alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Presidential Documents

36149

Federal Register

Vol. 63, No. 126

Wednesday, July 1, 1998

Title 3—

The President

Presidential Determination No. 98–31 of June 19, 1998

Presidential Determination on U.S. Assistance to the Korean

Peninsula Energy Development Organization (KEDO)

Memorandum for the Secretary of State

Pursuant to the authority vested in me by section 614(a)(1) of the Foreign

Assistance Act of 1961, as amended, 22 U.S.C. 2364(a)(1) (the ‘‘Act’’), I

hereby determine that it is important to the security interests of the United

States to furnish up to $5 million in funds made available under Chapter

IV, Part II of the Act for a U.S. contribution to KEDO without regard

to any provision of law within the scope of section 614(a)(1). I hereby

authorize this contribution.

You are hereby authorized and directed to transmit this determination to

the Congress and to arrange for its publication in the 

œ–

Federal Register.

THE WHITE HOUSE,

Washington, June 19, 1998. [FR Doc. 98–17758

Filed 6–30–98; 8:45 am]

Billing code 4710–10–M
#### Terry C. Spicola, Appellant, v Frank L. Piracci, Respondent.

[768 NYS2d 867]

*1369Appeal from an order of Supreme Court, Erie County (NeMoyer, J.), entered September 20, 2002, which granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment on liability.

It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously reversed on the law without costs and the motion is denied.

Memorandum: Supreme Court erred in granting defendant’s motion seeking summary judgment on liability. Plaintiff commenced this action to recover damages for injuries sustained when he was struck by defendant’s motor vehicle while crossing the street in the middle of the block. It is undisputed that it was dark and was raining slightly and that plaintiff was wearing dark clothing. Even assuming, arguendo, that defendant met his initial burden on the motion *(see Brown v City of New York,*237 AD2d 398 [1997]), we conclude that there is a triable issue of fact regarding defendant’s negligence, particularly in view of the principle that, in determining a motion for summary judgment, the “court’s function is issue finding, not issue determination” *(Potter v Polozie,*303 AD2d 943, 944 [2003]). Giving plaintiff “the benefit of every favorable inference” *(Nicklas v Tedlen Realty Corp.,*305 AD2d 385, 386 [2003]), as we must, we conclude that the evidence indicates that plaintiff may have been positioned directly in front of defendant’s motor vehicle prior to impact. “This factor, considered in light of [defendant’s] conceded failure to see anything prior to the impact, and his failure to take any steps to avoid the collision . . ., calls into question testimony concerning the speed of his vehicle and his attentiveness as he drove.' “One is bound to see what, by proper use of his senses, he might have seen” ’ ” *(Gonzalez v County of Suffolk,*277 AD2d 350, 351 [2000], quoting *Crandall v Lingener,*113 AD2d 529, 532, *lv denied*67 NY2d 607 [1986]; *see Levy v Town Bus Corp.,*293 AD2d 452 [2002]; *Charles v Ball,*291 AD2d 367 [2002]). Present—Pine, J.P., Wisner, Kehoe, Gorski and Lawton, JJ.
No. 10-7255.

#### Elijah James Chisolm, Petitioner v. United States.

562 U.S. 1076, 131 S. Ct. 680,

178 L. Ed. 2d 505,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 9134.

November 29, 2010.

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

Same case below, 367 Fed. Appx. 43.
Terms of Outside Director Compensation



  
 Exhibit 10.114 
  
 AEOLUS PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. 
  
 Terms of Outside Director Compensation 
  
 On September 22, 2004, the Compensation Committee and the Board of Directors
approved the following compensation program for the outside members of the Board of Directors. 
  

	 	•	Each outside Board member will receive annual cash compensation of $15,000, which will be paid in equal quarterly payments beginning July 1, 2004. Cash compensation for new and
terminating Board members will be prorated for the period of time that they are a Board member during the respective quarter. 

  

	 	•	Audit Committee members will receive an additional $10,000 of annual cash compensation, which will be paid in equal quarterly payments beginning July 1, 2004. Cash compensation for
new and terminating Audit Committee members will be prorated for the period of time that they are members of the Audit Committee during the respective quarter. 

  

	 	•	Each outside Board member was granted a nonqualified stock option for 20,000 shares on September 22, 2004. The option exercise price was equal to the closing price on the grant
date. The options have 10-year terms and vest, as long as the Director remains on the Board, on a monthly basis over the 12-month period beginning July 19, 2004. Vested shares will be exercisable for 10 years from the grant date.
EXHIBIT 99.1


For:                                                  From:
EVCI Career Colleges Inc.                             Gregory FCA Communications
For More Information Contact:                         Analyst Contact:
Dr. Arol I. Buntzman                                  David Evanson
Chairman & Chief Executive Officer                    610/642-8253
914/787-3500                                          devanson@gregoryfca.com
www.evcischools.com


For Immediate Release


              EVCI Career Colleges Incorporated Secures Financing
                         to Assist Interboro Expansion

Yonkers, New York, July 17, 2002 - EVCI Career Colleges Incorporated (Nasdaq:
EVCI) today announced the closing of a three year $550,000 loan from Rosenthal &
Rosenthal of New York City. Approximately $275,000 of the funds will be used to
assist in the expansion of Interboro Institute, Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary,
for the fall semester, according to Dr. Arol Buntzman, chairman and chief
executive officer of EVCI.

The loan bears interest at 10% per annum. Repayment of the loan requires
interest only for the first twelve months, followed by twenty four consecutive
monthly payments of principal and interest. Interboro guaranteed the loan and
EVCI's bank issued a $250,000 letter of credit to the lender that is
collateralized by EVCI cash in the same amount.

In addition, EVCI issued warrants to the lender to purchase 50,000 EVCI shares
of common stock at $1.50 per share, subject to adjustment, at any time during
the three years following repayment of the loan by prepayment or at maturity.

                                      # # #

The forward-looking statement in this press release regarding the use of
proceeds of the loan reflect management's current views with respect to future
events and are subject to certain assumptions, risks and uncertainties. These
include: Interboro may not be able to implement its expansion plan; problems
with regulators could adversely affect existing or proposed schools; losses and
negative cash flow generated by ICTS and EVCI's enhanced video communication
division could require additional cash infusions from EVCI; economic and market
conditions may not be favorable for EVCI; and the other specific risk factors
described in EVCI's filings with the SEC, including its most recent Form S-3 and
10-QSB. Should one or more of these risks or uncertainties materialize, or
should underlying assumptions prove incorrect, actual results may vary
materially from those anticipated by any forward-looking statement. EVCI
undertakes no obligation to update the information in this press release.
# C_2015007EN.01006201.xml

| 12.1.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 7/62 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.1.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 7/62

---

Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 17 November 2014 — Durand v Commission

(Case F-126/13) (1)

1

(2015/C 007/81)

Language of the case: French

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

---

(1)  OJ C 45, 15.2.2014, p. 47.

1

---
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 11**  **- 6789** 

ROBERT CAMPBELL , Plaintiff

- Appellant ,

v. JEAN SMITH; SHAMYRA MCREA; JOHN BRITT; NEIL MCCLENDON , Defendants

- Appellees

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina , at Rock Hill

. Richard M

. Gergel , District Judge. ( 0:08

- cv - 03668

- RMG )

Submitted : September 6, 2011 Decided: September 28, 2011

Before MOTZ, KING, and DAVIS , Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

.
Robert Campbell, Appellant Pro Se. Christopher R. Antley , DEVLIN & PARKINSON, PA , Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CU RIAM: Rober t Campbell appeals the district court’s entry of judgment for Defendants in accordance with the jury’s verdict. Campbell brought suit alleging claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) and South Carolina law. On appeal, Campbell claims that the judgment shoul d be reversed because he was not allowed to present certain evidence at trial, the district court committed error with respect to certain video evidence, and the court erred in failing to admit into evidence the prison incident reports authored by Defendan ts McR ea , Britt , and Smith . In his informal appellate brief, however, Campbell fails to explain why his inability to present certain evidence and the court’s error with respect to the video evidence warrant reversal of the judgment. Campbell also fails t o explain how the district court erred in failing to admit into evidence the incident reports authored by McR ea and Britt . Accordingly, we deem these issues abandoned. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b); Wahi v. Charleston Area Med. Ctr., Inc. , 562 F.3d 599, 607 (4th Cir. 2009). Further, an appellant ha s the burden of including in the record on appeal a transcript of all parts of the proceeding material to the issues raised on appeal. Fed. R. App. P. 10(b); 4th Cir. R. 10(b). Campbell has not provided a transcript of the trial and fails to establish a basis to have the transcript prepared at government expense. See 28 U.S.C. § 753(f) (2006).3 By failing to produce a transcript or to qualify for the production of a transcript at government expense, Campbell has wai ved review of the issue on appeal that depends on the transcript to show error. Powell v. Estelle , 959 F.2d 22, 26 (5th Cir. 1992) (per curiam); Keller v. Prince George’s Cnty. , 827 F.2d 952, 954 n.1 (4th Cir. 1987). As no error appears on the record bef ore us, we affirm the district court’s judgment.

We deny Campbell’s motion to appoint counsel and 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.

AFFIRMED
EXHIBIT 21.1
SUBSIDIARIES OF REGISTRANT
 Name of Subsidiary
    
    Jurisdiction1) Eastern Washakie Midstream Pipeline LLC,
    
    Wyoming2) Petrosearch Energy Corporation
    
    Nevada3) Petrosearch Operating Company, LLC
    
    Texas4) Wilcox Petrosearch, LLC
    
    Texas5) Anadarko Petrosearch, LLC
    
    Texas6) Barnett Petrosearch, LLC
    
    Texas7) Beacon Petrosearch, LLC
    
    Texas8) Guidance Petrosearch, LLC
    
    Texas9) Atlantic Rim Development Company, LLC
    
    Wyoming
Exhibit 32.1

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


In connection with the Quarterly Report of L.O.M.  Medical  International,  Inc.
(the "Company"),  on form 10-QSB for the period ending August 31, 2003, as filed
with the Securities and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the  "Report"),
I, John Klippenstein,  Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant
to  18  U.S.C.  Section  1350,  as  adopted  pursuant  to  Section  906  of  the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

1.   The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and

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


October 14, 2003                                  By:   /s/ John Klippenstein
                                                        ------------------------
                                                        John Klippenstein
                                                  Its:  Chief Executive Officer
THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13-22-00303-CR

Daniel Garcia

v.

The State of Texas

On Appeal from the

24th District Court of De Witt County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 20-12-13,453

JUDGMENT

THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered this cause on 

appeal, concludes that the judgment of the trial court should be affirmed as modified by 

this Court. The Court orders the judgment of the trial court AFFIRMED AS MODIFIED.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.

January 18, 2024
<PAGE>
 
                                             DUQUESNE LIGHT COMPANY EXHIBIT 23.1



                         INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT



        We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement
Nos. 33-52782, 33-63602, 33-53563 and 33-53563-01 of Duquesne Light Company on
Form S-3 of our report dated January 30, 1996, appearing in the Annual Report
on Form 10-K of Duquesne Light Company for the year ended December 31, 1995.



/s/ Deloitte & Touche LLP
DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
March 29, 1996
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 130 (Wednesday, July 8, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Pages 36965-36966]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-18039]


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

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[Docket No. 30-16055-ML-REN; ASLBP No. 95-707-02-ML-REN]


Advanced Medical Systems, Inc.; Notice of Reconstitution

    Pursuant to the authority contained in 10 CFR 2.721 and 2.1207, the 
Presiding Officer in the captioned Subpart L proceeding is hereby 
replaced by appointing Administrative Judge B. Paul Cotter, Jr. as 
Presiding Officer in place of Administrative Judge Marshall E. Miller.
    All correspondence, documents and other material shall be filed 
with the Presiding Officer in accordance with 10 CFR 2.1203 (1997). The 
address of the new Presiding Officer is: Chief Administrative Judge B. 
Paul Cotter, Jr., Atomic Safety and Licensing Board

[[Page 36966]]

Panel, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555.

    Issued at Rockville, Maryland this 1st day of July 1998.
B. Paul Cotter, Jr.,
Chief Administrative Judge, Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel.
[FR Doc. 98-18039 Filed 7-7-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
# C_2014061EN.01001601.xml

| 1.3.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 61/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.3.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 61/16

---

Action brought on 23 December 2013 — Bundesverband Deutsche Tafel — OHIM — Tiertafel Deutschland (Tafel)

(Case T-710/13)

2014/C 61/28

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Bundesverband Deutsche Tafel eV (Berlin, Germany) (represented by: T. Koerl, E. Celenk and S. Vollmer, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Tiertafel Deutschland eV (Rathenow, Germany)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

| — | annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 17 October 2013 in Case R 1074/2012-4; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 17 October 2013 in Case R 1074/2012-4;

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

—

order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

Registered Community trade mark in respect of which a declaration of invalidity has been sought: The word mark ‘Tafel’ for services in Classes 39 and 45 — Community trade mark No 8 985 541.

Registered Community trade mark in respect of which a declaration of invalidity has been sought:

Proprietor of the Community trade mark: The applicant.

Proprietor of the Community trade mark:

Applicant for the declaration of invalidity of the Community trade mark: Tiertafel Deutschland e.V.

Applicant for the declaration of invalidity of the Community trade mark:

Grounds for the application for a declaration of invalidity: Absolute grounds for invalidity under Article 52(1)(a) in conjunction with Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation No 207/2009 and the applicant’s bad faith under Article 52(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009

Grounds for the application for a declaration of invalidity:

Decision of the Cancellation Division: Rejection of the application for a declaration of invalidity.

Decision of the Cancellation Division:

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal upheld and mark declared invalid.

Decision of the Board of Appeal:

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation No 207/2009.

Pleas in law:

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

<ARTICLE>     5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE 
BALANCE SHEET AND STATEMENTS OF LOSS AND ACCUMULATED DEFICIT AND IS QUALIFIED
IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE  TO SUCH 10QSB FOR THE QUARTER ENDED September 30,
1998.
       
       
<S>                                        <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                              3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          Jun-30-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               Sep-30-1998
<CASH>                                            6441
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                     1184
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                  7625
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                    7910
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                      10000
<COMMON>                                          1935
<OTHER-SE>                                       (5075)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                      7910
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                     3290
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  (3290)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     (3290)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.002)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.002)

        

</TABLE>
# C_2013274EN.01001901.xml

| 21.9.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 274/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.9.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 274/19

---

Action brought on 17 July 2013 — Moonlight v OHIM — Lampenwelt (Moon)

(Case T-374/13)

2013/C 274/32

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Moonlight GmbH (Wehr, Germany) (represented by: H. Börjes-Pestalozza and M. Nielen, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Lampenwelt GmbH & Co. KG (Schlitz, Germany)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 13 May 2013 in Case R 676/2012-4 and require OHIM to dismiss the application for a declaration of invalidity in respect of Community trade mark No 6 084 081; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 13 May 2013 in Case R 676/2012-4 and require OHIM to dismiss the application for a declaration of invalidity in respect of Community trade mark No 6 084 081;

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

—

order OHIM to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

Registered Community trade mark in respect of which a declaration of invalidity has been sought: Word mark ‘Moon’ for goods in Class 11 — Community trade mark No 6 084 081

Registered Community trade mark in respect of which a declaration of invalidity has been sought:

Proprietor of the Community trade mark: Moonlight GmbH

Proprietor of the Community trade mark:

Applicant for the declaration of invalidity of the Community trade mark: Lampenwelt GmbH & Co. KG

Applicant for the declaration of invalidity of the Community trade mark:

Grounds for the application for a declaration of invalidity: Absolute grounds for invalidity under Article 52(1)(a) and (b) of Regulation No 207/2009

Grounds for the application for a declaration of invalidity:

Decision of the Cancellation Division: Application for a declaration of invalidity granted

Decision of the Cancellation Division:

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed

Decision of the Board of Appeal:

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation No 207/2009

Pleas in law:

---