alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
No. 10-6569.

#### Gary Lall, Petitioner v. United States.

562 U.S. 995, 131 S. Ct. 439,

178 L. Ed. 2d 344,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 8201.

October 18, 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, 316 Fed. Appx. 60.
No. 10-6871.

#### George Stuart Kellner, Petitioner v. California.

562 U.S. 1072, 131 S. Ct. 666,

178 L. Ed. 2d 496,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 9103.

November 29, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeal of California, Sixth Appellate District, denied.
No. 10-7382.

#### Manuel Roman, Petitioner v. United States.

562 U.S. 1103, 131 S. Ct. 810,

178 L. Ed. 2d 546,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 9548.

December 6, 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.
EXHIBIT 32.1
   
 CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
   
 Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. ss. 1350)
 
 Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. ss. 1350), the undersigned, Corey M. Horowitz, Chief Executive Officer and Chairman of Network-1 Technologies, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the "Company"), does hereby certify to his knowledge, that:
 
 The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2014 of the Company (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Act of 1934, and the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
 
 
 /s/ Corey M. Horowitz
 Chief Executive Officer and Chairman
 May 15, 2014
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Octavia Tarver, Appellant.

[63 NYS3d 668]—

An appeal having been taken to this Court by the above-named appellant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, New York County (Melissa Jackson, J.), rendered May 14, 2015, said appeal having been argued by counsel for the respective parties, due deliberation having been had thereon, and finding the sentence not excessive, it is unanimously ordered that the judgment so appealed from be and the same is hereby affirmed.

Concur—Friedman, J.P., Kapnick, Webber, Gesmer and Oing, JJ.
# C_2013336EN.01003003.xml

| 16.11.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 336/30 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.11.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 336/30

---

Order of the General Court of 3 September 2013 — Seal Trademarks v OHIM — Exel Composites (XCEL)

(Case T-14/13) (1)

1

2013/C 336/66

Language of the case: English

The President of the Fourth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 86, 23.3.2013.

1

---
United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 09-1671

___________

Janice E. McDonald; *

William H. McDonald, *

*

Appellants, *

* Appeal from the United

v. * States Tax Court.

*

Commissioner of Internal * [UNPUBLISHED]

Revenue, *

*

Appellee. *

___________

Submitted: November 18, 2009

Filed: January 19, 2010

___________

Before MELLOY, BEAM, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

On April 6, 2006, the Commissioner of Internal Revenue, pursuant to 26 U.S.C.

§ 6212, issued a notice of deficiency to the McDonalds for the taxable year 2002. In

response, on July 12, 2006, the McDonalds mailed a petition to the Tax Court

challenging the deficiency notice pursuant to 26 U.S.C. § 6213. Section 6213 states

that within ninety days after the notice of deficiency is mailed, the taxpayer may file
1

Although the McDonalds' petition was signed and dated July 3, 2006, it was

not postmarked until July 12, 2006, and was not received by the Tax Court until July

17, 2006. The ninety day period expired July 5, 2006.

2

The Honorable Harry A. Haines, United States Tax Court Judge.

-2-

a petition with the Tax Court for a redetermination of the deficiency.1

 26 U.S.C. §

6213(a). Both parties filed motions to dismiss, and the Tax Court2

 granted the

Commissioner's motion. The Tax Court reasoned that because the McDonalds filed

their action more than ninety days after the Commissioner issued the notice of

deficiency, it did not have jurisdiction over the action.

The Tax Court's limited jurisdiction depends upon express statutory authority.

Comm'r v. McCoy, 484 U.S. 3, 7 (1987). Because the McDonalds did not meet the

jurisdictional timely filing requirement in 26 U.S.C. § 6213(a), the Tax Court did not

have jurisdiction and correctly dismissed the case. Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th

Cir. R. 47B.

______________________________
# C_2013367EN.01004001.xml

| 14.12.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 367/40 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.12.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 367/40

---

Action brought on 19th September 2013 — ZZ v Commission

(Case F-91/13)

2013/C 367/70

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: ZZ (represented by: L. Levi and A. Blot, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission

Defendant:

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

The annulment of the Commission’s decision requesting the reimbursement of the expatriation allowance and the travel costs perceived by the Applicant during his secondment in Germany, together with the reimbursement of the amount already recovered and the reparation of moral prejudice.

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | Annul the Commission’s decision dated 20 December 2012 by which the Applicant was requested to reimburse his expatriation allowance and annual travel costs granted during his secondment in Germany; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the Commission’s decision dated 20 December 2012 by which the Applicant was requested to reimburse his expatriation allowance and annual travel costs granted during his secondment in Germany;

| — | annul the 24 June 2013 Commission’s decision rejecting the Applicant’s complaint; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the 24 June 2013 Commission’s decision rejecting the Applicant’s complaint;

| — | by consequence, reimburse the amount already recovered by the Appointing authority, plus late interest at the European Central Bank rate +2 points; |
| --- | --- |

—

by consequence, reimburse the amount already recovered by the Appointing authority, plus late interest at the European Central Bank rate +2 points;

| — | in any case, the reparation of the moral prejudice suffered, assessed ex aequo et bono at 5 000 euros; |
| --- | --- |

—

in any case, the reparation of the moral prejudice suffered, assessed ex aequo et bono at 5 000 euros;

| — | order the Defendant to pay all the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Defendant to pay all the costs.

---
Exhibit 31

SECTION 302 CERTIFICATION

CERTIFICATION

I, Kenneth J. Eaken, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report of Lexon Technologies, Inc. for the
quarter ended September 30, 2004;

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of
a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the
statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements
were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects
the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the small
business issuer as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4. The small business issuer's other certifying officer(s) and I are
responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and
procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the
small business issuer and have:
 (a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such
disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to
ensure that material information relating to the small business issuer,
including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within
those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being
prepared;
 (b) evaluated the effectiveness of the small business issuer's disclosure
controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the
effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the
period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and
 (c) disclosed in this report any change in the small business issuer's
internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the small
business issuer's most recent fiscal quarter (the small business issuer's
fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially
affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the small business
issuer's internal control over financial reporting; and

5. The small business issuer's other certifying officer(s) and I have
disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over
financial reporting, to the small business issuer's auditors and the audit
committee of the small business issuer's board of directors (or persons
performing the equivalent functions):
 (a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or
operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably
likely to adversely affect the small business issuer's ability to record,
process, summarize and report financial information; and
 (b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in the small business issuer's internal
control over financial reporting.

Date: November 19, 2004  /S/Kenneth J. Eaken
                         Principal Executive Officer
                         Principal Financial Officer
No. 09-1558.

#### Lorene Young, Petitioner v. Cargill.

562 U.S. 840, 131 S. Ct. 206,

178 L. Ed. 2d 46,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 5812,

October 4, 2010.

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

Same case below, 343 Fed. Appx. 585.
Exhibit 4.1

NUMBER                                                       SHARES
                                                             CUSIP NO.

                       INCORPORATED NUMBER THE LAWS OF THE
                                 STATE OF NEVADA
                                 AMERICAN METAL
                                TECHNOLOGY GROUP
                  20,000,000 AUTHORIZED SHARES $.001 PAR VALUE

This is to certify that

Is the recent holder of

Shares of       AMERICAN METAL TECHNOLOGY GROUP         Common Stock
transferable on the books of the corporation in person by duly authorized
attorney upon surrender of this certificate properly endorsed. This Certificate
is not valid until countersigned by the Transfer Agent and registered by the
Registrar
      Witness the facsimile seal of the corporation and the facsimile signatures
of its duly authorized officers.

Dated:

                                    CORPORATE
                                      SEAL
                                     NEVADA

/s/ Monica Ding                                          /s/ Chen Gao
SECRETARY                                                PRESIDENT
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 97-6632
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus WILLIE JAMES PARKS, JR., Defendant - Appellant.Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Winston-Salem. Ri chard C. Erwin, Senior District Judge. (CR-91-76, CA-96-660-6) Submitted: July 10, 1997 Decided: July 24, 1997 Before RUSSELL, HALL, and MURNAGHAN, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.Willie James Parks, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Lisa Blue Boggs, Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant seeks to appeal the district court's order denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West 1994 & Supp. 1997). We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and find noreversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. United States v. Parks , Nos. CR-91-76; CA-96-660-6 (M.D.N.C. Apr. 22, 1997). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
# C_2014045EN.01003301.xml

| 15.2.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 45/33 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.2.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 45/33

---

Order of the General Court of 27 November 2013 — Marcuccio v Commission

(Case T-203/13 P) (1)

1

(Appeal - Civil service - Action at first instance dismissed as manifestly inadmissible - Application lodged by fax within the time-limit for brining proceedings and signed by a seal reproducing the lawyer’s signature - Original application lodged out of time - Action out of time - Appeal manifestly unfounded)

2014/C 45/55

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Parties

Appellant: Luigi Marcuccio (Tricase, Italy) (represented by: G. Cipressa, lawyer)

Appellant:

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: C. Berardis-Kayser and G. Gattinara, Agents)

Other party to the proceedings:

Re:

Re:

Appeal against the order of the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union (Second Chamber) of 28 January 2013 in Case F-92/12 Marcuccio v Commission, not published in the ECR, seeking to have that order set aside.

Marcuccio

Commission

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The appeal is dismissed. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The appeal is dismissed.

| 2. | Mr Luigi Marcuccio is ordered to bear his own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the European Commission in the appeal proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Mr Luigi Marcuccio is ordered to bear his own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the European Commission in the appeal proceedings.

---

(1)  OJ C 156, 1.6.2013.

1

---
# C_2016007EN.01002301.xml

| 11.1.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 7/23 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.1.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 7/23

---

Judgment of the General Court of 11 November 2015 — Greece v Commission

(Case T-550/13) (1)

1

((EAGGF - Guarantee Section - EAGF and EAFRD - Expenditure excluded from financing - Reasonable period - Absence of key controls - Extrapolation of the findings of default))

(2016/C 007/31)

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Hellenic Republic (represented by: I Chalkias and A. Vasilopoulou, acting as Agents)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: D. Triantafyllou, K. Skelly, acting as Agents, and N. Korogiannakis, lawyer)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Application for annulment of Commission Implementing Decision 2013/433/EU of 13 August 2013 on excluding from European Union financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF), under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) (OJ 2013 L 219, p. 49).

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1) | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1)

Dismisses the action;

| 2) | Orders the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2)

Orders the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 377, 21.12.2013.

1

---
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
       
<S>                             <C>            <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-mos         12-mos
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>               DEC-31-1998    DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                  JAN-01-1998    JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                    DEC-31-1998    DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                               119868          88085
<SECURITIES>                         200000         608197
<RECEIVABLES>                       1630363        1327111
<ALLOWANCES>                       (1493000)      (1164953)
<INVENTORY>                          341543         298258
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                     612713        1010151
<PP&E>                               209260         264588
<DEPRECIATION>                      (174485)       (162360)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                      1216342        1564245
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                597301         872853
<BONDS>                                   0              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                     0              0
<PREFERRED>                               0              0
<COMMON>                              99051          99051
<OTHER-SE>                            (2328)         (2328)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>        1216342        1564245
<SALES>                             1490282        2616292
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                    1490282        2616292
<CGS>                                119994         272195
<TOTAL-COSTS>                       2164964        3267544
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                          0              0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                          0              0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                   204509         225166
<INCOME-PRETAX>                     (653564)       (627121)
<INCOME-TAX>                        (411240)        423567
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                       0              0
<DISCONTINUED>                            0              0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                           0              0
<CHANGES>                                 0              0
<NET-INCOME>                        (242324)      (1050688)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                         (0.06)         (0.27)
<EPS-DILUTED>                         (0.06)         (0.27)
        


</TABLE>
p130292.eng

INITIAL REVIEW ENGINEERING REPORT 

PMN: 13-0292

Focus Ready Draft 3/14/2013

ENGINEER: Choudhary \ REC

PV (kg/yr): 

SUBMITTER: 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

SAT (concerns) (02/26/2013):

Related Cases and Related Cases and Misc SAT Info:

Ecotox: Analogs: 

Migration to groundwater: Moderate to Rapid

PBT rating: P1B1T1 .

Health: 1-2 Dermal, Inhalation

Eco: 1 No releases to Water

Page 1
p130292.eng

OCCUPATIONAL EXPOSURE RATING: 1B

NOTES & KEY ASSUMPTIONS:

Generated by the 06/07/2005 version of ChemSTEER. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

INITIAL REVIEW ENGINEERING REPORT 

PMN: 13-0292

Use: 

Number of Sites/ Location: 1

WT Burnett & Co Jessup MD 20794

Days/yr: 250

Page 2
p130292.eng

ENVIRONMENTAL RELEASES ESTIMATE SUMMARY

IRER Note: The daily releases listed for any source below

may coincide with daily releases from the other sources

to the same medium.

Water or Incineration or Landfill

High End: 1.3E+2 kg/site-day over 250 days/yr from 1 site

or 3.3E+4 kg/yr

 

Water or Incineration or Landfill

Conservative: 8.7E+1 kg/site-day over 1 day/yr from 1 site

or 8.7E+1 kg/yr

RELEASE TOTAL

3.3E+4 kg/yr - all sites

OCCUPATIONAL EXPOSURES ESTIMATE SUMMARY

Tot. # of workers exposed via assessed routes: 10

 

Inhalation:

negligible (VP < 0.001 torr). 

Dermal:

Exposure to imported liquid PMN is assessed below.

Page 3
p130292.eng

Exposure to Liquid at 98.00% concentration

High End: 1.7E+3 mg/day over 250 days/yr

Number of workers (all sites) with dermal exposure: 10

Page 4
No. 10-5569.

#### Boris Shulman, Petitioner v. BlueCross BlueShield of South Carolina.

562 U.S. 1066, 131 S. Ct. 641,

178 L. Ed. 2d 486,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 9393.

November 29, 2010.

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

Same case below, 370 Fed. Appx. 384.
No. 10-5672.

#### Richard A. Grant, Petitioner v. United States.

562 U.S. 1006, 131 S. Ct. 507,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 8624.

178 L. Ed. 2d 376,

November 1, 2010.

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

Same case below, 375 Fed. Appx. 79.
To learn more about TB, visit 

www.cdc.gov/tb CS250066A

People with are sick 

from active TB germs. They 

usually have symptoms and may 

spread TB germs to others.

People with do not 

feel sick, do not have symptoms, and 

cannot spread TB germs to others.

 of people in the U.S. have 

 Without treatment, they are at 

risk for developing 

There are two types of TB conditions: 

TB disease and latent TB infection. 

TB disease

 

But, if their TB germs become active, 

they can develop .
Pre-decisional: for internal use only. 1	

Tips	From	Former	Smokers	Tips	2018/TV	

Brian/TV	“Now	You	Know”	:30	

The	spot	opens	on	the	Tips	From	Former	Smokers	logo	

ART	CARD:	A	TIP	FROM	A	FORMER	SMOKER		

The	spot	cuts	to	Brian,	inside	his	home,	speaking	to	the	camera.		

SUPER:	Brian,	62,	Texas		

BRIAN:	I’m	Brian.	You	probably	know	someone	who’s	had	a	heart	attack,	COPD	or	a	heart	bypass	operation.		

The	scene	shifts	to	a	photo	of inside the	hospital.	

BRIAN:	You	might	even	know	someone	who’s	had	a	heart	transplant,	lung	cancer	or	part	of	their	lung	

removed.	

The	spot	cuts	to	a	photo	of	Brian’s	chest	scar,	then	to	a	photo	of	his	chest	x-ray,	followed	by	a	photo	of	

hospitalequipment.		

BRIAN:	But	what	about	someone	who’s	had	all	six?		

We	now	see Brian	inside	his	home,	looking	out	the	window,	and	thenspeaking	to	the	camera	again.		

BRIAN:	Now	you	do.	

My	tip	is:	if	smoking	doesn’t	get	you	one	way,	it’ll	get	you	another.		

The	spot	cuts	to	the	art	card,	which	reads	“Smoking	harms	nearly	every	organ	of	the	body.”	

ART	CARD:	Smoking	harms	nearly	every	organ	of	the	body.		

ANNCR:	You	can	quit.	For	free	help,	visit	CDC.GOV/TIPS	

ART	CARD:	You	can	quit.	For	free	help,	visit	CDC.GOV/TIPS			

CDC	LOGO	

BROUGHT	TO	YOU	BY	THE	U.S.	DEPARTMENT	OF	HEALTH	AND	HUMAN	SERVICES.		

#CDCTIPS
#### Com. v. Diaz

11/16/2015

495 MAL (2015)

Denied

Pa.Super., 122 A.3d 1142
EXHIBIT 23








                    CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS

     As independent public  accountants,  we hereby consent to the incorporation
of our report  dated  February 26,  1999,  included in this Form 10-K,  into the
Company's  previously flied Amendment No. 1 to Form S-4  Registration  Statement
No.  333-25355  and  post-effective  Amendment  No.  3 on Form  S-2 to Form  S-1
Registration Statement No. 33-59279.






                                                  /s/ Arthur Andersen LLP
                                                  ARTHUR ANDERSEN LLP

Washington, D.C.,
March 9, 1999
# C_2014175EN.01005202.xml

| 10.6.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 175/52 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.6.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 175/52

---

Order of the General Court of 1 April 2014 — Ningbo Qixin Solar Electrical Appliance v Commission

(Case T-145/13) (1)

1

2014/C 175/72

Language of the case: French

The President of the Fifth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 123, 27. 4. 2013.

1

---