alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

____________________________________ ) DOME PATENT, L.P., ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Civil Action No. 07-1695 (PLF) ) ANDREI IANCU, Director, ) United States Patent and Trademark Office, ) ) Defendant. ) ____________________________________)

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Currently before the Court is Defendant’s Claim for Expenses Under 35 U.S.C. § 145 (“Mot.”) [Dkt. No 132]. On September 8, 1980, Russell A. Neefe filed an application with the Patent and Trademark Office (“PTO”) for a patent covering his method of making a contact lens. Mot. at 2. The PTO granted this request on December 15, 1981, but subsequently overturned this decision. Id. at 3. As a result, Plaintiff filed this action. Id. After a three-day bench trial, this Court entered a judgment in favor of the PTO affirming the Board’s unpatentability decision. See Dome Patent, L.P. v. Rea, 2014 WL 2943587 (D.D.C. July 1, 2014). The Federal Circuit affirmed this decision on appeal. See Dome Patent L.P. v. Lee, 799 F.3d 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2015).

Defendant then filed, and this Court granted, several motions for an extension of time to submit a claim for expenses while the Supreme Court decided a separate pending case related to expenses, Peter v. Nantkwest, Inc., 140 S. Ct. 365 (2019). See Mot. at 4. In Peter v. Nantkwest, Inc., the Supreme Court “reviewed the question of whether ‘all expenses’ in2

section 145 also included an award of a pro rata share of the salaries of PTO attorneys and paralegals who worked on this case.” Mot. at 4. Ultimately, the Supreme Court held that the term “does not authorize the PTO to recover a pro rata share of the salaries of attorney and paralegal employees of the PTO.” Mot. at 4 (quoting Peter v. Nantkwest, Inc., 140 S. Ct. at 365). On February 21, 2020, Defendant filed Defendant’s Claim for Expenses Under 35 U.S.C. §145. See Mot. As a result of the Supreme Court decision in Peter v. Nantkwest, Inc., Defendant’s claim for expenses does not seek the “salaries of attorney and paralegal employees” of the agency. Id. at 4.

On April 3, 2020, this Court issued an order directing Plaintiff to file its opposition to Defendant’s motion for expenses by April 20, 2020. To date, Plaintiff has not filed any opposition.

Therefore, because Defendant’s motion is unopposed and because this Court entered a judgment in the PTO’s favor, this Court finds the Defendant’s motion for expenses is warranted. Accordingly, it is hereby

ORDERED that Defendant’s Claim for Expenses Under 35 U.S.C. §145 [Dkt. No. 132] is GRANTED; and it is

FURTHER ORDERED that, within 30 days of this Order, Plaintiff shall remit the amount of $47,729.65 payable to the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.

SO ORDERED.

PAUL L. FRIEDMAN United States District Judge DATE: May 15, 2020 /s/
STATE of Louisiana v. Jamal FLETCHER

NO. 2017-K-1939

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

June 1, 2018

Denied.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Francisco ALVARO-VELASCO, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 15-40991 Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Date Filed: 11/21/2016

Paula Camille Offenhauser, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Renata Ann Gowie, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Marjorie A. Meyers, Federal Public Defender, Scott Andrew Martin, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant

Before JOLLY, SMITH, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Following his guilty-plea conviction of illegal reentry, Francisco Alvaro-Velaseo was sentenced to 48 months of imprisonment, including a 16-level enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(ii) on account of his conviction of second-degree kidnapping under North Carolina General Statutes § 14-39. Avaro-Velasco contends that the district court “committed reversible plain error by convicting, sentencing, and entering judgment against Alvaro-Ve-lasco under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) based on its determination that his prior kidnapping conviction qualified as a conviction for a ‘crime of violence’ under 18 U.S.C. § 16(b) and thus one for an ‘aggravated felon/ under 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(F).” Relying primarily on *Johnson v. United States,*— U.S. —, 135 S.Ct. 2551, 192 L.Ed.2d 569 (2015), Alvaro-Velaseo maintains that the definition of a crime of violence in § 16(b), as incorporated by reference into the definition of an aggravated felony in § 1101(a)(43)(F), is unconstitutionally vague on its face. He further contends that this court cannot apply § 16(b) in this case without violating due process.

The government has filed an unopposed motion for summary affirmance, urging that Alvaro-Velasco’s reasoning is foreclosed by *United States v. Gonzalez-Longoria,*831 F.3d 670 (5th Cir. 2016) (en banc), *petition for cert. filed*(Sept. 29, 2016) (No. 16-6259). The government is correct that *Gonzalez-Longoria*forecloses Alvaro-Ve-lasco’s facial vagueness challenge to § 16(b) and his challenge to our applica*855tion of § 16(b) on due-process grounds.1*See id.*Accordingly, the motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, and the judgment is AFFIRMED. The government’s alternate motion for an extension of time to file a brief is DENIED as unnecessary.

*

 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.

1

, The grant of certiorari on the issue whether § 16(b) is unconstitutional in light of *Johnson*in *Lynch v. Dimaya,*— U.S. -, 137 S.Ct. 31, 195 L.Ed.2d 902 (2016), does not affect the analysis. This court is bound by its own precedent unless and until it is altered by a decision of the Supreme Court. *See Wicker v. McCotter,*798 F.2d 155, 157-58 (5th Cir. 1986).
Mitchell REDDIN, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D17-1046

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

April 11, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Dismissed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<CIK>                         0000882830
<NAME>                        GIBRALTAR PACKAGING GROUP
<MULTIPLIER>                                  1000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              JUL-03-1999
<PERIOD-START>                                 JUN-28-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                   MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                         82
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  6,876
<ALLOWANCES>                                   208
<INVENTORY>                                    9,816
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               18,690
<PP&E>                                         41,065
<DEPRECIATION>                                 19,573
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 45,669
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          13,177
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       50
<OTHER-SE>                                     920
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   45,669
<SALES>                                        58,180
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               58,180
<CGS>                                          50,084
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  50,084
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               19,165
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             2,495
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (13,564)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (516)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (13,048)
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (13,048)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  (2.59)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (2.59)
        


</TABLE>
<TABLE>
                               Pomeroy Computer Resources, Inc.
                           Exhibit 11 - Computation of Earnings Per Share
                             ( in thousands, except per share amounts )

  Primary Earnings Per Common Share
<CAPTION>
                             Quarter ended July 5,  Six months ended July 5,
                             _____________________  ________________________
                                1996       1997        1996       1997
                                ____       ____        ____       ____    
<S>                          <C>        <C>         <C>        <C>   
  Net income for the period  $ 1,853    $ 3,969     $   498    $ 6,927
                             =======    =======     =======    =======

  Weighted common share        4,195      7,487       4,079      7,191

  Dilutive effect of 
  options outstanding 
  during the period              151        153         192        200
                             _______    _______     _______    _______

  Total common and common
  equivalent shares            4,346      7,679       4,232      7,391
                             =======    =======     =======    =======

  Earnings per common share  $  0.43    $  0.52     $  0.12    $  0.94
                             =======    =======     =======    =======


  Fully Diluted Earnings Per Common Share

                             Quarter ended July 5,  Six months ended July 5,
                             _____________________  ________________________
                                1996       1997        1996       1997
                                ____       ____        ____       ____    
  Net income for the period  $ 1,853    $ 3,969     $   498    $ 6,927
                             =======    =======     =======    =======

  Weighted common share        4,195      7,487       4,079      7,191

  Dilutive effect of
  options outstanding 
  during the period              159        200         163        204
                             _______    _______     _______    _______
                                                                         
  Total common and common
  equivalent shares          4,354        7,687       4,242      7,395
                             =======    =======     =======    =======

  Earnings per common share  $  0.43    $  0.52     $  0.12    $  0.94
                             =======    =======     =======    =======
</TABLE>
EPA SANITIZED Page 1 of 5EPA SANITIZED Page 1 of 5
EPA SANITIZED Page 2 of 5

EPA SANITIZED Page 2 of 5
 3 of 5 3 of 5
EPA SANITIZED Page 4 of 5

EPA SANITIZED Page 4 of 5
 

EPA SANITIZED Page 5 of 5EPA SANITIZED Page 5 of 5
KAREN FORSYTHE MONROE, M.D., LLC, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. ST. PETE MOB LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D18-1456

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

May 10, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Dismissed.
** **

**EXHIBIT 23.2**

# **CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

TheBoard of DirectorsRentrak Corporation:

Weconsent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statements (Nos.33-44865, 333-28565, 333-39021, 333-62523, 333-110781and 333-110782) on Forms S-8 of Rentrak Corporation of our reportdated July 9, 2004, with respect to the consolidated statements ofoperations, stockholders’ equity, and cash flows of Rentrak Corporation for theyear ended March 31, 2004, and the related consolidated financialstatement schedule, which report appears in the March 31, 2006 annualreport on Form 10-K of Rentrak Corporation.
| /s/ KPMG LLP      |   |
|-------------------|--------|
| Portland, Oregon  |
| June 9, 2006 |

 

----
#### Robert Joseph FIORE, II, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Captain MILEM, Defendant-Appellee, and Rowan County Sheriff's Department; Unknown Mail Room Personnel, Defendants.

No. 17-6379

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: May 23, 2017

Decided: May 26, 2017

Robert Joseph Fiore, II, Appellant Pro Se. Bradley O. Wood, WOMBLE CARLYLE SANDRIDGE *&*RICE, PLLC, Winston-Salem, North Carolina, for Appel-lee.

Before KING, AGEE, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Robert Joseph Fiore, II, appeals the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. *Fiore v. Milem,*No. 1:14-cv-00731-LCB-JEP, 2017 WL 943944 (M.D.N.C. Mar. 9, 2017). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*AFFIRMED*
|   | · | Directors      are granted stock options, with new directors receiving an initial grant      of 50,000 options and continuing directors receiving an “evergreen” option      grant of 16,667 options. |
|--------|--------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | · | Through      2008, directors did not receive cash compensation for their      services.  However, at the annual meeting in December 2008,      shareholders approved the payment of cash compensation, in addition to the      stated options compensation, according to the  following: |
|--------|--------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | 1. | NIS      31,700 base annually per director, as linked to the applicable Israeli      consumer price index, payable in four equal installments at the beginning      of each calendar quarter; and |
|--------|----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | 2. | NIS      1,590 per director per face to face Board or committee meeting or NIS954      (60% of NIS 1590) in case of telephonic participation at such meeting,      payable at the beginning of each calendar quarter following the quarter      during which a Board member participated in a meeting. No separate per      meeting compensation will be paid for committee meetings that are held on      the same day immediately prior or subsequent to a Board      meeting.  In that event, a Board and committee meeting will be      considered one meeting. |
|--------|----|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | 3. | For      non-Israeli based directors, the amounts set forth will be paid in United      States dollars, according to the representative rate of exchange published      by the Bank of Israel on the date ofpayment. |
|--------|----|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

----
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 6073 Reported in Senate (RS)]

<DOC>

                                                       Calendar No. 464
118th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 6073

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                              June 4, 2024

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security 
                        and Governmental Affairs

                             August 1, 2024

               Reported by Mr. Peters, without amendment

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
    at 9925 Bustleton Avenue in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, as the 
    ``Sergeant Christopher David Fitzgerald Post Office Building''.

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

SECTION 1. SERGEANT CHRISTOPHER DAVID FITZGERALD POST OFFICE BUILDING.

    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 9925 Bustleton Avenue in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, shall 
be known and designated as the ``Sergeant Christopher David Fitzgerald 
Post Office Building''.
    (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 ``Sergeant 
Christopher David Fitzgerald Post Office Building''.
                                                       Calendar No. 464

118th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                               H. R. 6073

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
    at 9925 Bustleton Avenue in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, as the 
    ``Sergeant Christopher David Fitzgerald Post Office Building''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                             August 1, 2024

                       Reported without amendment
```
Michele L. MCKAY, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. Lance V. MCELHINEY, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D18-0725

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

March 01, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Denied.
<PAGE>   1


              EXHIBIT 11.1-COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS (LOSS) PER SHARE
                      (in thousands, except per share data)
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

                                                                                     THREE MONTHS ENDED MARCH 31,
                                                                                       2000                 1999
                                                                                -------------------      -----------

Income applicable to common shares:

<S>                                                                                   <C>                   <C>
Net Income (Loss)                                                                     $ (775)                $456

Income (Loss) applicable to common shares                                             $ (775)                $456
                                                                                       ======                ====

Weighted average number of common shares outstanding                                    7,398               7,338

Weighted average common shares                                                          7,398               7,338
                                                                                        =====               =====

Income (Loss) per common share                                                        $(0.10)               $0.06
                                                                                      =======               =====
</TABLE>
EX PARTE A.T.E.

1160302 (2150751)

Supreme Court of Alabama.

February 10, 2017

Cert. denied.
In The 

Court of Appeals 

Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo

No. 07-19-00010-CV 

SHEILA MONASCH, APPELLANT 

 

V. 

 

GOLDIE NELL CARNEY AND EDGAR JOE COFER, JR., APPELLEES 

 

On Appeal from the 181st District Court 

Potter County, Texas 

Trial Court No. 106237-B, Honorable John B. Board, Presiding 

 

February 8, 2019 

 

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

 

Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and PARKER, JJ. 

Appellant, Shelia Monasch, filed a notice of appeal in the above-referenced cause 

without paying the requisite filing fee. By letter dated January 9, 2019, the Clerk of this

Court notified Monasch that unless she was excused from paying costs under Appellate 

Rule 20.1, failure to pay the filing fee by January 22 would result in dismissal of the 

appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 20.1, 42.3(c). To date, Monasch has not paid the filing fee, 

communicated to the Clerk that she is presumed indigent under Rule 20.1, or sought 

leave to proceed without payment of costs. See TEX. R. APP. P. 20.1; TEX. R. CIV. P. 145.
2

Because Monasch failed to comply with a requirement of the appellate rules and 

a notice from the Clerk requiring action within a specified time, we dismiss the appeal.

TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(c).

Per Curiam
EX-4.1




	
	 Exhibit 4.1
  








  
 Certificate No 
 Class 

No of Shares 
 ORDINARY SHARES 
 WAVE LIFE SCIENCES LTD.

 (UEN 201218209G) 
 Incorporated in Singapore on 23 July 2012 under the Companies Act, Cap. 50 
 This is to certify that (Shareholder’s Name) of 
 (Shareholder’s Address) 
 is the registered
holder of ORDINARY SHARES in the above named company, fully paid on each share, subject to the Memorandum and Articles of Association of the said company. 
 Given under the common seal of the company on: 

Director 
 Director 
 Registered Office: 8 CROSS STREET #10-00
PWC BUILDING, SINGAPORE 048424
The ESTATE OF Miriam Cady LIBRETTI, THROUGH Its Personal Representative John LIBRETTI, Appellant/petitioner(s), v. Edward W. HALPREN, D. O., et al., Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D17-4234

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

February 28, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Denied.