {J 

# 9**O~60** Commonwealth ofKentucky, ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Defendant.

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

# FILED MAY - 8 2009**~cv**MAYERWHITIINGTON. CLERK U.S. DISTRICTCOURT

This matter is before the Court on plaintiffs

### pro se complaint and application to proceed 

### informapauperis. The Court will grant plaintiffs application and dismiss the complaint for lack ofsubject matterjurisdiction. Plaintiffis a resident ofLouisville, Kentucky, suing the Commonwealth ofKentucky. The crux ofthe complaint is to compel a "verdict" in plaintiffs lawsuit against Kentucky that this Court transferred to the Western District ofKentucky. CompI. at 1; 

### see Robertson v. 

### Commonwealth of Kentucky, Civ. Action No. 08-1527 (Transfer Order ofSeptember 25, 2008) [Dkt. No.5]. This Court lacks subject matterjurisdiction to review the decisions (or lack thereof) ofanother court. 

### See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1332 (generaljurisdictional provisions); 

### Fleming v. 

### United States, 847 F. Supp. 170, 172 (D.D.C. 1994), 

### cert. denied 513 U.S. 1150 (1995). Moreover, assuming that the complaint presents an exception to the Commonwealth's Eleventh Amendment immunity, 

### see Edelman v. 

### Jordan, 415 U.S. 651,662-63 (1974) ("[A]n unconsenting State is immune from suits brought in federal courts by her own citizens as well as by citizens ofanother State.") (citations omitted); 

### Seminole Tribe of Florida v. 

### Florida, 517 U.S. 44, 55 (1996) (recognizing exceptions to state sovereign immunity), this Court determined in the

### earlier action that this venue is not proper for litigating plaintiffs claims. The complaint therefore will 

### be dismissed. A separate Order accompanies this Memorandum Opinion.

Date: April

# "'J...f ,2009

2
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 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 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 98-51095

 

MICHAEL IDROGO,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

ANN MCGEEHAN, Individually

and in official capacity,

Deputy Assistant Secretary of

State Elections Division,

Defendant-Appellee.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. A-98-CV-573-SS

- - - - - - - - - -

April 19, 1999

Before POLITZ, BARKSDALE, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

IT IS ORDERED that Michael Idrogo’s motion for leave to

appeal in forma pauperis (IFP) is DENIED because his appeal,

being moot, lacks arguable merit and is therefore frivolous. See

Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th Cir. 1983). Idrogo’s

claim is that he is entitled to be a write-in candidate for

United States Representative in the election of November 3, 1998,

which has already taken place.
No. 98-51095

-2-

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Idrogo’s application for relief

in the nature of mandamus, styled a motion for a TRO, is DENIED

as moot.

We caution Idrogo that any additional frivolous appeals

filed by him will invite the imposition of sanctions. To avoid

sanctions, Idrogo is further cautioned to review any pending

appeals to ensure that they do not raise arguments that are

frivolous.

IFP AND TRO DENIED; APPEAL DISMISSED; SANCTION WARNING

ISSUED.
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 Defense

###### Department of the Air Force

# AGENCY:

New York, Rome, Air Force Research Laboratory Information Directorate, Department of the Air Force.

# ACTION:

Notice of Intent to Issue a Partially Exclusive Patent License.

# SUMMARY:

                        Pursuant to the provisions of part 404 of Title 37, Code of Federal Regulations, which implements Public Law 96-517, as amended, the Department of the Air Force announces its intention to grant Kognitive Systems, LLC, a corporation of New York, having a place of business at 14 White Pine Road, New Hartford, New York 13413, a partially exclusive license being limited to the field of use in Process                               ( print page 10463)                            Control in the Pulp and Paper Industry, in any right, title and interest the United States Air Force has in: In U.S. Patent No. 8,732,100 entitled “Method and Apparatus for Event Detection Permitting Per Event Adjustment of False Alarm Rate”, issued on May 20th, 2014.                    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

An exclusive license for this patent will be granted unless a written objection is received within fifteen (15) days from the date of publication of this Notice. Written objections should be sent to: Air Force Research Laboratory, Office of the Staff Judge Advocate, AFRL/RIJ, 26 Electronic Parkway, Rome, New York 13441-4514. Telephone: (315) 330-2087; Facsimile (315) 330-7583.

Henry Williams,

Acting Air Force Federal Register Liaison Officer.

[FR Doc. 2015-04027 Filed 2-25-15; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 5001-10-P
**EXHIBIT 32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO**

**18 U.S.C. §1350,**

**AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Iteris, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended December 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Abbas Mohaddes, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 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.

 
|   | /s/ ABBAS   MOHADDES |
|--------|---------------------------|
|   | Abbas   Mohaddes          |
|   | Chief   Executive Officer |
|   |                      |
|   | February 14,   2011  |

 

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or any other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

 

----
[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 31 (Tuesday, February 17, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Page 8348]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-03085]


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

 Department of Justice

Antitrust Division


Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and 
Production Act of 1993--ODVA, Inc.

    Notice is hereby given that, on January 20, 2015, pursuant to 
Section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 
1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301 et seq. (``the Act''), ODVA, Inc. (``ODVA'') has 
filed written notifications simultaneously with the Attorney General 
and the Federal Trade Commission disclosing changes in its membership. 
The notifications were filed for the purpose of extending the Act's 
provisions limiting the recovery of antitrust plaintiffs to actual 
damages under specified circumstances. Specifically, Don Electronics 
Ltd., Leeds/Yeadon, West Yorkshire, UNITED KINGDOM; NTI AG, 
Spreitenbach, SWITZERLAND; OEM Technology Solutions, Sydney, AUSTRALIA; 
Thermo Ramsey Inc., a part of Thermo Fisher Scientific, Waltham, MA, 
have been added as parties to this venture.
    Also, Ethernet Direct, Taipei, TAIWAN; MK Precision Co., Ltd., 
Seoul, REPUBLIC OF KOREA; Procon Engineering Limited, Sevenoaks, Kent, 
UNITED KINGDOM; and Shinho System, Seoul, REPUBLIC OF KOREA, have 
withdrawn as parties to this venture.
    No other changes have been made in either the membership or planned 
activity of the group research project. Membership in this group 
research project remains open, and ODVA intends to file additional 
written notifications disclosing all changes in membership.
    On June 21, 1995, ODVA filed its original notification pursuant to 
Section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of Justice published a notice 
in the Federal Register pursuant to Section 6(b) of the Act on February 
15, 1996 (61 FR 6039).
    The last notification was filed with the Department on October 15, 
2014. A notice was published in the Federal Register pursuant to 
Section 6(b) of the Act on November 5, 2014 (79 FR 65702).

Patricia A. Brink,
Director of Civil Enforcement, Antitrust Division.
[FR Doc. 2015-03085 Filed 2-13-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-11-P