alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

MICHAEL J. O’CONNELL, Relator; ex 

rel. United States of America,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

 v.

REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF 

CALIFORNIA,

Defendant-Appellee.

No. 15-17528

D.C. No. 3:14-cv-02880-HSG

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of California

Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr., District Judge, Presiding

Submitted November 16, 2016**

Before: LEAVY, BERZON, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges. 

Michael J. O’Connell appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment 

dismissing his qui tam action alleging violations of the False Claims Act. We have 

jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Omar v. Sea-Land

 

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

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

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

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

FILED

NOV 22 2016

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 15-17528 

Service, Inc., 813 F.2d 986, 991 (9th Cir. 1987). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed O’Connell’s action because the 

Regents of the University of California are a state entity and the False Claims Act 

does not provide a private right of action against state entities. See Donald v. Univ.

of Cal. Bd. of Regents, 329 F.3d 1040, 1043-44 (9th Cir. 2003) (“Because a state 

entity is not identified as a ‘person’ for purposes of § 3729, the relators can claim 

no statutory basis under § 3730(b)(1) to bring suit against the Regents.”); see also

Vt. Agency of Nat. Res. v. United States ex rel. Stevens, 529 U.S. 765, 787-88 

(2000) (“We hold that a private individual has standing to bring suit in federal 

court on behalf of the United States under the False Claims Act, 31 U.S.C.

§§ 3729-3733, but that the False Claims Act does not subject a State (or state 

agency) to liability in such actions.”).

Contrary to O’Connell’s contention, the district court did not err in 

dismissing O’Connell’s action prior to the issuance of a summons. See Franklin v. 

Or., State Welfare Div., 662 F.2d 1337, 1343 (9th Cir. 1981).

AFFIRMED.
EXHIBIT 31.1
 
 
 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
 AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
 
 Date: November 12, 2004
 
 
 I, Norman Gardner, certify that:
 
 1.
I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of LaserLock Technologies, Inc.; 
 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 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 small business issuer as of, and for, the periods presented in this report; 
 4.
The small business issuer's other certifying officers 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 small business issuer and have: 
 a)
designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such internal controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the small business issuer, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared; 
 b)
evaluated the effectiveness of the small business issuers disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this 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 evaluations; and 
 c)
disclosed in this report any change in the small business issuers internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the small business issuers most recent fiscal quarter (the small business issuers fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the small business issuers internal control over financial reporting; and 
 5.
The small business issuers other certifying officer(s)s and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the small business issuers auditors and the audit committee of small business issuer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 reportings which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the small business issuers ability to record, process, summarize and report financial data; and  b)
any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the small business issuers internal control over financial reporting. 
 ****Date: November 12, 2004
By:
/s/ Norman GardnerNorman GardnerPresident and CEO(Principal executive officer and principal financial officer)
# C_2015198EN.01000101.xml

| 15.6.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 198/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.6.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 198/1

---

Last publications of the Court of Justice of the European Union in the Official Journal of the European Union

Official Journal of the European Union

(2015/C 198/01)

Last publication

Last publication

OJ C 190, 8.6.2015

Past publications

Past publications

OJ C 178, 1.6.2015

OJ C 171, 26.5.2015

OJ C 155, 11.5.2015

OJ C 146, 4.5.2015

OJ C 138, 27.4.2015

OJ C 127, 20.4.2015

These texts are available on:

EUR-Lex: http://eur-lex.europa.eu

---
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-7763

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

ADELSON MICHEL, a/k/a Mike, a/k/a Cowboy,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western 

District of Virginia, at Harrisonburg. Glen E. Conrad, Chief 

District Judge. (5:06-cr-00041-GEC-1)

Submitted: November 22, 2013 Decided: December 3, 2013

Before NIEMEYER, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Adelson Michel, Appellant Pro Se. Grayson A. Hoffman, Jeb 

Thomas Terrien, Assistant United States Attorneys, Harrisonburg, 

Virginia; Joseph W.H. Mott, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES 

ATTORNEY, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Adelson Michel appeals the district court’s order 

denying his motion for reduction of his sentence under 18 U.S.C. 

§ 3582(c)(2) (2012). We have reviewed the record and find no 

reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated 

by the district court. See United States v. Michel, No. 5:06-

cr-00041-GEC-1 (W.D. Va. Oct. 17, 2013). We dispense with oral 

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately 

presented in the materials before the court and argument would 

not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
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 Health and Human Services

###### National Institutes of Health

                    Notice is hereby given of a change in the meeting of the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases Special Emphasis Panel, March 31, 2015, 04:00 p.m. to April 01, 2015, 05:00 p.m., Churchill Hotel, 1914 Connecticut Avenue NW., Washington, DC, 20009 which was published in the                     **Federal Register**                     on March 09, 2015, 80 FR 12494.                 

The meeting is being amended to reflect location change. The new meeting location is the Hyatt Regency Bethesda, One Bethesda Metro Center, Bethesda, MD 20814. The meeting is closed to the public.

      ( print page 14391)    
Dated: March 13, 2015.

David Clary,

Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. 2015-06270 Filed 3-18-15; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

WESTERN DISTRICT

SAMUEL A. BYLER, INDIVIDUALLY, 

MELVIN R. YODER, INDIVIDUALLY, 

EMANUEL A. YODER, INDIVIDUALLY, 

AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS OF 

THE OLD ORDER AMISH OF SUGAR 

GROVE TOWNSHIP, WARREN 

COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA,

Petitioners

v.

SUGAR GROVE AREA SEWER 

AUTHORITY,

Respondent

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 284 WAL 2016

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from 

the Order of the Commonwealth Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 22nd day of November, 2016, the Petition for Allowance of 

Appeal is DENIED.
Exhibit 10.15


 








	 	Extension Agreement	 
	 	 	 
	 	between	 
	 	 	 
	SunHydrogen, Inc	 	 
	1OE Yanonali Street Suite 36

                                             Santa Barbara, CA 93101
	 	 
	 	 	 
	 	 	- "SUNHYDROGEN" -
	 	 	 
	 	and	 
	 	 	 
	Gebr. SCHMID GmbH

                                             Robert-Bosch-Strar.ie 32-36
	 	 
	72250 Freudenstadt

                                             Germany
	 	 
	 	 	 
	 	 	-"SCHMID" -


  


Recitals:


 


SCHMID has developed several tool and
process platforms for industrial processing of flat and continuous substrates for the electronic, PV, medical and commodity industries.
Besides having decades of experience in providing tools to the industry in the field of specialized immersion and single side chemical
treatment such as anodizing, chemical deburring, etching, cleaning and chemical bath deposition, electro and electroless plat ing, thin
film deposition in ambient and low pressure environment, one of the major strengths of the company is to industrialize processes from
lab to mass manufacturing.


 


SUNHYDROGEN has developed a breakthrough
nanoparticle technology to make green hydrogen using sunlight and any source of water. SUNHYDROGEN seeks to identify and develop manufacturing
processes to scale-up second generation ("Gen2") nanoparticle technology to transition from lab-scale to commercial scale.


 


SUNHYDROGEN and SCHMID have entered
into a Cooperation Agreement with an effective date March 1, 2021 ("Cooperation Agreement") with a duration of 6 months.
SUNDHYDROGEN and SCHMID intend to extend the Cooperation Agreement until De cember 31, 2021.


 




    Page 1  of 2


     


    







 


	1.	Extention



 


In order
to satisfy its respective obligations in accordance with the Cooperation Agreement, SUNHYDROGEN and SCHMID hereby agree to extend the
Cooperation Agreement until December 31, 2021 ("Extension Period").


 


	2.	Miscellaneous



 


All provisions of the Cooperation Agreement
will remain in full force and effect unless amended in this Extension Agreement. If there is a conflict between this Extension Agreement
and the Cooperation Agreement, this Extension Agreement will prevail.


 


	Freudenstadt,
    September 28, 2021	 	Santa
    Barbara, September 28, 2021
	 	 	 
	Gebr.
    SCHMID GmbH	 	SunHydrogen
    Inc.
	 	 	 
	/s/
    Christian Schmid	 	 
	Name:
    Christian Schmid	 	Name:
    Tim Young
	 	 	 
	Title: CEO	 	Title:
    CEO



 


 


Page 2 of 2
Petition for Writ of Mandamus Dismissed and Opinion filed November 29, 

2016.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14-16-00835-CR

IN RE VINCENT E. BEASLEY, Relator

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

WRIT OF MANDAMUS

228th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 1357233

MEMORANDUM OPINION

On October 21, 2016, relator Vincent E. Beasley filed a petition for writ of 

mandamus in this court. See Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. § 22.221 (West 2004); see also 

Tex. R. App. P. 52. In the petition, relator asks this court to compel the Honorable 

Marc Carter, presiding judge of the 228th District Court of Harris County, to grant 
2

a motion to set aside his felony conviction for sexual assault because the trial court 

allegedly lacked jurisdiction to enter judgment on the conviction.

Because relator’s petition involves a final post-conviction felony proceeding, 

it is governed by Article 11.07 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure. Only the 

Court of Criminal Appeals has jurisdiction in final post-conviction felony 

proceedings. Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 11.07; Padieu v. Court of Appeals of 

Tex., Fifth Dist., 392 S.W.3d 115, 117 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013); Ater v. Eighth 

Court of Appeals, 802 S.W.2d 241, 243 (Tex .Crim. App. 1991) (orig. proceeding). 

“To complain about any action, or inaction, of the convicting court, the applicant 

may seek mandamus relief from the Court of Criminal Appeals. See Tex. Const. 

art. V, § 5. “We have no authority to issue writs of mandamus in criminal law 

matters pertaining to proceedings under article 11.07.” In re Briscoe, 230 S.W.3d 

196, 196–97 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2006, orig. proceeding).

Accordingly, we dismiss relator’s petition for writ of mandamus for lack of 

jurisdiction.

 PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Busby, Donovan, and Brown.

Do Not Publish — Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).
STEAM ELECTRIC CBI REPLACEMENT PAGE

EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 200 9-0 819

DCN:_____

__ SE01313A1

________________________

THE FOLLOWING HAS BEEN REMOVED BECAUSE IT CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS I NFORMATION (CBI) PER 40 CFR PART 2, SUBPART B.
NOT RECOMMENDED FOR PUBLICATION

File Name: 16a0635n.06

No. 16-3403

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT

THEODORE LUCIO, et al.

Plaintiffs-Appellants,

v.

LEVY ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES 

COMPANY, et al.

Defendants-Appellees.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

ON APPEAL FROM THE 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT 

COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF 

OHIO

BEFORE: NORRIS, GIBBONS, and ROGERS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM. In this diversity employee-injury case, plaintiff Theodore Lucio appeals 

the grant of summary judgment for defendant Levy Environmental Services Company and its 

affiliated entities. Lucio fell from a slag-mill tower owned by Levy and suffered serious and 

permanent injuries. He received Ohio workers’ compensation benefits, but also brought suit 

against Levy under Ohio Rev. Code § 2745.01, which allows an employee to recover outside the 

workers’ compensation system for an employer’s intentional tort. The district court excluded the 

opinion of Lucio’s expert in part, and granted summary judgment for lack of evidence of intent 

to injure on the part of Levy. After carefully reviewing the record, the applicable law, and the 

parties’ briefs, we conclude that the district court’s opinion correctly sets out the facts and 

governing law. Because this court’s issuance of a full opinion would serve no jurisprudential 

purpose and would be duplicative, we affirm on the basis of the well-reasoned opinion of the 
No. 16-3403, Theodore Lucio et al. v. Levy Environmental Srvs. Co. et al. 

-2-

district court. Lucio v. Levy Environmental Services Co., No. 3:14CV1849, 2016 WL 1110244

(N.D. Ohio Mar. 22, 2016).
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

170 

KA 13-00563 

PRESENT: CENTRA, J.P., PERADOTTO, LINDLEY, SCONIERS, AND WHALEN, JJ. 

 

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, APPELLANT, 

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

DAVID PERRY, DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT. 

 

BROOKS T. BAKER, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, BATH (JOHN C. TUNNEY OF COUNSEL),

FOR APPELLANT. 

JOHN M. SCANLON, BINGHAMTON, FOR DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT.

Appeal from an order of the Steuben County Court (Joseph W.

Latham, J.), entered November 28, 2012. The order granted that part

of defendant’s omnibus motion seeking to dismiss the indictment. 

It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is

unanimously reversed on the law, that part of the motion seeking to

dismiss the indictment is denied, the indictment is reinstated, and

the matter is remitted to Steuben County Court for further proceedings

on the indictment. 

Memorandum: On appeal from an order granting that part of

defendant’s omnibus motion seeking to dismiss the indictment pursuant

to CPL 30.10 (2) (b), the People contend that County Court erred in

determining that the statute of limitations had expired. We agree. 

Defendant was charged by an indictment with grand larceny in the

second degree based on the theory that he stole in excess of $50,000

in New York State retirement disability benefits to which he was not

entitled. Defendant applied for those benefits in 2004 or 2005, and

received payments from February 17, 2005 through February 28, 2012. 

It is well settled that the People may aggregate “a series of

single larcenies governed by a common fraudulent scheme or plan even

though the successive takings extended over a long period of time”

(People v Rosich, 170 AD2d 703, 703, lv denied 77 NY2d 1000; see

People v Cox, 286 NY 137, 142-143, rearg denied 286 NY 706; People v

Tighe, 2 AD3d 1364, 1365, lv denied 2 NY3d 747). The offense of grand

larceny as alleged in this case is therefore properly characterized as

a continuing crime (see People v First Meridian Planning Corp., 86

NY2d 608, 615-616), and “the [s]tatute of [l]imitations of a

continuous crime is governed by the termination and not the starting

date of the offense” (People v Eastern Ambulance Serv., 106 AD2d 867,

868; see People v DeBeer, 35 AD3d 1275, 1276, lv denied 8 NY3d 921). 

The statute of limitations in this case did not begin to run until the
-2- 170 

KA 13-00563 

final taking in February 2012 (see generally People v RandallWhitaker, 55 AD3d 931, 931, lv denied 12 NY3d 787), and the

prosecution commenced shortly thereafter in March 2012 was thus timely

pursuant to CPL 30.10 (2) (b).

Defendant contends that the statute of limitations began to run

at the time of the allegedly fraudulent filing, relying on People v

O’Boyle (136 Misc 2d 1010, 1012-1013). That case, however, is

inapposite inasmuch as the defendant in that case was charged with

insurance fraud, whereas defendant in this case is charged with grand

larceny.

Entered: February 14, 2014 Frances E. Cafarell

Clerk of the Court
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

The National Science Board's Executive Committee, pursuant to NSF regulations (45 CFR part 614), the National Science Foundation Act, as amended (42 U.S.C. 1862n-5), and the Government in the Sunshine Act (5 U.S.C. 552b), hereby gives notice of the scheduling of a teleconference for the transaction of National Science Board business, as follows:

# DATE and TIME:

 Wednesday, March 25, 2015, 10:30-11:30 a.m. EDT.

# SUBJECT MATTER: 

Chairman's remarks and discussion of legislative issues.

# STATUS: 

Closed.

                        This meeting will be held by teleconference. Please refer to the National Science Board Web site                         *www.nsf.gov/​nsb*                         for additional information and schedule updates (time, place, subject matter or status of meeting) which may be found at                         *http://www.nsf.gov/​nsb/​notices/​*. Point of contact for this meeting is James Hamos at                         *jhamos@nsf.gov*.                    

Suzanne Plimpton,

Reports Clearance Officer, National Science Foundation.

[FR Doc. 2015-07088 Filed 3-24-15; 4:15 pm]

 BILLING CODE 7555-01-P
From: Seidel, Teresa (DNRE)

To: Adams, Lucy H.

Subject: FW: Subpart N request- Electro Plating Services-Madison Heights, Michigan

Date: Friday, February 11, 2011 1:49:34 PM

Attachments: EPS Stack Test Cover Page1 and Cover Letter.pdf

EPS Stack Test Cover Page1.pdf

EPS Stack Test Plan and Review Letter page1.pdf

EPS Stack Test Plan Review page 2.pdf

EPS Stack Test Report (8-5-2000).pdf

Teresa Seidel

Air Quality Division

Acting Field Operations Supervisor

Lansing 517-373-7037

Warren - 586-753-3730

Detroit - 313-456-4680

"Solution is possible where acceptance is ready."

 - Pearl S Buck

From: Kallumkal, Sebastian (DNRE) 

Sent: Friday, February 11, 2011 10:07 AM

To: Seidel, Teresa (DNRE)

Subject: RE: Subpart N request- Electro Plating Services-Madison Heights, Michigan

Attached is the Stack Test Plan and Report for Electro Plating Services in Madison Heights. Let me

know if you would like these documents to be saved in S: drive.

From: Seidel, Teresa (DNRE) 

Sent: Thursday, February 03, 2011 9:28 AM

To: DEQ-AQD-Field

Cc: Fiedler, David (DNRE)

Subject: Subpart N request

I've emailed Lucy at RTI to see how she would like the

information and how much information she would like.

Compile what you have and I'll let you know as soon as

I do what format she would like it in. Thanks everyone

for your quick response!

Teresa
Teresa Seidel

Air Quality Division

Acting Field Operations Supervisor

Lansing 517-373-7037

Warren - 586-753-3730

Detroit - 313-456-4680

"Solution is possible where acceptance is ready."

 - Pearl S Buck
**Exhibit 32.2**

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO**

**18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350**

**AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

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

In connection with the Quarterly Report of DDi Corp. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for theperiod ended June 30, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Sally Goff, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adoptedpursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that: 

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

2. The information contained in the Report fairlypresents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company. 

 

Date: August 8, 2007