alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### 2002 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t a t e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit

5-17-2002 

# U S A v . D a v i s

P r e c e de n t i al or N on-P r e c e de n t i al : N on-P r e c e de n t i al

D ock e t N o . 01-2818

F o l lo w thi s a nd a dd it ion al w ork s a t : h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a w

. v i l l a no v a

. e du/thir dc ir c uit_2002

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou gh t t o y ou for f r e e a nd ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t a t e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit a t V i l l a no v a U niv e r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al R e posit or y

. I t h as be e n a c c e pt e d for inclusion in 2002 D e c i sion s b y a n a uthor i z e d a dmini s tr a t or of V i l l a no v a U niv e r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al R e posit or y

. F or mor e infor m a t ion, p le as e c on t a ct Be n j a min

. C a rl s on@l a

w

. v i l l a no v a

. e du

. 

### R e c omme nde d C it a t ion

" U SA v . D a v i s " (2002). 2002 D e cisio n s

. P a pe r 282. h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a

w

. v i l l a no v a

. e du/thir dc ir c uit_2002/282NOT PRECEDENTIAL

THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

___________

No. 01-2818

___________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

vs.

JOHN DAVIS a/k/a John Davis-Bey

Appellant.

___________

ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

(D.C. Criminal No. 99-cr-00638) District Judge: The Honorable Harvey Bartle, III

___________
Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a) April 19, 2002

BEFORE: NYGAARD, AMBRO, and KRAVITCH, Circuit Judges.

(Filed May 17, 2002)

___________

OPINION OF THE COURT

___________

NYGAARD, Circuit Judge. Appellant, John Davis, argues on appeal that his counsel was ineffective for failing to request a downward adjustment under U.S.S.G 3B1.3. He argues that he was a minor participant in the conspiracy. Appellant also argues that his counsel was ineffective for failing to object to a two-level upward adjustment for the possession and use of a special skill. Because both of these arguments raise issues of fact that must first be resolved by the District Court, we conclude that neither issue is ripe for appeal. Government of the Virgin Islands v. Forte, 806 F.2d 73, (3d Cir. 1986) (An appellant may not raise ineffective assistance of counsel in a direct appeal when there is an insufficient record for appellate review.) Accordingly, we will dismiss the appeal.

_________________________

TO THE CLERK:Please file the foregoing opinion.

/s/ Richard L. Nygaard Circuit Judge
No. 10-5330.

#### Mark Garraway, Petitioner v. William Lee, Superintendent, Green Haven Correctional Facility.

562 U.S. 1174, 131 S. Ct. 991,

178 L. Ed. 2d 820,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 134.

January 10, 2011.

Motion for leave to file a petition for rehearing denied.

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

Former decision, 562 U.S. 954, 131 S. Ct. 278, 178 L. Ed. 2d 252, 2010 U.S. LEXIS 7791.
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 130 (Wednesday, July 8, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Page 36964]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-18128]


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

NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION

[98-091]


Notice of Agency Reports Under OMB Review

AGENCY: National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).

ACTION: Notice of agency report forms under OMB review.

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

SUMMARY: The National Aeronautics and Space Administration, as part of 
its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, 
invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this 
opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information 
collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Public 
Law 104-13, 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)). This is a voluntary satisfaction 
survey of partners that are familiar with the Agency's operations.

DATES: All comments should be submitted on or before September 8, 1998.

ADDRESSES: All comments should be addressed to Ms. Carrie Sorrels, Code 
S, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Washington, DC 20546-
0001.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Carmela Simonson, NASA Reports 
Officer, (202) 358-1223.
    Title: Grants Proposal Writers and Peer Reviewers Customer 
Satisfaction Surveys.
    OMB Number: 2700-0084.
    Type of review: Reinstatement.
    Need and Uses: The survey information will be used by NASA to 
improve the efficiency, quality, and timeliness of its grant process, 
as well as to strengthen its partnership with external customers.
    Affected Public: Not-for-profit institutions, Federal Government.
    Number of Respondents: 930.
    Responses Per Respondent: 1.
    Annual Responses: 744.
    Hours Per Request: 15 min.
    Annual Burden Hours: 62.
    Frequency of Report: On occasion.
Donald J. Andreotta,
Deputy Chief Information Officer (Operations), Office of the 
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 98-18128 Filed 7-7-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7510-01-U
No. 10-7683.

#### Jeffrey Dennis Roe, Petitioner v. James A. Yates, Warden.

562 U.S. 1204, 131 S. Ct. 1052,

178 L. Ed. 2d 871,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 963.

January 24, 2011.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.
#### *Palmer, Petitioner, v. Rainbow Factory Showroom, Respondent,*

No. 92153-9.

Petition for review of a decision of the Court of Appeals, No. 72227-1-I, July 27, 2015, 189 Wn. App. 1009. *Denied*February 10, 2016.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
     (Replace this text with the legend)
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                                          0000032284
<NAME>                                         Orion Diversified Technologies

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              APR-30-2000
<PERIOD-START>                                 MAY-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                   APR-30-2000
<CASH>                                              0
<SECURITIES>                                        0
<RECEIVABLES>                                       0
<ALLOWANCES>                                        0
<INVENTORY>                                         0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                    0
<PP&E>                                              0
<DEPRECIATION>                                      0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                      0
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                         130,212
<BONDS>                                             0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                               0
<PREFERRED>                                         0
<COMMON>                                       18,469
<OTHER-SE>                                   (148,681)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                        0
<SALES>                                             0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                    0
<CGS>                                               0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                       0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                  400
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  (400)
<INCOME-TAX>                                        0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                 0
<DISCONTINUED>                                      0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                     0
<CHANGES>                                           0
<NET-INCOME>                                     (400)
<EPS-BASIC>                                       .00
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     .00



</TABLE>
#### *Woods View II, LLC, Petitioner, v. Kitsap County, Respondent,*

No. 91886-4.

Petition for review of a decision of the Court of Appeals, No. 44404-6-II, April 14, 2015, 188 Wn. App. 1. *Denied*November 4, 2015.
<pre>

Exhibit 32.1

Certification Of The Chief Executive Officer Pursuant To Section
302 of the Sarbanes - Oxley Act of 2002.

I, Floyd D. Wilkenson, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this Quarterly report on Form 10Q-SB, as
amended, of Ludlum Construction Co., Inc.

2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly 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
quarterly report; and

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

Dated: December 22, 2004         By: /s/ FLOYD D. WILKENSON
                                 ----------------------------
                                 Floyd D. Wilkenson
                                 Authorized Agent/Sole Director
                                 Appointed by Board of Directors
                                 on March 19, 2004

Certification of The Chief Financial Officer Pursuant To Section
302 Of The Sarbanes - Oxley Act Of 2002

I, Floyd D. Wilkenson, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10 Q-SB, as
amended, of Ludlum Construction Co., Inc.

2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly 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 quarterly report.

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

Dated: December 22, 2004         By: /s/ FLOYD D. WILKENSON
                                 ----------------------------
                                 Floyd D. Wilkenson
                                 Authorized Agent/Sole Director
                                 Appointed by Board of Directors
                                 on March 19, 2004
# C_2014431EN.01002202.xml

| 1.12.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 431/22 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.12.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 431/22

---

Order of the General Court of 16 September 2014 — Boston Scientific Neuromodulation v OHIM (PRECISION SPECTRA)

(Case T-497/13) (1)

1

((Community trade mark - Application for Community word mark PRECISION SPECTRA - Absolute grounds for refusal - Descriptive character - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Action in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly lacking any foundation in law))

(2014/C 431/38)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Boston Scientific Neuromodulation Corp. (Valencia, California, United States) (represented by: P. Rath and W. Festl-Wietek, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: P. Geroulakos, acting as Agent)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 17 May 2013 (Case R 2099/2012-5), concerning an application for registration of the word mark PRECISION SPECTRA as a Community trade mark.

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The action is dismissed. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The action is dismissed.

| 2. | Boston Scientific Neuromodulation Corp. is ordered to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Boston Scientific Neuromodulation Corp. is ordered to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 344, 23.11.2013.

1

---
#### *State, Respondent, v. Jones, Petitioner,*

No. 91646-2.

Petition for review of a decision of the Court of Appeals, No. 45001-1-II, March 31, 2015, 186 Wn. App. 1039. *Denied*September 30, 2015.
No. 10-6819.

#### LaVerne Koenig, Petitioner v. North Dakota.

562 U.S. 1071, 131 S. Ct. 664,

178 L. Ed. 2d 496,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 9249.

November 29, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of North Dakota denied.

Same case below, 789 N.W.2d 731.
#### Fentin & Goldman, Respondent, v Noriko Ito, Appellant.

[767 NYS2d 865]

In an action to recover damages for breach of contract, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (DiBlasi, J.), entered June 21, 2002, which denied her motion to vacate a judgment of the same court dated April 18, 2002, which, upon her default in appearing for a preliminary conference, is in favor of the plaintiff and against her in the principal sum of $3,667, and for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is modified, on the law, by deleting the provision thereof denying that branch of the motion which was to vacate the judgment and substituting therefor a provision granting that branch of the motion; as so modified, the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

It is well settled that a defendant seeking to vacate a default must demonstrate both a reasonable excuse for the default and the existence of a meritorious defense *(see*CPLR 5015 [a] [1]; *Kolajo v City of New York,*248 AD2d 512 [1998]; *Roussodimou v Zafiriadis,*238 AD2d 568 [1997]; *Fennell v Mason,*204 AD2d 599 [1994]). The Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in denying that branch of the defendant’s motion which was to vacate her default, since the defendant established the existence of a meritorious defense and a reasonable excuse for her default in appearing at a preliminary conference.

The defendant’s contention that she was entitled to summary judgment dismissing the complaint is without merit *(see*CPLR 3212 [b]). Florio, J.P., Friedmann, H. Miller and Mastro, JJ., concur.
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 127 (Thursday, July 2, 1998)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 36192]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-17551]


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

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 73

[MM Docket No. 98-51; RM-9241]


Radio Broadcasting Services; Salmon, ID

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This document allots Channel 233A to Salmon, Idaho, as that 
community's second local FM transmission service, in response to a 
petition for rule making filed on behalf of Alpine Broadcasting Limited 
Partnership. See 63 FR 19700, April 21, 1998. Coordinates used for 
Channel 233A at Salmon, Idaho, are 45-10-30 and 113-53-42. With this 
action, the proceeding is terminated.

DATES: Effective August 10, 1998. A filing window for Channel 233A at 
Salmon, Idaho, will not be opened at this time. Instead, the issue of 
opening a filing window for this channel will be addressed by the 
Commission in a separate Order.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Nancy Joyner, Mass Media Bureau, (202) 
418-2180. Questions related to the application filing process for 
Channel 233A at Salmon, Idaho, should be addressed to the Audio 
Services Division, (202) 418-2700.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a synopsis of the Commission's 
Report and Order, MM Docket No. 98-51, adopted June 17, 1998, and 
released June 26, 1998. The full text of this Commission decision is 
available for inspection and copying during normal business hours in 
the FCC's 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, International Transcription Service, 
Inc., 1231 20th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20036, (202) 857-3800.

List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 73

    Radio broadcasting.

    Part 73 of Title 47 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended 
as follows:

PART 73--[AMENDED]

    1. The authority citation for part 73 reads as follows:

    Authority: 47 U.S.C. 154, 303, 334, 336.


Sec. 73.202  [Amended]

    2. Section 73.202(b), the Table of FM Allotments under Idaho, is 
amended by adding Channel 233A at Salmon.

Federal Communications Commission.
John A. Karousos,
Chief, Allocations Branch, Policy and Rules Division, Mass Media 
Bureau.
[FR Doc. 98-17551 Filed 7-1-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-U
#### *Pederson, Petitioner, v. Emp’t Sec. Dep’t, Respondent,*

No. 91774-4.

Petition for review of a decision of the Court of Appeals, No. 32410-9-III, May 5, 2015, 188 Wn. App. 667. *Denied*November 4, 2015.
Seasonal Influenza Vaccines

H. Keipp Talbot, MD, MPH

Chair, Influenza Work Group 

Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices

June 24, 2021
Influenza Work Group

ACIP Members

Keipp Talbot (Chair)

Kevin Ault

Hank Bernstein

Camille Kotton

Ex Officio Members

Michael Cooper (NIH)

Cynthia Nolletti (FDA)

Chris Roberts (NIH)

Susan Wollersheim (FDA)

Liaison Representatives 

and Consultants

Robert Atmar

Ed Belongia

Sarah Coles

Buddy Creech

Sarah Despres

Jeff Duchin

Sandra Fryhofer

Robyn Harrison

Denise Jamieson

Wendy Keitel

Marie-Michèle Léger

Jamie Loehr

Susan Lett

Mark Mulligan

Flor Munoz

Kathy Neuzil

William Schaffner

Rob Schechter 

Ken Schmader 

Patsy Stinchfield 

Tamara Sheffield

Angela Sinilaite

Peter Szilagyi

Chip Walter

Matthew Zahn
Recent WG Discussion

▪ Developed proposed updates to the ACIP influenza statement for 2021-22

– Timing of vaccination

– Co-administration of influenza vaccines with COVID-19 vaccines

– Contraindications and precautions

– Change in age indication of Flucelvax Quadrivalent from ages 4 years and older 

to ages 2 years and older (approved March, 2021)

▪ Presentation of results from an immunogenicity and safety study of 

Flucelvax Quadrivalent (cell culture-based inactivated influenza vaccine) 

among children 6 through 47 months of age

– Currently approved for ages 2 years and older
Session Overview

▪ Flucelvax Quadrivalent (ccIIV4) Phase III Randomized Controlled Trial—

Immunogenicity and Safety in Children 6 through 47 months

– Dr. Gregg Sylvester (Seqirus)

▪ WG considerations and proposed recommendations

– Lisa Grohskopf (CDC/NCIRD/Influenza Division)
No. 09-10872.

#### Darryl M. Young, Petitioner v. Walter A. McNeil, Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections, et al.

562 U.S. 854, 131 S. Ct. 116,

178 L. Ed. 2d 71,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 5890.

October 4, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit denied.
Exhibit 10.13


LEAK-OUT
AGREEMENT


 


 


This LEAK-OUT AGREEMENT supercedes any and
all other agreements whether in writing or orally communicated between MassRoots, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the “Company”),
and Dutchess Opportunity Fund II LP, a Delaware limited partnership, 50 Commonwealth Ave., Suite 2, 02116, and its affiliates and
related parties (herein referred to as the “Holder”). 


 


March 18, 2014


MassRoots, Inc.


6525 Gunpark Drive,


Ste 370 #150


Boulder, CO 80301






Ladies and Gentlemen:






In consideration
for the issuance of the shares of the Company’s common stock (“Common Stock”), for other good and valuable consideration,
receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, the Holder hereby agrees for a period of six (6) months after the date of this Agreement
(“Leak-Out Period”), not to publicly or privately offer to sell, contract to sell or otherwise sell, dispose of, loan,
gift, donate, hypothecate, pledge or grant any rights with respect to (collectively, a "Disposition") 6,425,000 shares
of common stock underlying those certain Warrants issued to Holder on or about the date hereof ("Warrant Shares"), now
owned or hereafter acquired directly by the undersigned or with respect to which the undersigned has or hereafter acquires the
power of disposition, otherwise than (i) as provided by the Leak-Out provision below or (ii) with the prior written consent of
the Company’s board of directors. Subsequent to the Leak-Out Period, the Holder may effectuate any Disposition of the Warrant
Shares with limitation.


During the Leak-Out Period but beginning the
sooner of: (i) the applicability of the transferability exemption pursuant to Rule 144 taking effect on the Warrant Shares, or
(ii) immediately upon the effectiveness of a registration statement as declared by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission,
in which the Warrant Shares have been registered, the Holder shall have the right to effect open market sales of the Warrant Shares
as outlined below:


 


	Market Price (per share)	Volume Limitation
	 	(based of prior three days average volume)
	At or below $.10	No trading permitted
	Above $.10 or at or below $.15	10%
	Above $.15 or at or below $.20	15%
	Above $.20 or at or below $.25	20%
	Above $.25	No limit
	 	 


[Signatures on Following Page]




    	 



    	 



    

 


 


Very truly yours,


 


Dutchess Opportunity Fund II LP


 


 


/s/ Douglas Leighton__________________


Douglas Leighton, Managing Partner


 


 




Accepted as of the date first set forth above:






By: MassRoots, Inc.


 


 


 


/s/ Isaac Dietrich_____________________


Isaac Dietrich, CEO
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              JUN-30-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                   JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                                  0
<SECURITIES>                                            0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   4,282,901
<ALLOWANCES>                                      (80,500)
<INVENTORY>                                     5,263,245
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               10,064,162
<PP&E>                                          3,858,540
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (1,697,417)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 12,681,561
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          10,616,015
<BONDS>                                                 0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                   0
<PREFERRED>                                             0
<COMMON>                                          202,390
<OTHER-SE>                                      1,170,192
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   12,681,561
<SALES>                                        27,101,030
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               27,101,030
<CGS>                                          24,046,504
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  24,046,504
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                4,043,069
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                        0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                682,596
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (1,671,139)
<INCOME-TAX>                                            0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (1,671,139)
<DISCONTINUED>                                          0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                         0
<CHANGES>                                               0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (1,671,139)
<EPS-BASIC>                                          (.99)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        (.99)



</TABLE>