alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
```

[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 139 (Thursday, July 19, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 42482]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-17463]

========================================================================
Notices
                                                Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________

This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains documents other than rules 
or proposed rules that are applicable to the public. Notices of hearings 
and investigations, committee meetings, agency decisions and rulings, 
delegations of authority, filing of petitions and applications and agency 
statements of organization and functions are examples of documents 
appearing in this section.

========================================================================


Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 139 / Thursday, July 19, 2012 / 
Notices

[[Page 42482]]

ARCTIC RESEARCH COMMISSION

Reports and Updates on Arctic Research Programs and Projects; 
Meetings

July 6, 2012.
    Notice is hereby given that the U.S. Arctic Research Commission 
will hold its 98th meeting in Fairbanks, Alaska, on August 9-10, 2012. 
The business sessions, open to the public, will convene at 8:30 a.m. on 
August 9 and 11:30 on August 10 after a scheduled executive session.
    The Agenda items include:
    (1) Call to order and approval of the agenda
    (2) Approval of the minutes from the 97th meeting
    (3) Commissioners and staff reports
    (4) Discussion and presentations concerning Arctic research 
activities
    The focus of the meeting will be reports and updates on programs 
and research projects affecting the Arctic.
    If you plan to attend this meeting, please notify us via the 
contact information below. Any person planning to attend who requires 
special accessibility features and/or auxiliary aids, such as sign 
language interpreters, must inform the Commission of those needs in 
advance of the meeting.
    Contact person for further information: John Farrell, Executive 
Director, U.S. Arctic Research Commission, 703-525-0111 or TDD 703-306-
0090.

John Farrell,
Executive Director.
[FR Doc. 2012-17463 Filed 7-18-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7555-01-P
```
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

 v.

MICHAEL McLOONE,

Defendant-Appellant.

No. 15-30344

D.C. No. 3:09-cr-00018-RRB

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Alaska

Ralph R. Beistline, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted November 16, 2016** 

Before: LEAVY, BERZON and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges. 

Michael McLoone appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges

the 24-month sentence imposed upon revocation of supervised release. We have

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

FILED

NOV 23 2016

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

* 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).
McLoone contends that his sentence is substantively unreasonable in light of

his mental health issues and the district court’s belief that no period of

incarceration would deter him. The court did not abuse its discretion in imposing

McLoone’s sentence. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). The

sentence is substantively reasonable in light of the section 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)

sentencing factors and the totality of the circumstances, including McLoone’s

criminal history and the need to protect the public. See Gall, 552 U.S. at 51

(2007). Moreover, the record reflects that the district court sufficiently explained

its reasons for imposing the within-Guidelines sentence. See United States v.

Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 992 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc). 

AFFIRMED.

2 15-30344
EXHIBIT 32.1 Certification of Principal Executive Officer Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350 (Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002)   I, Ed Bailey, Chief Executive Officer, and Principal Accounting Officer, of LightTouch Vein & Laser, Inc. (the "Registrant") do hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of our knowledge, based upon a review of the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period March 31, 2010 of the Registrant, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"):  (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and  (2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Registrant.  Dated:  May 17, 2010 By:  /s/ Ed Bailey Ed Bailey Chief Executive Officer and Principal Accounting  Officer  * A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to LightTouch Vein & Laser, Inc. and will be retained by LightTouch Vein & Laser, Inc. and furnished to the Securities Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
#### Blair, Adm’r, etc., vs. Dockery.

*Vendor’# lien*— *Evidence*— Equitable *actions subject to*nonsuit, *notwithstanding there may be some evidence to go to the jury.*

1. In an equity cause tried by a jury, tlie court may nonsuit if it deems the evidente too slight to warrant a verdict for the plaintiff.

2. The evidence in this case to establish a vendor’s lien for purchase-money, the receipt of which was acknowledged in the deed, *held*• insufficient to warrant a judgment for plaintiff.

APPEAL from the Circuit Court for *Ozaukee*County.

Action by an administrator (commenced in 1867) to enforce a vendor’s lien upon real estate conveyed by Ms intestate to the defendant in 1850. The plaintiff proved the conveyance by a warranty deed, which acknowledged the receipt, by the grantors, of the consideration, viz., $874. To show that the consideration had, in fact, never been paid, the plaintiff then called Patrick Dock-ery, who testified that he drew the body of the deed ; that at the time the deed was drawn, there were present only the parties thereto and himself; that at that time witness had some money — sometMng less than $200 ; that this was passed around between them until $874 were passed over; and that witness had the money in the end. Defendant had no money of his own, but witness’ money was passed to make up the $874 mentioned in the deed. Witness was to have it back in the end, and there was nothing said as to the loan of the money.

After some further immaterial testimony, the plaintiff rested; whereupon, on defendant’s motion, the court withdrew the case from the jury, and directed a nonsuit. Plaintiff’s motion to set aside the nonsuit, and for a new trial, was denied; and he appealed.

*II. M.*Blair, for appellant.

*William F. Vilas,*for respondent.

*503Cole, J.

It appears to ns that the evidence was clearly insufficient to show that the consideration money mentioned in the deed had not been paid. The transaction detailed by Patrick Dockery, abont passing around money at the time the deed was drawn, is incomprehensible. It would be uusafe aud dangerous to decree a vendor’s lien, after such a lapse of time, upon such slight testimony as we find in this bill of exceptions.

But it is said that this was a matter for the jury to determine, whether the consideration had been paid or not, and that if there was any evidence which, by the most favorable construction, would sustain a verdict for the plaintiff, the cause should have gone to the jury. But the cause was one in equity, and a verdict of the jury even, in favor of the plaintiff, would not have been binding upon the judgment and conscience of the court. On the contrary, it would have been the duty of the court to give a judgment against the finding of the jury, if it thought the verdict unsupported by the evidence. And it seems to us the testimony in this case is entirely too weak, dubious and incomplete to sustain a judgment establishing a vendor’s lien upon the land, or even adjudging any indebtedness on the part of the defendant.

*By the Court.*— The judgment of the circuit court is affirmed.
# C_2016174EN.01000101.xml

| 14.5.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 174/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.5.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 174/1

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.7762 — ArcelorMittal/Financial Entities/Grupo Condesa)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2016/C 174/01)

On 29 January 2016, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the internal market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1). The full text of the decision is available only in the English language and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

1

| — | In the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes. |
| --- | --- |

—

In the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes.

| — | In electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32016M7762. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

In electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32016M7762. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.

---

(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.

1

---
NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________

HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL INC., TELIT 

CINTERION DEUTSCHLAND GMBH, fdba Thales 

DIS AIS Deutschland GmbH, SIERRA WIRELESS, 

ULC, fka Sierra Wireless, Inc.,

Appellants

v.

3G LICENSING, S.A.,

Appellee

______________________

2023-1354, 2023-1384, 2023-1407

______________________

Appeals from the United States Patent and Trademark 

Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in No. IPR2021-

00908.

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

TCL COMMUNICATION TECHNOLOGY 

HOLDINGS LIMITED, TCT MOBILE 

INTERNATIONAL LIMITED, TCT MOBILE, INC., 

TCT MOBILE (US) INC., TCT MOBILE (US) 

HOLDINGS, INC.,

Appellants

v.

Case: 23-1354 Document: 65 Page: 1 Filed: 08/13/2024
2 HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL INC. v. 3G LICENSING, S.A.

3G LICENSING, S.A.,

Appellee

______________________

2023-1361

______________________

Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark 

Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in No. IPR2021-

00908.

______________________

ON MOTION

______________________

O R D E R

TCT Mobile International Limited, TCT Mobile, Inc., 

TCT Mobile (US) Inc., TCT Mobile (US) Holdings, Inc., and 

TCL Communication Technology Holdings Limited (collectively, “TCL/TCT”) move unopposed to withdraw as parties 

to the above-captioned appeals. TCL/TCT and 3G Licensing, S.A. also submit a joint stipulation of voluntary dismissal of TCL/TCT’s Appeal No. 2023-1361 pursuant to 

Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 42(b) with each side

to bear its own costs.

Upon consideration thereof,

IT IS ORDERED THAT:

(1) The motion is granted, and Appeal No. 2023-1361 

is dismissed. The official caption for the remaining appeals, Appeal Nos. 2023-1354 et al., is revised as reflected 

in this order.

(2) Each side shall bear its own costs in Appeal No. 

2023-1361.

Case: 23-1354 Document: 65 Page: 2 Filed: 08/13/2024
HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL INC. v. 3G LICENSING, S.A. 3

(3) The Clerk of Court shall transmit a copy of this order to the merits panel assigned to Appeal Nos. 2023-1354 

et al.

August 13, 2024

 Date

FOR THE COURT

ISSUED AS A MANDATE (as to 2023-1361 only): 

August 13, 2024

Case: 23-1354 Document: 65 Page: 3 Filed: 08/13/2024
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 16**  **- 7262** 

DONTE LAQUAWN CAPERS , Petitioner

– Appellant ,
v. WARDEN LEROY CARTLEDGE , Respondent

- Appellee
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina , at Florence
. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., Senior District Judge. ( 4:15

- cv - 03267

- HMH )

Submitted : February 28, 2017 Decided: March 8, 2017

Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and HARRIS , Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion
. Donte Laquawn Capers, Appellant Pro Se. William Edgar Salter, III, Assistant Attorney General, Donald John Zelenka, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circ uit.2 PER CURIAM: Donte Laquawn Capers seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or jud ge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (A) (2012) . A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012)
. When the district court den ies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Mill er - El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336

- 38 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the petition states a debatable claim of the deni al of a constitutional right. Slack , 529 U.S. at 484

- 85. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Capers has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense wit h oral argument because the facts and legal3 contentions are adequately presented in the materials before th is court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 24.3

                                POWER OF ATTORNEY

     KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS, that the undersigned hereby constitutes
and appoints Asuka Nakahara and William P. Leiser the true and lawful
attorney-in-fact, with full power of substitution and resubstitution, for him
and in his name, place and stead, to sign on his behalf, as a director or
officer, or both, as the case may be, of Trammell Crow Company, a Delaware
corporation (the "Corporation"), the Corporation's Annual Report on Form 10-K
for the year ended December 31, 1997, and to sign any or all amendments to
such Form 10-K, and to file the same, with all exhibits thereto, and other
documents in connection therewith, with the Securities and Exchange
Commission, granting unto said attorney or attorneys-in-fact, each of them
with or without the others, full power and authority to do and perform each
and every act and thing requisite and necessary to be done in and about the
premises, as fully to all intents and purposes as he might or could do in
person, hereby ratifying and confirming all that said attorney or
attorneys-in-fact or any of them or their substitute or substitutes may
lawfully do or cause to be done by virtue hereof.

                                   /s/ JAMES D. CARREKER
                                   ----------------------------------
                                   James D. Carreker


Dated:    March 31, 1998
In the United States Court of Federal Claims

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

STEPHEN B. HALES, * No. 14-552V

* Special Master Christian J. Moran

Petitioner, *

*

v. *

* Filed: October 28, 2016

SECRETARY OF HEALTH *

AND HUMAN SERVICES, * Stipulation; influenza (“flu”) vaccine;

* Polymyalgia Rheumatica

Respondent. *

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

Douglas L. Burdette, Burkett & Burdette, Seattle, WA, for Petitioner;

Alexis B. Babcock, U.S. Dep’t of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.

UNPUBLISHED DECISION1

On October 27, 2016, the parties filed a joint stipulation concerning the 

petition for compensation filed by Stephen B. Hales on June 27, 2014. In his

petition, petitioner alleged that the influenza vaccine, which is contained in the 

Vaccine Injury Table (the “Table”), 42 C.F.R. §100.3(a), and which he received on 

November 6, 2010, caused him to suffer polymyalgia rheumatic. Petitioner further 

alleges that he suffered the residual effects of this injury for more than six months. 

Petitioner represents that there has been no prior award or settlement of a civil 

action for damages on his behalf as a result of his condition.

Respondent denies that the influenza vaccine caused petitioner to suffer 

polymyalgia rheumatic or any other injury. 

 

1 The E-Government Act, 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note (2012) (Federal Management and 

Promotion of Electronic Government Services), requires that the Court post this decision on its 

website. Pursuant to Vaccine Rule 18(b), the parties have 14 days to file a motion proposing 

redaction of medical information or other information described in 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-12(d)(4). 

Any redactions ordered by the special master will appear in the document posted on the website.
2

Nevertheless, the parties agree to the joint stipulation, attached hereto. The 

undersigned finds said stipulation reasonable and adopts it as the decision of the 

Court in awarding damages, on the terms set forth therein.

Damages awarded in that stipulation include:

A lump sum payment of $20,000.00 in the form of a check payable to 

petitioner, Stephen B. Hales. This amount represents compensation for 

all damages that would be available under 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-15(a).

In the absence of a motion for review filed pursuant to RCFC, Appendix B, 

the clerk is directed to enter judgment in case 14-552V according to this decision 

and the attached stipulation.2

Any questions may be directed to my law clerk, Dan Hoffman, at (202) 357-

6360.

 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/Christian J. Moran

Christian J. Moran

Special Master

 

2 Pursuant to Vaccine Rule 11(a), the parties can expedite entry of judgment by each 

party filing a notice renouncing the right to seek review by a United States Court of Federal 

Claims judge.
# C_2016235EN.01000501.xml

| 29.6.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 235/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.6.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 235/5

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

1

28 June 2016

(2016/C 235/05)

1 euro =

1 euro =

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,1073 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 113,40 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4386 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,82720 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 9,4425 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,0845 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 9,3785 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 27,108 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 317,67 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 4,4413 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 4,5247 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 3,2201 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,4984 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,4438 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 8,5925 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,5671 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 1,5006 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 294,19 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 16,8831 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 7,3606 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,5150 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 14 595,53 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 4,5077 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 52,150 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 71,6883 |
| THB | Thai baht | 39,062 |
| BRL | Brazilian real | 3,7183 |
| MXN | Mexican peso | 20,9827 |
| INR | Indian rupee | 75,2070 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,1073

JPY

Japanese yen

113,40

DKK

Danish krone

7,4386

GBP

Pound sterling

0,82720

SEK

Swedish krona

9,4425

CHF

Swiss franc

1,0845

ISK

Iceland króna

NOK

Norwegian krone

9,3785

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CZK

Czech koruna

27,108

HUF

Hungarian forint

317,67

PLN

Polish zloty

4,4413

RON

Romanian leu

4,5247

TRY

Turkish lira

3,2201

AUD

Australian dollar

1,4984

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,4438

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

8,5925

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,5671

SGD

Singapore dollar

1,5006

KRW

South Korean won

1 294,19

ZAR

South African rand

16,8831

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

7,3606

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,5150

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

14 595,53

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

4,5077

PHP

Philippine peso

52,150

RUB

Russian rouble

71,6883

THB

Thai baht

39,062

BRL

Brazilian real

3,7183

MXN

Mexican peso

20,9827

INR

Indian rupee

75,2070

---

(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.

1

Source

---