alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 46 (Monday, March 10, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 10869]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-5772]


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


DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders; 
Notice of Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to Section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended (5 United States Code Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of 
the following meeting:

    Name of Committee: National Institute on Deafness and Other 
Communication Disorders Special Emphasis Panel.
    Date: March 19, 1997.
    Time: 2 pm to adjournment.
    Place: 6120 Executive Blvd., Rockville MD 20892 (telephone 
conference call).
    Contact Person: Melissa Stick, Ph.D., M.P.H., Scientific Review 
Administrator, NIDCD/DEA/SRB, EPS Room 400C, 6120 Executive 
Boulevard, Bethesda MD 20892-7180, 301-496-8693.
    Purpose/Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    The meeting will be closed in accordance with the provisions set 
forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5, United States 
Code. The applications and/or proposals and the discussion could 
reveal confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as 
patentable material and personal information concerning individuals 
associated with the applications and/or proposals, the disclosure of 
which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal 
privacy.
    This notice is being published less than fifteen days prior to 
the meeting due to the urgent need to meet timing limitations 
imposed by the review and funding cycle.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Program No. 93.173 
Biological Research Related to Deafness and Communication 
Disorders.)

    Dated: March 4, 1997.
LaVerne Y. Stringfield,
Committee Management Officer, NIH.
[FR Doc. 97-5772 Filed 3-7-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-M
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 Mayors Jewelers, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the thirteen weeks ended December 25, 2004 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Lawrence R. Litowitz, Interim Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350, as adopted pursuant to section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 that:



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



|(2) | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
|--- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Date: February 8, 2005



|                               
|-------------------------------
|/s/ Lawrence R. Litowitz       
|Lawrence R. Litowitz           
|Interim Chief Financial Officer
ex10-20.htm


Exhibit 10.20


 


FIRST AMENDMENT TO LOCK-UP AGREEMENT


 







 


This First Amendment to the Lock-Up Agreement is executed on this 25th day of March, 2014.  Reference is made to that certain the Lock-Up Agreement (the “Agreement”) dated June 30, 2011, by and between, Jun Jiang, a shareholder of the Company (the “Holder”) and Nova LifeStyle, Inc.,  a Nevada corporation (the “Company”).  Any capitalized terms in this amendment not otherwise defined shall have the meaning ascribed to them in the Lock-Up Agreement (the “Agreement”).


 


WHEREAS, the parties agree that the definition of Lock-Up Period in the Agreement is not clear with respect to the situation of an Offering closing within one year from the date of the Agreement;







WHEREAS, the parties further agree to clarify the lock up period if the closing of an Offering does occur within one year from the date of the Agreement.


 


NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the parties hereto hereby agree as follows:


 


1. The seventh paragraph of the Agreement shall be modified to add a new item (iii) as follows: if the closing of an Offering does occur within one year from the date hereof, then three years from the date hereof.  After the modification, the seventh paragraph of the Agreement shall read as follows:


 


This Letter Agreement shall commence as of the date hereof and automatically terminate upon the earliest to occur of (i) three years following the date the Company’s securities are listed on a registered national securities exchange, (ii) if the closing of an Offering does not occur within one year from the date hereof, then two years from the date hereof, or (iii) if the closing of an Offering does occur within one year from the date hereof, then three years from the date hereof (the “Lock-Up Period”)


 


2. This first amendment may be executed in any number of counterparts each of which shall constitute an original but all of which when taken together shall constitute but one contract.


 


3. Except as amended hereby, or as otherwise amended, the Agreement is in all respects ratified and confirmed and the provisions thereof shall remain in full force and effect.


 


(THE REMAINDER OF THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK)


(SIGNATURE PAGE FOLLOWS)


 




  





1











  






 


                     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this FIRST AMENDMENT TO LOCK-UP AGREEMENT on the date first written above.


 












For and on behalf of:


 


NOVA LIFESTYLE, INC.



	  	  
	  	
 


By_____________________


Name: Tawny Lam


Title: Chairperson and President













	
 


Jun Jiang


 

	  	  	  	  	  
	
By_____________________


Name: Jun Jiang


 

	  	  	  	  	  












  





2
EXHIBIT 32.1
 
  (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/ Barry S. RosensteinBarry S. RosensteinCo-Chairman of Board of DirectorsMay 15, 2008




---



##### 



EXHIBIT 32.2
 
  (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/ Marc A. WeismanMarc A. WeismanCo-Chairman of Board of DirectorsMay 15, 2008
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 46 (Monday, March 10, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 10876]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-5865]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

National Park Service


Notice of Intent To Issue a Prospectus for the Operation of 
Stables and Pack Station Services and Facilities Within Kings Canyon 
National Park

SUMMARY: The National Park Service is seeking a concessioner to 
operate, under a 4-year permit, a pack station providing pack and 
saddle animal services and facilities within the Cedar Grove area of 
Kings Canyon National Park, as well as guided day-ride services and 
facilities within the Grant Grove area of Kings Canyon National Park. 
Both the Cedar Grove Pack Station and Grant Grove Stables would be 
operated for the public under the provisions of a Concession Permit. 
This notice is the formal announcement of the availability of this 
business opportunity and the initiation of the contracting process.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The pack station is located at an elevation 
of 4,500 feet and the stables at 6,500 feet in the Southern Sierra 
Nevada. Both is a summer seasonal operation serving visitors to Sequoia 
and Kings Canyon National Parks. The existing operator has a preference 
in the renewal of this concession permit. The award will be fully 
competitive based upon the requirements of this Prospectus.
    If you are interested in this business opportunity, please ask to 
be placed on the mailing list by writing or calling: National Park 
Service, Concession Management Office, Sequoia National Park, Three 
Rivers, CA 93271, or call: (209) 565-3103--Peggy Williams.
    When the Prospectus is issued, submittals will be accepted for a 
forty-five (45) day period under terms that will be described in the 
Prospectus. The release of the Prospectus is expected to occur shortly 
after the publication of this notice.

    Dated: February 11, 1997.
Michael J. Tollefson,
Superintendent, Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Parks.
[FR Doc. 97-5865 Filed 3-7-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-70-P
Motion Granted and Order filed June 7, 2012 

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals 

____________

NO. 14-12-00142-CV

____________

IN RE CYPRESS TEXAS LLOYDS, Relator

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

WRIT OF MANDAMUS

268th District Court

Fort Bend County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 10-DCV-177586

A B A T E M E N T O R D E R

Relator, Cypress Texas Lloyds, filed a petition for writ of mandamus in this Court. 

See Tex. Govt Code Ann. ' 22.221. Relator asked this Court to order The Honorable Brady 

G. Elliott, Judge of the 268th District Court, Fort Bend County, Texas, to set aside his order 

dated January 20, 2012, entered in trial court cause number 10-DCV-177586, styled 

Kenneth Hamilton and Brenda Hamilton v. Cypress Texas Lloyds, Crawford & Company, 

Burt Breedlove, and James McMennamy.

The Texas Multidistrict Litigation Panel has transferred the underlying case and 

appointed the Honorable Mike Miller, Judge of the 11th District Court, Harris County, 
2

Texas, as the pretrial judge. Relator has filed a motion to abate pending reconsideration of 

the order at issue in this proceeding by Judge Miller.

The motion is GRANTED. See, e.g., In re Mylan, Inc., No. 09-09-00186-CV, 

2009 WL 2750095, at *1-2 (Tex. App.—Beaumont Aug. 31, 2009, orig. proceeding) (per 

curiam). We therefore abate this mandamus proceeding for the Honorable Mike Miller to 

reconsider the decision regarding relator's request for relief. This mandamus proceeding 

is abated for a period of thirty days from the date of this order, at which time the Honorable 

Mike Miller, presiding Judge of the 11th District Court, Harris County, Texas, shall advise 

the Court of the action taken on relator's request. The Court will then consider a motion to 

reinstate or dismiss this proceeding, as appropriate.

It is so ORDERED.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Frost, Brown, and Christopher.

Do Not Publish.
<PAGE>   1
                                                                      EXHIBIT 23




              CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS

         We consent to the incorporation by reference of our reports, dated
January 30, 1996, on our audits of the consolidated financial statements and
financial statement schedule of Quaker State Corporation and Subsidiaries as of
December 31, 1995 and 1994, and for the three years in the period ended
December 31, 1995, which reports are incorporated by reference or included in
this annual report on Form 10-K, in the following documents:

1.       Registration Statement No. 33-20416 on Form S-8 for the Quaker State
         Corporation Thrift and Stock Purchase Plan, filed under the Securities
         Act of 1993, as amended, and the Prospectus used in connection with
         such Registration Statement;

2.       Registration Statement No. 33-7163 on Form S-8 for the 1986 Stock
         Option Plan of Quaker State Corporation, filed under the Securities
         Act of 1933, as amended, and the Prospectus used in connection with
         such Registration Statement;

3.       Registration Statement No. 33-65862 on Form S-8 for the Baum
         Employment Agreement, filed under the Securities Act of 1933, as
         amended, and the Prospectus used in connection with such Registration
         Statement;

4.       Registration Statement No. 33-53605 on Form S-8 for the 1994
         Non-Employee Directors' Stock Option Plan, filed under the Securities
         Act of 1933, as amended, and the Prospectus used in connection with
         such Registration Statement; and

5.       Registration Statement No. 33-53617 on Form S-8 for the 1994 Stock
         Incentive Plan, filed under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended,
         and the Prospectus used in connection with such Registration
         Statement.

         We also Consent to the references to our firm under the caption
"Experts" in the Prospectuses used in connection with Registration Statement
Nos. 33-20416, 33-7163, 33-65862, 33-53605 and 33-53617 solely as it relates to
the current financial statements being incorporated by reference.




                                        /s/ Coopers & Lybrand L.L.P.
                                        COOPERS & LYBRAND L.L.P.

Dallas, Texas
March 28, 1996
# C_2022148EN.01004301.xml

| 4.4.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 148/43 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.4.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 148/43

---

Action brought on 18 February 2022 — Ramazani Shadary v Council

(Case T-93/22)

(2022/C 148/57)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Emmanuel Ramazani Shadary (Kinshasa, Democratic Republic of the Congo) (represented by: T. Bontinck, P. De Wolf, A. Guillerme and T. Payan, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should

| — | annul Council decision (CFSP) 2021/2181 of 9 December 2021 (1) in so far as the applicant remains at No 9 in the annex to that decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul Council decision (CFSP) 2021/2181 of 9 December 2021 (1) in so far as the applicant remains at No 9 in the annex to that decision;

| — | annul Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/2177 of 9 December 2021 (2) in so far as the applicant remains at No 9 in Annex I to that regulation; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/2177 of 9 December 2021 (2) in so far as the applicant remains at No 9 in Annex I to that regulation;

| — | order the Council to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Council to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on two pleas in law, which are, in essence, identical or similar to those relied on in Case T-90/22, Kande Mupompa v Council.

---

(1)  Council Decision (CFSP) 2021/2181 of 9 December 2021, amending decision 2010/788/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against the Democratic Republic of the Congo (OJ 2021 L 443, p. 75).

(2)  Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/2181 of 9 December 2021 implementing Article 9 of Regulation (EC) No 1183/2005 imposing certain restrictive measures directed against persons acting in violation of the arms embargo with regard to the Democratic Republic of Congo (OJ 2021 L 443, p. 3).

---
#### Grace M. Dayton v. The State Life Insurance Co.

154 So. 208.

Opinion Filed April 16, 1934.

*539
      *Leland Hyzer,*for Appellant;

Stapp, *Gourley, Vining &*Ward, for Appellee.

Per Curiam.

— Upon appellee’s motion to dismiss the appeal herein as frivolous the Court has examined the record and has ascertained therefrom as well as from the brief of counsel for appellant herein, that the only question to be decided is that arising on appellant’s assignments of error to the effect that the court below erred in entering the interlocutory order appealed from, which is simply an order refusing to vacate a confirmation of foreclosure sale. Neither the decree of foreclosure nor the order of confirmation itself is appealed from. The motion which was denied by the order appealed from presented no objections to the validity of the confirmed sale, all that was asked for being that the court set aside the confirmation and allow defendant a reasonable time to examine the master’s report in order to consider the terms of sale. It is contended that this should be done because defendant was given no notice of filing of master’s report of sale in the first instance.

Appellant not being in default nor a decree *pro confesso*having been entered against her, was entitled to notice of the hearing at which the order was entered confirming the master’s report of sale. But in the absence of an affirmative *540showing that it was not waived, the mere making of an order of confirmation will be deemed to give rise to the presumption on appeal that the. notice required was in fact given, or that its absence was waived. Appellant in order to show the contrary should apply to the chancellor for a certificate or other notation in the record, that the order was made without notice. Absence of notice will not be presumed on appeal merely because the record is silent on the subject. The presumption in favor of regularity of the chancellor’s order is sufficient to sustain the order where the record as to notice is silent.

In the present case, assuming that no notice was' given and that error was committed in the confirmation without notice of the master’s report of sale, it conclusively appears that the irregularity was entirely harmless and that therefore the error relied on for reversal is not a substantial one.

. In cases where no substantial errors are made to appear in a record brought here on appeal or writ of error, and the Court in considering a motion to dismiss the appeal or writ of error as frivolous is made aware of that fact from the transcript of the record and from appellant or plaintiff in error’s brief, the Supreme Court impassing upon the motion to dismiss the appeal or writ of error as frivolous, will ignore the motion and affirm the judgment or decree appealed from after finding it free from substantial error. Butler Farms, Inc., v. Hinson, 113 Fla. 860, 152 Sou. Rep. 720; Ronald v. State, *ex rel.*Harris, 113 Fla. 859, 152 Sou. Rep. 721.

Affirmed on motion to dismiss.

Davis, C. J., and Whitfield, Terrell and Buford, J. J., concur.
#### COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania, Respondent v. Robert Carl BOLUS, Petitioner

No. 583 MAL 2017

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

January 9, 2018

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 9th day of January, 2018, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is DENIED.
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

March 26, 2007 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

132605 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman,

 Justices 

v SC: 132605 

 COA: 261900 

Wayne CC: 04-010905-01

FRED DEANGELO McINTYRE,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the October 17, 2006 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court. 

p0319 

I, Corbin R. Davis, 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. 

March 26, 2007 

 Clerk
## SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

## Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

179 KA 13-01621
PRESENT: WHALEN, P.J., CENTRA, DEJOSEPH, NEMOYER, AND TROUTMAN, JJ.

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT,

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

JOHN FRIELLO, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

TIMOTHY P. DONAHER, PUBLIC DEFENDER, ROCHESTER, THE LAW OFFICE OF GUY A. TALIA (GUY A. TALIA OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

SANDRA DOORLEY, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, ROCHESTER (LEAH R. MERVINE OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.

Appeal from a judgment of the Monroe County Court (Douglas A. Randall, J.), rendered April 30, 2013. The judgment convicted defendant, upon a jury verdict, of driving while intoxicated, a class E felony, and aggravated unlicensed operation of a motor vehicle in the first degree.

It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.

Memorandum: On appeal from a judgment convicting him upon a jury verdict of, inter alia, driving while intoxicated as a class E felony (Vehicle and Traffic Law §§ 1192 [3]; 1193 [1] [c] [i] [A]), defendant contends that the verdict is against the weight of the evidence with respect to the element of intoxication. We reject that contention. “Where, as here, witness credibility is of paramount importance to the determination of guilt or innocence,” we must afford great deference to the fact-finder’s opportunity to view the witnesses, hear their testimony and observe their demeanor ( People v Harris , 15 AD3d 966, 967, lv denied 4 NY3d 831). It was for the jury to determine whether to credit the testimony of the arresting officer that defendant exhibited a number of signs of intoxication, or the testimony of defendant’s acquaintances that he did not appear to be intoxicated ( see People v Shelton
, 111 AD3d 1334, 1336, lv denied 23 NY3d 1025). The jury was also entitled to consider, as evidence of consciousness of guilt, defendant’s refusal to participate in field sobriety tests ( see generally People v Berg , 92 NY2d 701, 706), or to submit to a chemical test ( see People v McGraw , 57 AD3d 1516, 1517). Thus, viewing the evidence in light of the elements of the crime as charged to the jury ( see People v Danielson , 9 NY3d 342, 349), we conclude that, although a different verdict would not have been unreasonable, the jury did not fail to give the evidence the weight it should be accorded ( see People v Stevens , 109 AD3d 1204, 1205, lv denied 23 NY3d-2- 179 KA 13-01621

1043; see generally People v Bleakley , 69 NY2d 490, 495).

Entered: February 10, 2017 Frances E. Cafarell Clerk of the Court
# C_2021329EN.01003601.xml

| 16.8.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 329/36 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.8.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 329/36

---

Action brought on 23 June 2021 — Hecht Pharma v EUIPO — Gufic Biosciences (Gufic)

(Case T-346/21)

(2021/C 329/47)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Hecht Pharma GmbH (Bremervörde, Germany) (represented by: C. Sachs and J. Sachs, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Gufic Biosciences Ltd. (Mumbai, India)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Trade mark at issue: EU word mark Gufic — EU trade mark No 8 613 044

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 3 June 2021 in Case R 2738/2019-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision and also declare EU trade mark No 8 613 044 ‘Gufic’ revoked in respect of Class 5 ‘Medicines’; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision and also declare EU trade mark No 8 613 044 ‘Gufic’ revoked in respect of Class 5 ‘Medicines’;

| — | order Gufic Biosciences Ltd. to pay the costs of the appeal proceedings and of the pre-litigation procedure. |
| --- | --- |

—

order Gufic Biosciences Ltd. to pay the costs of the appeal proceedings and of the pre-litigation procedure.

Plea in law

| — | Infringement of Article 58(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 58(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.

---