alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EMAGIN CORPORATION
                                  2070 Route 52
                           Hopewell Junction, NY 12533



                                                                   June 20, 2002

Mr. Mortimer D.A. Sackler
15 East 62nd Street
New York, NY 10021

Dear Sir:

          Reference is hereby made to (i) the Stock Purchase Warrant, dated June
20, 2002 (the "Warrant") whereby Mortimer D.A. Sackler (the "Investor") is
entitled, upon the terms and subject to the limitations on exercise and the
conditions set forth therein to subscribe for and purchase from eMagin
Corporation, a Delaware corporation (the "Company"), up to 300,000 shares (the
"Warrant Shares") of common stock, $.001 par value per share, of the Company
(the "Common Stock"); (ii) the Registration Rights Agreement, dated as of
November 27, 2001 (the "November Agreement") by and among the Company and the
investors named therein; and (iii) the Registration Rights Agreement, dated as
of February 27, 2002 (the "February Agreement") by and among the Company and the
investors named therein.

          This letter will confirm the understanding between the Company and the
Investor regarding the piggyback registration rights of the Investor in
connection with the Warrant Shares.

          The Company hereby agrees that if it shall at any time propose to file
any registration statement with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
"Commission") under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the rules and
regulations of the Commission thereunder or any similar statute, the Company
shall give written notice of such a proposed filing to the Investor as soon as
reasonably practicable (but in no event less than fourteen (14) days before the
anticipated date on which such registration statement will be filed with the
Commission), undertaking to provide the Investor the opportunity to register
such number of shares of Common Stock issued or issuable upon the exercise of
the Warrant (the "Exercisable Shares"). In the event that such a registration
statement is to be filed on behalf of a person other than the Company, the
Company will use its best efforts to have the Exercisable Shares that the
Investor wishes to sell included in such registration statement pursuant to the
same terms and conditions as set forth in the February Agreement.

          The Investor hereby acknowledges that the piggyback registration
rights granted by the Company pursuant to this letter are subject to the
piggyback registration rights granted pursuant to each of the November Agreement
and the February Agreement.
<PAGE>

          This letter shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the
laws of the State of New York.

                                     Sincerely,

                                     eMAGIN CORPORATION


                                     By:
                                        ----------------------------------------
                                        Name:
                                        Title:
AGREED AND ACKNOWLEDGED:

Date:

-------------------------------
     Mortimer D.A. Sackler
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 18-4724

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

JOSEPH BENJAMIN O’DONNELL,

 Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. 

Deborah K. Chasanow, Senior District Judge. (1:18-cr-00222-DKC-1)

Submitted: November 21, 2019 Decided: November 25, 2019

Before KEENAN and DIAZ, Circuit Judges, and SHEDD, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

James Wyda, Federal Public Defender, Baltimore, Maryland, Paresh S. Patel, Assistant 

Federal Public Defender, OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER, Greenbelt, 

Maryland, for Appellant. Robert K. Hur, United States Attorney, Christine Duey, Assistant 

United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Baltimore, 

Maryland, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Joseph Benjamin O’Donnell appeals his conviction for failure to register as a sex 

offender in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2250(a) (2012), as required by the Sex Offender 

Registration and Notification Act (“SORNA”). O’Donnell moved to dismiss the 

indictment, arguing that 34 U.S.C. § 20913(d) (2012) violated the nondelegation doctrine 

by authorizing the Attorney General to retroactively apply SORNA’s registration 

requirements to pre-enactment offenders. The district court denied the motion. O’Donnell 

pled guilty, reserving his right to appeal the district court order denying his motion to 

dismiss. 

On appeal, O’Donnell makes the same argument he asserted in the district court. 

Because this is a purely legal issue, we review the district court’s decision de novo. United 

States v. Cortez, 930 F.3d 350, 355 (4th Cir. 2019). While this appeal was pending, the

Supreme Court held that § 20913(d) did not violate the nondelegation doctrine. Gundy v. 

United States, 139 S. Ct. 2119, 2129-2131 (2019). O’Donnell acknowledges the court’s 

decision in Gundy but desires to preserve his argument for possible further review.

Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment. 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
# Official Journal C 216/2022

| | ISSN 1977-091X |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 216 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 6531 May 2022 |

ISSN 1977-091X

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 216

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 6531 May 2022

---

| Contents | page |
| --- | --- |
| | IV   Notices |
| 2022/C 216/01 | Statement of revenue and expenditure of the European Union Agency for Law Enforcement Training (CEPOL) for the financial year 2022 | 1 |
| 2022/C 216/02 | Statement of revenue and expenditure of the European Union Agency for Law Enforcement Training (CEPOL) for the financial year 2022 – amending budget No 1 | 7 |
| 2022/C 216/03 | Statement of revenue and expenditure of the European Securities and Markets Authority for the financial year 2022 – amending budget No 1 | 13 |

Contents

page

IV   Notices

2022/C 216/01

Statement of revenue and expenditure of the European Union Agency for Law Enforcement Training (CEPOL) for the financial year 2022

1

2022/C 216/02

Statement of revenue and expenditure of the European Union Agency for Law Enforcement Training (CEPOL) for the financial year 2022 – amending budget No 1

7

2022/C 216/03

Statement of revenue and expenditure of the European Securities and Markets Authority for the financial year 2022 – amending budget No 1

13

---

| EN | |
| --- | --- |

EN
#### IN RE: Marcus DEHLIN, Stora Enso AB, Appellants

2017-1000

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

November 14, 2017

Paul Juettner, Greer, Burns & Crain, Ltd., Chicago, IL, argued for appellants. Also represented by Patrick J. Smith.

Monica Barnes Lateef, Office of the Solicitor, United States Patent and Trademark Office, Alexandria, VA, argued for appellee Joseph Matal. Also represented by Nathan K. Kelley, Thomas W. Krause, Molly R. Silfen, Coke Morgan Stewart.

(Taranto, Clevenger, and Stoll, Circuit Judges).

JUDGMENT

Per Curiam

This Cause having been heard and considered, it is Ordered and Adjudged:

AFFIRMED. *See*Fed. Cir. R. 36.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

No. DA 22-0557

STATE OF MONTANA, 

Plaintiff and Appellee, 

v. 

STEPHANIE DAWN BLANK,

Defendant and Appellant.

ORDER

Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, 

and good cause appearing,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension 

of time to and including August 30, 2023, within which to prepare, file, 

and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

July 24 2023

07/24/2023

Case Number: DA 22-0557
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

 June 18, 2014

h0611

Order 

Clerk

June 18, 2014

147410

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 147410

COA: 311625

Wayne CC: 99-005393-FC

JUSTLY ERNEST JOHNSON,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the May 30, 2013 order 

of the Court of Appeals is considered. We DIRECT the Wayne County Prosecuting 

Attorney to answer the application for leave to appeal within 28 days after the date of this 

order.

The application for leave to appeal remains pending.

MCCORMACK, J., not participating because of her prior involvement in this case as 

counsel for a party.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

Supreme Court Cause No. DA 23-0271

IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF: 

CLAUDIA DEL TORAL,

Petitioner and Appellee,

and

DAVID FLINT RICHARD,

Respondent and Appellant.

ORDER GRANTING UNOPPOSED 

EXTENSION OF TIME

On July 17th, 2023, the Appellant, David Flint Richard, filed his 

Unopposed Motion to for Extension of Time. Pursuant to Rule 26 of the

Montana Rules of Appellate Procedure, the Montana Supreme Court will grant an 

extension of time in which appellant is required to file his opening brief.

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that appellant's request for a thirty (30) day 

extension of time in which to file his opening brief is GRANTED.

For the Court,

By: 

Justice

ORDER GRANTING EXTENSION Pg. 1

Electronically signed by:

Bowen Greenwood

Clerk of the Supreme Court

July 18 2023

07/18/2023

Case Number: DA 23-0271
# Official Journal C 326/2021

| | ISSN 1977-091X |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 326 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 6413 August 2021 |

ISSN 1977-091X

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 326

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 6413 August 2021

---

| Contents | page |
| --- | --- |
| | II   Information |
| | INFORMATION FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES |
| | European Commission |
| 2021/C 326/01 | Common catalogue of varieties of vegetable species — Supplement 2021/9 (
  1
  ) | 1 |
| 2021/C 326/02 | Common catalogue of varieties of agricultural plant species — Supplement 2021/9 (
  1
  ) | 21 |

Contents

page

II   Information

INFORMATION FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

European Commission

2021/C 326/01

Common catalogue of varieties of vegetable species — Supplement 2021/9 (
  1
  )

1

1

2021/C 326/02

Common catalogue of varieties of agricultural plant species — Supplement 2021/9 (
  1
  )

1

21

---

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | (1)   Text with EEA relevance. |

---

(1)   Text with EEA relevance.

1

| EN | |
| --- | --- |

EN
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 Transportation Safety Board

          - [Docket No.: NTSB-2021-0009]

# AGENCY:

National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB).

# ACTION:

Notice; issuance of final publication.

# SUMMARY:

The NTSB announces the availability of the following publication: “NTSB FY 2022-2026 Strategic Plan”.

# DATES:

The plan was published on February 23, 2022.

# ADDRESSES:

                        This document may be obtained at the following link:                         *https://www.ntsb.gov/​about/​reports/​Documents/​FY-22-26-Strategic-Plansig.pdf.*

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

                        John DeLisi, Senior Advisor for Policy and Strategic Initiatives, (202) 314-6000,                         *strategicplan@ntsb.gov.*

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

                    On November 24, 2021, the NTSB published a notice request for comments in the                     **Federal Register**                     [86 FR 67092]. The purpose of this review was to seek external input via public comments and invited stakeholder reviews to shape priorities toward developing a new5-year strategic plan. All comments received were reviewed and considered in finalizing the current document. Comments for Docket No. NTSB-2021-0009 can be found at:                     *https://      ( print page 14912)    www.regulations.gov/​docket/​NTSB-2021-0009.*

Jennifer Homendy,

Chair.

[FR Doc. 2022-05513 Filed 3-15-22; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7533-01-P
Exhibit 35
                                  ----------


                      COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS SERVICING LP


                             OFFICERS' CERTIFICATE
                    ANNUAL STATEMENT OF THE MASTER SERVICER


                                  CWALT, INC.
                       ALTERNATIVE LOAN TRUST 2006-41CB
             MORTGAGE PASS-THROUGH CERTIFICATES, SERIES 2006-41CB


      The undersigned does hereby certify that the undersigned is an officer
of Countrywide GP, Inc., general partner of Countrywide Home Loans Servicing
LP (the "Master Servicer"), and does hereby further certify pursuant to
Section 3.16 of the Pooling and Servicing Agreement for the above-captioned
Series (the "Agreement") that:

(i) A review of the activities of the Master Servicer during the preceding
calendar year and of the performance of the Master Servicer under the
Agreement has been made under my supervision; and

(ii) To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Master Servicer
has fulfilled all of its obligations under the Agreement in all material
respects throughout such calendar year.




/s/ Craig Baingo                                      Dated: March 14, 2007
-----------------

Craig Baingo
Executive Vice President, Finance
#### UNITED STATES of America Plaintiff-Appellee v. Michael P. AYALA Defendant-Appellant

No. 16-4473

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted: November 13, 2017

Filed: November 16, 2017

Nhan Due Nguyen, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Springfield, MO, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Michael P. Ayala, Pro Se

Before WOLLMAN, LOKEN, and COLLOTON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

In this direct criminal appeal, Michael Ayala challenges the sentence the district court1 imposed after he pleaded guilty— pursuant to a written plea agreement that included an appeal waiver — to drug, firearm, and money laundering charges. His counsel has moved to withdraw and submitted a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), arguing that the sentence was greater than necessary.

We conclude that the appeal waiver is enforceable, because our review of the record demonstrates that Ayala entered into the plea agreement and the appeal waiver knowingly and voluntarily, see Nguyen v. United States, 114 F.3d 699, 703 (8th Cir. 1997); the argument falls within the scope of the waiver; and no miscarriage of justice would result from enforcing the waiver, see United States v. Scott, 627 F.3d 702, 704 (8th Cir. 2010) (de novo review); United States v. Andis, 333 F.3d 886, 890-92 (8th Cir. 2003) (en banc). Furthermore, we have independently reviewed the record under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), and have found no non-frivolous issues for appeal outside the scope of the waiver.

Accordingly, we grant counsel’s motion, and we dismiss this appeal.

1

. The Honorable M. Douglas Harpool, United States District Judge for the Western District of Missouri.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Kevin Leon MORMON, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 17-6985

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: November 21, 2017

Decided: November 28, 2017

Kevin Leon Mormon, Appellant Pro Se. Adam Kenneth Ake, Kelly 0. Hayes, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greenbelt, Maryland, for Ap-pellee.

Before WYNN and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Kevin Leon Mormon seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. The order is not appehlable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certifícate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (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 denies 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, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); *see Miller-El v. Cockrell,*537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrafe both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. *Slack,*529 U.S. at 484-85, 120 S.Ct. 1595.

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Mormon has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. 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.

*DISMISSED*
<PAGE>

                                                                   Exhibit 32.2

                           CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                            18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                 SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

      In connection with the Quarterly Report of FFD Financial Corporation (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending December 31, 2007 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Robert R. Gerber, the Senior Vice President, Treasurer and Chief Financial
Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted
pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:

      (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 result of operations of the
Company.


/s/Robert R. Gerber
------------------------------------------
Robert R. Gerber
Senior Vice President, Treasurer and Chief Financial Officer
February 14, 2008
Exhibit 4.5



Amendment to Nonemployee Directors'
Compensation and Deferral Plan

Dated December 14, 2001


        The
Plan is hereby amended to delete Paragraph 5 of the Plan, in its entirety, and
replace it with the following: 


"II.  PLAN
ADMINISTRATION and RESERVED SHARES:


	 	        (a)
Plan Administration. The Plan will be administered by a committee (the
“Committee”) composed of the Compensation Committee of the
Company’s Board of Directors. Full power to interpret, construe and
administer the Plan shall, except as otherwise provided in this Plan, be vested
in the Committee. All actions of the Committee shall be by majority vote. The
expense of administering the Plan shall be borne by the Company and shall not be
charged against benefits payable hereunder. No member of the Committee may
participate in any decision affecting his particular participation, benefits or
any other right or obligation affecting him hereunder. 






	 	        (b)
Common Stock Available for Awards. There shall be available for payment of
compensation under this Plan paid wholly or partly in Common Stock an aggregate
470,000 shares of Common Stock. The Committee may from time to time adopt and
observe such procedures concerning the counting of shares against the Plan
maximum, as it may deem appropriate. “
II

Calendar No. 641

104TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION S. 94

[Report No. 104–354]

To amend the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 to prohibit the consideration

of retroactive tax increases.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

JANUARY 4, 1995

Mr. COVERDELL (for himself, Mrs. HUTCHISON, Mr. SMITH, Mr. LOTT, Mr.

KEMPTHORNE, Mr. MCCAIN, Mr. WARNER, Mr. COCHRAN, and Mr.

INHOFE) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred

jointly pursuant to the order of August 4, 1977, to the Committees on

the Budget and Governmental Affairs, with instructions that if one committee reports, the other committee have thirty days to report or be discharged

AUGUST 27, 1996

Reported under authority of the order of the Senate of August 2, 1996 by

Mr. STEVENS, with amendments

[Omit the part struck through and insert the part printed in italic]

OCTOBER 3, 1996

Committee discharged pursuant to the order of January 4, 1995 and placed

on the calendar

A BILL

To amend the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 to prohibit

the consideration of retroactive tax increases.
2

S 94 PCS

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. AMENDMENTS TO THE CONGRESSIONAL BUDG4 ET ACT OF 1974.

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Title III of the Congressional

6 Budget Act of 1974 is amended by adding at the end the

7 following:

8 ‘‘PROHIBITION ON THE CONSIDERATION OF RETROACTIVE

9 TAX INCREASES

10 ‘‘SEC. 314. (a) IN GENERAL.—It shall not be in order

11 in the House of Representatives or the Senate to consider

12 any bill, joint resolution, amendment, motion, or con13 ference report, that increases a tax and applies such in14 crease to taxable years beginning before the date of the

15 enactment of the law before a date contemporaneous with

16 congressional action specifying such date.

17 ‘‘(b) INCREASES A TAX.—The term ‘increases a tax’

18 shall include a change in any rate of tax, deduction, ex19 emption, credit, exclusion, or similar change to the Inter20 nal Revenue Code of 1986 that will result in an obligation

21 to pay a larger tax.’’.

22 (b) SUPERMAJORITY POINT OF ORDER.—Subsections

23 (c) and (d) of section 904 of the Congressional Budget

24 Act of 1974 are amended by inserting ‘‘314,’’ after

25 ‘‘313,’’.
3

S 94 PCS

1 (c) TECHNICAL AND CONFORMING AMENDMENT.—The

2 table of contents for the Congressional Budget and Im3 poundment Control Act of 1974 is amended by inserting

4 after the item relating to section 313 the following:

‘‘Sec. 314. Prohibition on the consideration of retroactive tax increases.’’.

5 (d) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments to the Con6 gressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974

7 made by subsections (a), (b), and (c) shall be effective on

8 January 1, 1997.
Calendar No. 641

104TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION S. 94

[Report No. 104–354]

A BILL

To amend the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 to

creases.prohibit the consideration of retroactive tax inOCTOBER 3, 1996

Committee discharged pursuant to the order of January

4, 1995 and placed on the calendar