alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 110 (Tuesday, June 9, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Page 31526]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-15212]


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

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE


Notice of Lodging of Consent Decree Pursuant to the Comprehensive 
Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act

    In accordance with the policy of the Department of Justice, notice 
is hereby given that a proposed consent decree in United States v. 
Western Processing Co., et al., Civ. No. C83-252M, was lodged with the 
United States District Court for the Western District of Washington, on 
May 26, 1998. That action was brought against defendants pursuant to 
the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability 
Act (CERCLA) for payment of past costs incurred, and future costs to be 
incurred, by the United States at the Western Processing Superfund Site 
in Kent, Washington. (The site is being cleaned up and some past costs 
have already been recovered pursuant to four prior settlements.) This 
decree requires RSR Corporation to pay $875,884.00 over three years, 
with interest, in satisfaction of the United States claims against it 
for response costs incurred in connection with the site between January 
1, 1992 and December 31, 1996. RSR Corporation remains liable for 
response costs incurred after that date. The United States is also 
continuing to pursue other defendants to recover past and future costs.
    The Department of Justice will receive comments relating to the 
proposed consent decree for a period of 30 days from the date of this 
publication. Comments should be addressed to the Assistant Attorney 
General of the Environment and Natural Resources Division, Department 
of Justice, Washington, DC 20530. All comments should refer to United 
States v. Western Processing Co., et al., D.J. Ref. 90-7-1-233.
    The proposed consent decree may be examined at the office of the 
United States Attorney for the Western District of Washington, 3600 
Seafirst 5th Avenue Plaza, 800 5th Avenue, Seattle, Washington 98104; 
at the Region X office of the Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 
Sixth Avenue, Seattle, Washington 98101; and at the Consent Decree 
Library, 1120 G Street, NW., 4th floor, Washington, DC 20005, 202-624-
0892. A copy of the proposed consent decree may be obtained in person 
or by mail from the Consent Decree Library. In requesting a copy, 
please enclose a check in the amount of $4.00 (25 cents per page 
reproduction costs) payable to the Consent Decree Library. When 
requesting a copy, please refer to United States v. Western Processing 
Co., et al., D.J. Ref. 90-7-1-233.
Joel M. Gross,
Chief, Environmental Enforcement Section, Environment and Natural 
Resources Division.
[FR Doc. 98-15212 Filed 6-8-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-15-M
Exhibit 15.2

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statements of Elbit Systems Ltd. on Forms S-8 (File Nos. 333-13784 and 333-139512) of our report dated March 10, 2008, which is based on our audit and the reports of
other auditors with respect to the consolidated statements of operations, changes in shareholders equity (deficit) and cash flow of Elisra Electronic Systems Ltd. and its subsidiaries for the year ended December 31, 2007, which report
appears in the year ended December 31, 2009 annual report on Form 20-F of Elbit Systems Ltd.



|    |  |                                    
|--- |  | -----------------------------------
|By: |  | /s/ Somekh Chaikin                 
|    |  | Somekh Chaikin                     
|    |  | Certified Public Accountants (Isr.)
|    |  | A member firm of KPMG International

Tel-Aviv, Israel,

March 7, 2010
# C_2016098EN.01003001.xml

| 14.3.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 98/30 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.3.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 98/30

---

Judgment of the General Court of 2 February 2016 — Benelli Q.J. v OHIM — Demharter (MOTOBI)

(Case T-170/13) (1)

1

((Community trade mark - Revocation proceedings - Community word mark MOTOBI - Genuine use of the mark - Article 51(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

(2016/C 098/38)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Benelli Q.J. Srl (Pesaro, Italy) (represented by: P. Lukácsi and B. Bozóki, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: initially F. Mattina and subsequently P. Bullock, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervening before the General Court: Demharter GmbH (Dillingen, Germany) (represented by: A. Kohn, lawyer)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervening before the General Court:

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 16 January 2013 (Case R 2080/2011-2), relating to revocation proceedings between Demharter GmbH and Benelli Q.J. Srl.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Benelli Q.J. Srl to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Benelli Q.J. Srl to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 147, 25.5.2013.

1

---
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

COREY GREEN-HALL,

Defendant Below,

Appellant,

v.

GENISYS CREDIT UNION,

Plaintiff Below,

Appellee.

§

§ No. 222, 2024

§

§ Court Below–Superior Court

§ of the State of Delaware

§ 

§ C.A. No. N24C-04-032

§ 

§ 

§ 

§

ORDER

The appellant, Corey Green-Hall, filed this appeal from the Superior Court’s 

order directing that a writ of replevin issue. On July 9, 2024, the Court denied GreenHall’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis. The Senior Court Clerk advised GreenHall to pay the filing fee by July 23, 2024, or a notice to show cause would issue. 

Hall-Green failed to pay the filing fee. On July 24, 2024, the Chief Deputy Clerk 

issued a notice, by certified mail, directing Hall-Green to show cause why this appeal 

should not be dismissed for his failure to pay the filing fee. Because the return 

receipt filed with the Court was unsigned, the Chief Deputy Clerk reissued the 

notice, again by certified mail. Postal records show that the notice has been out for 

delivery and awaiting delivery since August 23, 2024. On September 9, 2024, the 

Chief Deputy Clerk reissued the notice to show cause by first-class mail. All three 

notices were sent to the address that Hall-Green provided to this Court. To date, 
2

Hall-Green has not paid the filing fee, responded to the notice to show cause, or 

reported any change of address to the Court. Dismissal of the appeal is therefore 

deemed to be unopposed.

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED, under Supreme Court Rules 3(b)(2) 

and 29(b), that the appeal be DISMISSED.

BY THE COURT:

/s/ Gary F. Traynor

Justice
No. 09-10619.

#### Gerald L. Rogers, Petitioner v. Mary L. Schapiro, Chairman, Securities and Exchange Commission, et al.

562 U.S. 823, 131 S. Ct. 382,

178 L. Ed. 2d 18,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 6493.

October 4, 2010.

Motion of petitioner for reconsideration of order denying leave to proceed in forma pauperis denied.
Exhibit 99-2



Certificate Pursuant to Section 1350 of Chapter 63

of Title 18 of the United States Code



I, Michael Smith, the chief financial officer of Cobra Electronics Corporation, certify that (i) the attached Annual Report
on Form 10-K of Cobra Electronics Corporation for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2002 (the Form 10-K) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and (ii) the information
contained in the Form 10-K fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Cobra Electronics Corporation and its subsidiaries.



/S/    MICHAEL
SMITHMichael Smith March 28, 2003
2017-0124.

#### Isreal v. State Auto Ins. Co.

Franklin App. No. 16AP-174.
##### 



Exhibit 32.1

The following certification accompanies Dynamics
Research Corporations Annual Report on Form 10-K for
the year ended December 31, 2003 and is not filed as
provided in Item 601(b)(32)(ii) of Regulation S-K of
the Securities and Exchange Commission.

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 Annual Report on
Form 10-K of Dynamics Research Corporation, a Massachusetts
corporation (the Company), for the year ended
December 31, 2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the
undersigned, the Chief Executive Officer, hereby certifies
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350 as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 that, to his
knowledge:



| |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            
| | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| | (1) the Report of the Company filed today
    pursuant to Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
    1934, as amended (the Exchange Act), fully complies
    with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Exchange Act;
    and
|
| | (2) the information contained in the Report
    fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
    condition and results of operations of the Company.                                                                           



| |     |                       
| | --- | ----------------------
| | By: | /s/ JAMES P.
    REGAN

| |                                     
| | ------------------------------------
| |                                     
| | James P. Regan                      
| | Chairman and Chief Executive Officer

March 15, 2004
# C_2015389EN.01003301.xml

| 23.11.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 389/33 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.11.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 389/33

---

Judgment of the General Court of 30 September 2015 — Mocek, Wenta KAJMAN Firma Handlowo-Usługowo-Produkcyjna v OHIM — Lacoste (KAJMAN)

(Case T-364/13) (1)

1

((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community figurative mark KAJMAN - Earlier Community figurative mark representing a crocodile - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Applications for annulment and alteration brought by the intervener - Article 134(3) of the Rules of Procedure of 2 May 1991))

(2015/C 389/34)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Eugenia Mocek and Jadwiga Wenta KAJMAN Firma Handlowo-Usługowo-Produkcyjna (Chojnice, Poland) (represented by: K. Grala and B. Szczepaniak, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented initially by P. Geroulakos, and subsequently by D. Gája, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: Lacoste SA (Paris, France) (represented by: P. Gaultier, lawyer)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court:

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 10 May 2013 (Case R 2466/2010-4), relating to opposition proceedings between Lacoste SA and Eugenia Mocek, Jadwiga Wenta KAJMAN Firma Handlowo-Usługowo-Produkcyjna.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Dismisses the applications for annulment and alteration submitted by Lacoste SA; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Dismisses the applications for annulment and alteration submitted by Lacoste SA;

| 3. | Orders Eugenia Mocek, Jadwiga Wenta KAJMAN Firma Handlowo-Usługowo-Produkcyjna to pay all the costs relating to the action and to bear its own costs relating to the applications of Lacoste SA for annulment and alteration; |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders Eugenia Mocek, Jadwiga Wenta KAJMAN Firma Handlowo-Usługowo-Produkcyjna to pay all the costs relating to the action and to bear its own costs relating to the applications of Lacoste SA for annulment and alteration;

| 4. | Orders Lacoste SA to bear its own costs relating to its applications for annulment and alteration. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Orders Lacoste SA to bear its own costs relating to its applications for annulment and alteration.

---

(1)  OJ C 260, 7.9.2013.

1

---
No. 10-6911.

#### In re Lonnie L. Griffin, Petitioner.

562 U.S. 1001, 131 S. Ct. 551,

178 L. Ed. 2d 409,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 8406.

November 1, 2010.

Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed in forma pauperis denied, and petition for writ of habeas corpus dismissed. See Rule 39.8. As petitioner has repeatedly abused this Court’s process, the Clerk is directed not to accept any further petitions in noncriminal matters from petitioner unless the docketing fee required by Rule 38(a) is paid and petition submitted in compliance with Rule 33.1. See Martin v. District of Columbia Court of Appeals, 506 U.S. 1, 113 S. Ct. 397, 121 L. Ed. 2d 305 (1992) (per curiam).
# Behavior ethics, rationalization share roles with Hitler, fear in Holocaust

/ Published May 5, 2016
No. 10-5514.

#### Nicie Dillehay, aka Nicie Anne Smith, Petitioner v. Michael J. Astrue, Commissioner of Social Security.

562 U.S. 926, 131 S. Ct. 312,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 7525,

178 L. Ed. 2d 203,

October 4, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit denied.

Same case below, 357 Fed. Appx. 736.
#### People v Danclair

1st Dept: 139 AD3d 541 (NY)

denied 8/19/16 (Stein, J.)
# C_2016287EN.01001901.xml

| 8.8.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 287/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.8.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 287/19

---

Judgment of the General Court of 28 June 2016 — Telefónica v Commission

(Case T-216/13) (1)

1

((Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Portuguese and Spanish telecommunications markets - Non-competition clause in relation to the Iberian market inserted into the agreement for the acquisition by Telefónica of the share held by Portugal Telecom in the Brazilian mobile operator Vivo - Statutory safeguard ‘to the extent permitted by law’ - Infringement by object - Ancillary restriction - Autonomy of the applicant’s conduct - Potential competition - Infringement by effects - Calculation of the amount of the fine - Request for the hearing of witnesses))

(2016/C 287/22)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Telefónica, SA (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: J. Folguera Crespo, P. Vidal Martínez and E. Peinado Iríbar, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: C. Giolito and C. Urraca Caviedes, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Subject matter

Subject matter

Application for, primarily, annulment of Commission Decision C (2013) 306 final of 23 January 2013 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 TFEU (Case COMP/39.839 — Telefónica/Portugal Telecom) and, in the alternative, a reduction of the fine.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Sets aside Article 2 of Commission Decision C (2013) 306 final of 23 January 2013 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 TFEU (Case COMP/39.839 — Telefónica/Portugal Telecom) in so far as it fixes the amount of the fine imposed on Telefónica, SA at EUR 66 894 000, to the extent that that amount was fixed on the basis of the value of the sales taken into account by the European Commission; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Sets aside Article 2 of Commission Decision C (2013) 306 final of 23 January 2013 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 TFEU (Case COMP/39.839 — Telefónica/Portugal Telecom) in so far as it fixes the amount of the fine imposed on Telefónica, SA at EUR 66 894 000, to the extent that that amount was fixed on the basis of the value of the sales taken into account by the European Commission;

| 2. | Dismisses the remainder of the action; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Dismisses the remainder of the action;

| 3. | Orders Telefónica to bear three quarters of its own costs and to pay one quarter of the costs incurred by the Commission, and orders the Commission to bear three quarters of its own costs and to pay one quarter of the costs incurred by Telefónica. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders Telefónica to bear three quarters of its own costs and to pay one quarter of the costs incurred by the Commission, and orders the Commission to bear three quarters of its own costs and to pay one quarter of the costs incurred by Telefónica.

---

(1)  OJ C 156, 1.6.2013.

1

---
# Materials Not Included in

Airworthiness Directive (AD) Docket

Docket Number: FAA

- 2015

- 3144

Directorate Identifier: 2014NM110AD

F900EX

- 450

--- 3/10/14

F2000EX

- 344

--- 3/10/14

Name/Description of Item(s) Not Included in FDMS Docket and Maintained in the

Supplemental AD Docket



### MAY BE VIEWED AT: Federal Aviation Administration

Transport Airplane Directorate

Rules Docket

1601 Lind Ave. SW.,

Renton, WA 98057

425.227.1221

DURING THE HOURS OF: 9 a.m. and 3 p.m., Monday through Friday,

except Federal holidays.

Form Date: 03/05/2008
No. 09-1451.

#### Jeffery Dieffenbach, Petitioner v. John Brian Haworth, et al.

562 U.S. 947, 131 S. Ct. 140,

178 L. Ed. 2d 243,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 7657.

October 4, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit denied.

Justice Sotomayor took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.

Same case below, 356 Fed. Appx. 529.
## In the Court of Appeals Second Appellate District of Texas at Fort Worth

___________________________ No. 02

- 17

- 00188

- CR

___________________________

On Appeal from Cou nty Criminal Court No. 8 Tarrant County, Texas Tria l Court No. 131 44 04

Before Sudderth , C.J. ; Kerr and Wa lker, JJ. Mem orandum Opinion on Remand by Chief Justice Sudderth 

### E X PARTE 

### C HARLES 

### B ARTON2 MEMORANDUM OPINION ON RE MAND
T he Texas Court of Criminal Appeals held that Penal Code S ection 42.07(a)(7) , the electronic har ass ment statute , “ does n ot implicate the First Amendment ” and “ is
not fa ci ally unconstitutional ,” r ejecting A ppellant Charles Barton ’ s argument s to the
contrary. Ex parte Barton , No. PD

- 1123

- 19, 2022 WL 1021061, at * 6– 7 (Tex . Crim. App. Apr. 6, 202 2) ; see Act of May 24, 1973, 63 d Leg., R.S., ch. 399, § 1, sec. 42.07,
1973 Tex . G en. Laws 883, 956

– 57 (amended 2001) (current version at Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 42.07(a)(7) )

. Now on remand , we turn to Barton ’s only remaining issue : whether the trial court erred by denying his motion t o quash because , Barton claims,
his charging ins tr ument is insufficiently speci fic to give him adequate notice of the
offense

. As noted in our initial opi nion, “w e have no jurisd iction to review interlocutory

or de rs unless that jurisdiction has been expressly gra nted by law, and no law authorizes an interlocutory appeal of an order denying a motion to quash. ” 1 Ex parte
Barton , 586 S.W.3d 573 , 5 77 n.8 (Tex. App. —F ort Worth 2019) ( op. on reh ’ g) , rev ’d , 2022 WL 102106 1 ; see Ex parte Alvear , 524 S.W.3d 261, 263 (Tex. App.

— Waco 2016 , no pet. ); see also Apoli nar v. State , 820 S.W.2d 792, 794 (Tex. Cr im. App. 1991) (“ The

1 At oral arg ument, Bart on ’ s counsel was a sked to address th is c ourt ’s jurisdiction over his challenge to the motion t o quash

. Cou nsel responded that we
co uld address the issue because h e “ ha[s] a rig ht under the law to know what exactly [he is] defending ag ainst, and if you look at t he charging instru ment, it ’ s very incomplete. ” But this is a n argument on the merits of the issue ; i t does not give u s jurisd iction to revi ew it.3 courts of appeals do not have juri sdiction to review interlocutory orders unless tha t jurisdiction has been expressly granted by law

. ”)

. Accordingly, we dismiss Barton ’ s appea l for want of ju risdiction. Tex. R. App.
P. 43.2(f)

.

/s/ Bonnie Sudderth
Bo nnie Sudderth Chief Justice

Do Not Publish Tex. R. App. P. 47 .2(b)
Delivered: June 30, 2022
No. 10-5821.

#### William R. Perrego, Petitioner v. Pennsylvania.

562 U.S. 968, 131 S. Ct. 470,

178 L. Ed. 2d 299,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 8064.

October 12, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Superior Court of Pennsylvania, Harrisburg Office, denied.

Same case below, 988 A.2d 727.
No. 10-6789.

#### Michael Kennedy, Petitioner v. Michael P. Allera, et al.

562 U.S. 1020, 131 S. Ct. 554,

178 L. Ed. 2d 402,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 8440.

November 1, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied.

Same case below, 612 F.3d 261.
No. 10-5125.

#### Bill Lietzke, Petitioner v. City of Montgomery, Alabama, et al.

562 U.S. 905, 131 S. Ct. 245,

178 L. Ed. 2d 163,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 6341,

October 4, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Nevada denied.

Same case below, 126 Nev. 733.
# Small business broadcast covers progress, initiatives, priorities

/ Published July 27, 2015
Fort Belvoir, Virginia,
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 119 (Monday, June 22, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Pages 33964-33965]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-16526]


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

NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION


Special Emphasis Panel in Engineering Education and Centers; 
Notice of Meeting

    In accordance with Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, 
as amended), the National Science Foundation announces the following 
meeting:

    Name: Special Emphasis Panel Engineering Education and Centers 
(173).
    Date and Time: July 23-24, 1998, 7:30 a.m.-5:30 p.m.
    Place: National Science Foundation, Room 585, 4201 Wilson Blvd., 
Arlington, VA.
    Type of Meeting: Closed.
    Contact Person: Dr. Win Aung, Senior Staff Associate, 
Engineering Education and Centers Division, National Science 
Foundation, Room 585, 4201 Wilson Blvd., Arlington, VA 22230.
    Purpose of Meeting: To provide advice and recommendations 
concerning proposals submitted to NSF for financial support.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate proposals submitted under the 
Funding for Research Centers--Small Firms Collaborative R&D.

[[Page 33965]]

    Reason for Closing: The proposals being reviewed include 
information of a proprietary or confidential nature, including 
technical information, financial data, such as salaries; and 
personal information concerning individuals associated with the 
proposals. These matters are exempt under 5 U.S.C. 552b(c) (4) and 
(6) of the Government in the Sunshine Act.

    Dated: June 16, 1998.
M. Rebecca Winkler,
Committee Management Officer.
[FR Doc. 98-16526 Filed 6-19-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7555-01-M
No. 09-10836.

#### Bobby Len Franklin, Petitioner v. BWD Properties 2, LLC, et al.

562 U.S. 1058, 131 S. Ct. 684,

178 L. Ed. 2d 473,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 9262.

November 29, 2010.

Motion of petitioner for reconsideration of order denying leave to proceed in forma pauperis denied.
No. 10-6972.

#### Raymond McMichael, Petitioner v. United States.

562 U.S. 1051, 131 S. Ct. 615,

178 L. Ed. 2d 447,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 8899.

November 15, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit denied.

Same case below, 377 Fed. Appx. 529.