alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 57 (Tuesday, March 25, 1997)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 14092]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-7444]


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


FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
47 CFR Part 73

[MM Docket No. 95-83; RM-8634]


Radio Broadcasting Services; Littlefield, Wolfforth and Tahoka, 
TX

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Proposed rule; withdrawal.

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

SUMMARY: This document denies a petition for rule making by 21st 
Century Radio Ventures, Inc., requesting the reallotment of Channel 
238C3 from Littlefield to Wolfforth, Texas, and the modification the 
construction permit of Station KAIQ (FM) to specify Wolfforth as 
Station KAIQ (FM)'s community of license. See 60 FR 32933, June 26, 
1995. The proposed reallotment was denied because retaining the 
allotment at Littlefield would provide a second aural reception service 
to 3,113 persons, which outweighs a first local transmission service to 
Wolfforth (population 1,941). With this action, this proceeding is 
terminated.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Pam Blumenthal, Mass Media Bureau, 
(202) 418-2180.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a synopsis of the Commission's 
Report and Order, MM Docket No. 95-83, adopted March 12, 1997, and 
released March 21, 1997. The full text of this Commission decision is 
available for inspection and copying during normal business hours in 
the FCC Reference Center (Room 239), 1919 M Street, NW., Washington, 
DC. The complete text of this decision may also be purchased from the 
Commission's copy contractor, ITS, Inc., (202) 857-3800, 2100 M Street, 
NW., Suite 140, Washington, DC 20037.

List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 73

    Radio broadcasting.

Federal Communications Commission.
John A. Karousos,
Chief, Allocations Branch, Policy and Rules Division, Mass Media 
Bureau.
[FR Doc. 97-7444 Filed 3-24-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
Exhibit 32.1
            CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER PURSUANT TO
         18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906
                     OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Kenneth R. Risk, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the annual
report of George Risk Industries, Inc. on Form 10K dated April 30, 2010
fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such Form
10KSB fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and
results of operations of George Risk Industries, Inc.

Date:  July 29, 2010			By:  /s/  Kenneth R. Risk
					Kenneth R. Risk
					President and Chief Executive Officer
**Exhibit 32.2**

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 

18 U.S.C. §1350, 

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO 

SECTION 906 OF THESARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 

        Inconnection with the Interim Report on Form 10-QSB of Arrhythmia Research Technology, Inc.(the “Company”) for the quarter ended September 30, 2004, as filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), theundersigned Chief Financial Officer certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adoptedpursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:
# OAR Box 1784 Prepped by Ollie Stewart 

## Document

Number: 

# 21 ) ll-A- 3 Docket Number: 

# A-84-4 4

Printed 10/31/2008 8:05:38 AM Sheet 21 of 143 P. 1

# 4 

# f Z 

## fhlS c\cC^ro£ro4 f S 

## r^d;L a^, { 

## kbk 95t h Congress' ) 1s tSetsio n J COXXITTEE PBIK T

»-*s o 

## TH E CLEA N AI RAC T A S AMENDE D AUGUS T 197 7

NOVEMBE

R197 7 SERIA L NO . 95-1 1 Printed fo r th e us e o

f {he Benat

e Committe e o n Environmen

tan d Publi c Work

s 0.8 . OOTBBNHEN T PRINTIN G OFFIC E

WASHINGTO N : 1S7

T P. 2



# A-84-44 

# IL-A-Z
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-6925

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

OTIS LEON STORY,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Charleston. Patrick Michael Duffy, Senior 

District Judge. (2:07-cr-00738-PMD-1; 2:10-cv-70280-PMD)

Submitted: November 10, 2011 Decided: December 13, 2011

Before SHEDD, AGEE, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Otis Leon Story, Appellant Pro Se. Alston Calhoun Badger, Jr., 

Assistant United States Attorney, Charleston, South Carolina, 

for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Otis Leon Story seeks to appeal the district court’s 

order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2011) 

motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or 

judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2253(c)(1)(B) (2006). 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) (2006). 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 (2000); see Miller-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 motion states a 

debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 

529 U.S. at 484-85. We have independently reviewed the record 

and conclude that Story 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 
3

before the court and argument would not aid the decisional 

process.

DISMISSED
Docket No: FAA

- 2015

- 4813 Dir ID: 2013

- NM

- 161

- AD

Contacts. With whom outside the FAA has this proposal been discussed?

Organization Person Contacted Date Response

National Business Aircraft Association Eli Cotti 8/9/13

Regional Airline Association 8/9/13

Aircraft Owners & Pi lots Association Robert Hackman 8/9/13

ATA M Lopez 8/9/13
### Page 1 of 3 **Disposition Comments Docket No:**  

### FAA - 201 3 - 0 725 These comments are in **Directorate ID:** 

### 98 - CE - 001 - AD response to an SNPRM Originating Office Tracking No.: **Next Step:** FRAN SNPRM 

### N o C omments/Only

Supportive Comments Received

– If this box is checked, no signatures are required. No 

### Has the reference d service information been revised since the NPRM was issued? I f ye s, list latest revision and attach a cop y. Note that changes beyond the scope of the previously published NPRM will require a new notice. Contact the Directorate focal point for guidance. Instructions: Summarize all comments **by issue** (not by commenter) and provide your recommended resolution of each issue. **All comments relating to the sam e issue should be discussed together.**  Do not list all of the issues from one commenter togeth er. If changes to the AD are required based on the comments received, explain why and describe in detail what change(s) you recommend. Reference FAA - IR- M - 8040.1C Chapter 9. **ISSUE 1:** Select one o

f the following : If other, explain : Commenter(s): What change to the AD action is requested? Why is the change requested or how is it justified? Do we agree? If **YES,** we agree because Make the following changes to the AD: If **PARTIALLY AGREE** , we agree with because We disagree with because

Make the following changes to the AD: If **NO** , we don’t agree because **ISSUE 2**  **:** Select one of the following :

If other, explain : Commenter(s): What change to the AD action is requested? Why is the change requested or how is it justified? Do we agree? If **YES,** we agree because Make the following changes to the AD: If **PARTIALLY AGREE** , we agree with because We disagree with because Make the following changes to the AD:

### Page 2 of 3

If **NO** , we don’t agree because **For additional issues, do uble**  **- click**  **here**

### Page 3 of 3 **S ignature Section**  Signature indicates concurrence with this action. Originating Office Tracking No.: **ASE** Printed Name **: Date** 

**Branch M anager**  **Date**
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

HARRY DENNIS and JON KOZ,

 Plaintiffs - Appellees,

STEPHANIE BERG and OMAR

RIVERO,

 Objectors - Appellants,

 v.

KELLOGG COMPANY, a Delaware

corporation,

 Defendant - Appellee.

No. 13-56768

D.C. No. 3:09-cv-01786-IEGWMC

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of California

Irma E. Gonzalez, Senior District Judge, Presiding

Submitted December 10, 2015** 

Pasadena, California

FILED

JAN 05 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 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

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

decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
Before: REINHARDT, LUCERO

***, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges. 

Plaintiffs Stephanie Berg and Omar Rivero appeal the district court’s denial

of their motion for attorneys’ fees in a certified class action. We have jurisdiction

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

The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Plaintiffs’ fee

motion as untimely. In re Mercury Interactive Corp. Sec. Litig., 618 F.3d 988, 992

(9th Cir. 2010). Despite a clear court order that all fee applications be submitted at

least forty-five days prior to the settlement hearing, Plaintiffs did not submit their

motion until two weeks after the settlement had been finalized. This delay

contravened Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(h), which requires that fee motions

in certified class actions be made “at a time the court sets.” Fed. R. Civ. P.

23(h)(1).

We need not reach the remaining issues raised on appeal.

AFFIRMED.

 *** The Honorable Carlos F. Lucero, Circuit Judge for the U.S. Court of

Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, sitting by designation.
<PAGE>
 
                                                                   EXHIBIT 10.24
                                        
                                PROMISSORY NOTE

                                        
$150,000.00                                             Garden Grove, California
                                                        July 13, 1998

     FOR VALUE RECEIVED, James Peterson ("Maker") promises to pay Linfinity
Microelectronics Inc., a Delaware corporation (the "Company"), or order, the
principal sum of One Hundred Fifty Thousand U.S. Dollars ($150,000.00).

     Principal on this note shall be due and payable on demand.

     Maker may at any time prepay, without penalty, all or any portion of the
principal owing hereunder. If Maker files a petition in bankruptcy or is the
subject of any proceeding under any bankruptcy or insolvency laws, then this
Promissory Note shall be immediately due and payable.

     Neither the failure of the Company to promptly exercise any rights or
remedies under this Promissory Note or with respect hereto, nor the failure of
the Company to demand strict performance of any obligation of Maker hereunder
shall constitute a waiver of any of the Company's rights or remedies. Maker
waives presentment for payment, demand, protest and notice of protest for
nonpayment of this Promissory Note. Maker agrees to pay all costs and expenses,
including without limitation attorneys' fees, expended or incurred by the
Company in connection with the enforcement of this Promissory Note and the
collection of amounts due hereunder.

     This Promissory Note shall be construed and enforced in accordance with,
and the rights of the parties shall be governed by, the law of the State of
California.


                                                "MAKER"

                                                /s/ James Peterson
                                                ----------------------------
                                                James Peterson
# Data for Table B20

# RSEs for Table B20
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 59 (Thursday, March 27, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 14704]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-7752]


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


DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and 
Production Act of 1993--Cable Television Laboratories, Inc.

    Notice is hereby given that, on December 18, 1996, pursuant to 
Section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 
1993, 15 U.S.C. Sec. 4301 et seq. (``the Act''), Cable Television 
Laboratories, Inc. (``CableLabs'') has filed written notifications 
simultaneously with the Attorney General and the Federal Trade 
Commission disclosing additions to the membership. The notifcations 
were filed for the purpose of extending the Act's provisions limiting 
the recovery of antitrust plaintiffs to actual damages under specified 
circumstances. Specifically the following companies have joined 
CableLabs: United International Holdings, Inc., Denver, CO; and 
Southwest Missouri Cable TV, Inc., Carthage, MO.
    No other changes have been made in either the membership or planned 
activity of CableLabs. Membership remains open and CableLabs intends to 
file additional written notifications disclosing all changes in 
membership.
    On August 8, 1988, CableLabs filed its original notification 
pursuant to Section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of Justice 
published a notice in the Federal Register pursuant to Section 6(b) of 
the Act on September 7, 1988 (53 FR 34593). The last notification with 
respect to membership changes was filed with the Department on August 
13, 1996. A notice was published in the Federal Register pursuant to 
Section 6(b) of the Act on December 19, 1996 (61 FR 67067).
Constance K. Robinson,
Director of Operations, Antitrust Division.
[FR Doc. 97-7752 Filed 3-26-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-11-M
```
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 56 (Monday, March 24, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 13871-13872]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-7330]

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

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Defense Science Board Task Force on Innovative Support Structure, 
Phase II

ACTION: Notice of advisory committee meetings.

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

SUMMARY: The Defense Science Board Task Force on Innovative Support 
Structure, Phase II will meet in closed session on April 2, 1997 at the 
Pentagon, Arlington, Virginia.
    The mission of the Defense Science Board is to advise the Secretary 
of Defense through the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and 
Technology on scientific and technical matters as they affect the 
perceived needs of the Department of Defense. At this meeting the Task 
Force will participate in an advisory capacity to the Infrastructure 
Panel Chairman, Quadrennial Defense Review, and provide appropriate 
analysis and inputs to the Infrastructure Panel deliberations.
    In accordance with Section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee 
Act, P.L. No. 92-463, as amended (5 U.S.C. App. II, (1994)), it has 
been determined that this DSB Task Force meeting

[[Page 13872]]

concerns matters listed in 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(1) (1994), and that 
accordingly this meeting will be closed to the public.

    Dated: March 19, 1997.
L.M. Bynum,
Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
[FR Doc. 97-7330 Filed 3-21-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 5000-04-M
```
# table34
<PAGE>


                                                                    Exhibit 99.1

                          Section 906 CEO Certification

I, Gerald L. Connelly, President and Chief Executive Officer of Robbins & Myers,
Inc. ("the Company"), do hereby certify in accordance with 18 U.S.C. 1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

         1.       The Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the period
                  ended August 31, 2002 (the "Annual Report") fully complies
                  with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
                  Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)) and

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

Dated:  November 19, 2002

                                 /s/ Gerald L. Connelly
                                 --------------------------------------------
                                 Gerald L. Connelly
                                 President and Chief Executive Officer


72
# C_2022418EN.01005301.xml

| 31.10.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 418/53 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

31.10.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 418/53

---

Action brought on 15 September 2022 — XNT v EUIPO — Exane (EXANE)

(Case T-568/22)

(2022/C 418/68)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: XNT ltd. (St. Julian’s, Malta) (represented by: A. Renck, C. Stöber and M.-A. de Dampierre, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Exane (Paris, France)

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: European Union word mark EXANE — European Union trade mark No 14 289 433

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 14 June 2022 in Case R 2093/2020-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | order that the costs of the proceedings be borne by the defendant, and in the event that the other party before the Board of Appeal joins the proceedings, the intervener. |
| --- | --- |

—

order that the costs of the proceedings be borne by the defendant, and in the event that the other party before the Board of Appeal joins the proceedings, the intervener.

Plea in law

| — | Infringement of Article 60(1)(c) in conjunction with Article 8(4) of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 60(1)(c) in conjunction with Article 8(4) of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009.

---
#### JON ST. PIERRE *v.*COMMISSIONER OF CORRECTION

(AC 34873)

Lavine, Bear and Borden, Js.

Argued March 18—

officially released April 8, 2014

Per Curiam.

The appeal is dismissed.
Exhibit 32.1











CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO


18 U.S.C. §1350,


AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002








In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Arrhythmia Research Technology, Inc. (the “Company”) for the quarter ended March 31, 2011 , as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), the undersigned President and Chief Executive Officer certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §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, 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 Company.







Date: May 12, 2011


/s/  James E. Rouse


James E. Rouse


President and


Chief Executive Officer
# Data for Table B11

# RSEs for Table B11
EX-4.4





 Exhibit 4.4 

CERTIFICATE OF CORPORATE DOMESTICATION 

OF CONSONANCE-HFW ACQUISITION CORP. 

Pursuant to Section 388 
 of
the General Corporation Law of the State of Delaware (the “DGCL”) 
 Consonance-HFW
Acquisition Corp., presently a Cayman Islands exempted company (the “Company”), DOES HEREBY CERTIFY: 
 1. The Company was first
incorporated on August 21, 2020 under the laws of the Cayman Islands. 
 2. The name of the Company immediately prior to the filing of
this Certificate of Corporate Domestication with the Secretary of State of the State of Delaware in accordance with Section 388 of the DGCL was Consonance-HFW Acquisition Corp. 

3. The name of the Company as set forth in the Certificate of Incorporation being filed with the Secretary of State of the State of Delaware in
accordance with Section 388(b) of the DGCL is “Surrozen, Inc.” 
 4. The jurisdiction that constituted the seat, siege social,
or principal place of business or central administration of the Company, or any other equivalent thereto under applicable law, immediately prior to the filing of this Certificate of Corporate Domestication in accordance with the provisions of
Section 388 of the DGCL was the Cayman Islands. 
 5. The domestication has been approved in the manner provided for by the document,
instrument, agreement or other writing, as the case may be, governing the internal affairs of the Company and the conduct of its business or by applicable non-Delaware law, as appropriate. 

The corporate domestication of the Company shall be effective upon the filing of this Certificate of Corporate Domestication and the
Certificate of Incorporation in accordance with Section 388 of the DGCL and with the Secretary of State of Delaware. 
 [Signature
page follows] 












 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Company has caused this Certificate to be executed by its duly
authorized officer on this [___] day of July, 2021. 
  

			
	CONSONANCE-HFW ACQUISITION CORP., a Cayman Islands exempted company
		
	By:	 	  

		 	Name: Gad Soffer
		 	Title:   Chief Executive Officer