alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>
                                                                  Exhibit 10.1

DOW CORNING LETTERHEAD

March 30, 2004                                                  ACCNO.:  30182

Genencor International, Inc.
925 Page Mill Road
Palo Alto, CA 94304
Attn:  General Counsel

To Whom It May Concern:

This will refer to the Research Agreement between Dow Corning Corporation and
Genencor International, Inc. dated October 4, 2001 and the extension dated
February 11, 2003, and December 16, 2003, relating to research in the areas of
biosensors, bioenergy, biomaterials, bioalkylation, biocatalysis, silicon-based
materials, bioseparations and formulations. The present Agreement expires on
March 31, 2004.

Assuming Genencor International, Inc. wishes to continue working with Dow
Corning Corporation, we propose to extend the term of the above-mentioned
Agreement two (2) additional months. The new expiration date will be May 31,
2004. No additional Milestone payments are due from Dow Corning during the time
period of this Extension. All other terms and conditions of the Agreement will
remain the same.

If the above meets with your approval, please have both copies of this letter
signed by an authorized officer of Genencor International, Inc. and return one
fully executed original to:

                             Contract Team (CO1232)
                             Dow Corning Corporation
                             Law Department
                             2200 W. Salzburg Road
                             P.O. Box 994
                             Midland, MI 48686-0994

If you have any questions about this proposal please call the Dow Corning
contact for this agreement, Dave Cornelius at (989) 496-3265.

Very truly yours,                         ACCEPTED

DOW CORNING CORPORATION                   GENENCOR INTERNATIONAL, INC.

By:    /s/ Gregg A. Zank                  By:    /s/ Michael V. Arbige
       -----------------------                   ---------------------

Name:  Gregg A. Zank                      Name:  Michael V. Arbige
       -----------------------                   -----------------

Title: Executive Director                 Title: Sr. Vice President, Technology
       -----------------------                   ------------------------------

Date:  1, April, 2004                     Date:  4/8/04
       -----------------------                   ------

cc:    David J. Cornelius, Dow Corning (CO43M1)
# U ni te d S ta te s Co ur t of A pp ea ls For the Eig hth Circu it

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ No. 1 5- 38 56

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ Cl ai re J . Lee
ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pla in ti

ff - App el la nt

v.
Hen ne pi n C ou nt y ; Hen ne pi n Hea lt hc are S y st em , Inc ., do in g b us in es s as Henn ep in Co un ty Medi cal Cen te r
ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defe nd

an ts - App el le es

__ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt fo r th e Dis tri ctof M in ne so ta- Mi nn eap ol is

__ __ __ __ __ __ Subm it te d: Marc h 3 , 20 17 Fi le d: Marc h 8 , 20 17 [Unpubl is he d]

__ __ __ __ __ __ Befo re SM ITH, BOW MAN, an d B ENTON, Ci rcu itJu dg es

.

__ __ __ __ __ __ PER CURI AM.Cl ai re J. Lee ap pe al s th e di st ric t cou rt’s adve rs e gr an t of summ ary jud gm en t 1 in he r act io n un de r th e Em erg en cy Med ic al Tr eat m en t an d Acti ve Lab or Act (EMTALA). Viewi ng th e su m m ary jud gm en t reco rd in a li g h t mo s t fav or ab le to 2 Lee, an d dr awin g al l in fere nc es in he r fav or , we co nc lu de th at th e gr an t of su m m ary jud gm en t t o d efen da nt s was warran te d. See St ar Ci ty Sch . Di st . v . AC I Bl dg . Sy s., LLC, 84 4 F.3 d 10 11 , 10 17 (8 th Ci r

. 2 0 1 7 ) (d e no vo rev ie w); Hun t ex rel

. Hun t v. Li n c o ln Co un ty Mem ’l Hos p., 31 7 F.3 d 89 1, 89 3 n.4 (8 th Ci r. 20 03 ) (el em en t s o f EMTALA cl ai m). W e fin d no m eri t to Lee’s arg um en ts co nc ern in g di sc ov ery an d

un fai r tre atm en t by th e m ag is tra te jud ge

. Acco rd in gl y , we affi rm th e jud gm en t, an d we al so de ny Lee’ s m ot io n fo r sa nc ti on s.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

The Hon or ab le Patric k J. Sch il tz , Uni te d St at es Dis tri ct Ju dg e fo r th e Dis tri ct 1 of Mi nn es ot a, ad op ti ng th e rep ort an d reco m m en da ti on s of th e Hon o rab le Hil dy Bo wbe er, Un it edSta te s M ag is tra te Ju dg e fo r th e Dis tri ctof M in ne so ta

. Lee rai se d ot he r cl ai m s un de r fed eral an d st at e la w whi ch sh e ha s ab an do ne d. 2 See Hes s v. Abl es , 71 4 F.3 d 10 48 , 10 5 1 n

. 2 ( 8 t h Ci r. 20 13 ) (cl ai m is ab an do ne d whe re ap pe ll an t fa il s t o b rie f th is co urt o n wh y di sm is sa l was im

pr op er).
-2

-
---

---

# 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 Annual Report
of ACRO Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-KSB for the period ended December 31,
2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
Report), I, Gadi Aner, the Interim Chief Executive Officer (Principal
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 to my knowledge:

|(1) | the Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 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 result of operations of the Company.
|--- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dated: March 28, 2007
/s/ Gadi Aner

Gadi Aner
Interim Chief Executive Officer
(Principal Executive Officer)



---

---
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

No. DA 22-0714

STATE OF MONTANA, 

Plaintiff and Appellee, 

v. 

HEATHER ROSE JOHNSON,

Defendant and Appellant.

ORDER

Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, 

and good cause appearing,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension 

of time to and including May 15, 2023, within which to prepare, file, 

and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

April 5 2023

04/05/2023

Case Number: DA 22-0714
COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA 

Present: Judges Bray, Annunziata and Frank 

ALBERT JOHNSON 

 MEMORANDUM OPINION* 

v. Record No. 0560-99-3 PER CURIAM 

 SEPTEMBER 21, 1999 

BRENDA JOHNSON 

FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF WISE COUNTY 

Ford C. Quillen, Judge 

 (Karen T. Mullins, on brief), for appellant. 

 (Daniel R. Bieger; Copeland, Molinary & 

Bieger, on brief), for appellee. 

 Albert Johnson (husband) appeals the final decree of divorce 

entered by the circuit court. The trial court awarded Brenda 

Johnson (wife) $500 in monthly spousal support. Husband contends 

that the trial court erred in awarding $500 in monthly spousal 

support because the evidence demonstrated that he lacked the 

ability to pay that amount of support and that wife did not need 

support. Wife filed a motion to dismiss husband's appeal, 

alleging that husband failed to preserve his objection for appeal. 

Upon reviewing the record and briefs of the parties, we conclude 

that this appeal is without merit. Accordingly, we summarily 

affirm the decision of the trial court. See Rule 5A:27. 

 

* Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, recodifying Code 

§ 17-116.010, this opinion is not designated for publication.
 In an opinion letter dated November 30, 1998, the trial court 

indicated it would award wife $600 in monthly spousal support. 

Husband moved for reconsideration during a hearing in chambers on 

February 5, 1999. No transcript of that hearing exists. 

Following the hearing, the trial court modified its proposed 

decision and entered a final decree awarding wife $500 in monthly 

spousal support. Husband's counsel endorsed the final decree 

"Seen," without any recitation of exceptions or objections. 

Husband did not file any post-trial motion raising objections to 

the final decree. 

 We find that husband failed to preserve any issues for 

appeal. It is clear from the record that husband challenged the 

proposed award of $600 in monthly spousal support. However, after 

his motion for reconsideration was granted and the spousal support 

award was reduced, husband took no steps to preserve any further 

objection. "[W]e have stated that a party's failure to object to 

a final order by merely endorsing it as 'Seen,' without more, is 

not sufficient to preserve that party's right to appeal." 

Weidman v. Babcock, 241 Va. 40, 44, 400 S.E.2d 164, 167 (1991) 

(citing Langley v. Meredith, 237 Va. 55, 61-62, 376 S.E.2d 519, 

522 (1989)). See also Lee v. Lee, 12 Va. App. 512, 516-17, 404 

S.E.2d 736, 738-39 (1991) (en banc). 

- 2 -
 Accordingly, because husband failed to preserve any issue for 

appeal, the decision of the circuit court is summarily affirmed. 

 Affirmed.

- 3 -
STATE EX REL. Eric D. LEWIS v. STATE of Louisiana

NO. 2017-KH-1583

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

November 14, 2018

Denied. Relator has previously exhausted his right to state collateral review. State ex rel. Lewis v. State, 15-1558 (La. 9/16/16), 201 So.3d 242,
STATE of Florida, Appellant, v. Chris Anthony ORTIZ, Appellee.

Case No. 5D17-4012

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Opinion filed November 13, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
IB 

Union Calendar No. 242 

113TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 801 

[Report No. 113–325] 

To amend the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 to make the shareholder 

threshold for registration of savings and loan holding companies the 

same as for bank holding companies. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 15, 2013 

Mr. WOMACK (for himself, Mr. HIMES, Mrs. WAGNER, and Mr. DELANEY) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Financial Services 

JANUARY 14, 2014 

Additional sponsors: Mr. QUIGLEY, Mr. POLIS, and Mr. RENACCI

JANUARY 14, 2014 

Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union 

and ordered to be printed 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 801 RH

A BILL 

To amend the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 to make 

the shareholder threshold for registration of savings and 

loan holding companies the same as for bank holding 

companies. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 801 RH

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Holding Company Reg5 istration Threshold Equalization Act of 2013’’. 

6 SEC. 2. REGISTRATION THRESHOLD FOR SAVINGS AND 

7 LOAN HOLDING COMPANIES. 

8 The Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78a 

9 et seq.) is amended— 

10 (1) in section 12(g)— 

11 (A) in paragraph (1)(B), by inserting after 

12 ‘‘is a bank’’ the following: ‘‘, a savings and loan 

13 holding company (as defined in section 10 of 

14 the Home Owners’ Loan Act),’’; and 

15 (B) in paragraph (4), by inserting after 

16 ‘‘case of a bank’’ the following: ‘‘, a savings and 

17 loan holding company (as defined in section 10 

18 of the Home Owners’ Loan Act),’’; and 

19 (2) in section 15(d), by striking ‘‘case of bank’’ 

20 and inserting the following: ‘‘case of a bank, a sav21 ings and loan holding company (as defined in section 

22 10 of the Home Owners’ Loan Act),’’. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
Union Calendar No. 242 

113TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 801 

[Report No. 113–325] 

A BILL 

To amend the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 to 

as for bank holding companies. of savings and loan holding companies the same make the shareholder threshold for registration 

JANUARY 14, 2014 

Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the 

State of the Union and ordered to be printed 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
# C_2021517EN.01012101.xml

| 22.12.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 517/121 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.12.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 517/121

---

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on Proposal for a Council Decision on the position to be taken on behalf of the European Union within the Regional Steering Committee of the Transport Community as regards the adoption of the budget of the Transport Community for 2022

(COM(2021) 479 final — 2021/0272 (NLE))

(2021/C 517/20)

| Referral | Council of the European Union, 25.8.2021 |
| --- | --- |
| Legal basis | Article 218(9) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union |
| Section responsible | Transport, Energy, Infrastructure and the Information Society |
| Adopted at plenary | 22.9.2021 |
| Plenary session No | 563 |
| Outcome of vote
  (for/against/abstentions) | 238/0/7 |

Referral

Council of the European Union, 25.8.2021

Legal basis

Article 218(9) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union

Section responsible

Transport, Energy, Infrastructure and the Information Society

Adopted at plenary

22.9.2021

Plenary session No

563

Outcome of vote

(for/against/abstentions)

238/0/7

Since the Committee unreservedly endorses the content of the proposal and feels that it requires no comment on its part, it decided, at its 563rd plenary session of 22 and 23 September 2021 (meeting of 22 September), by 238 votes and 7 abstentions, to issue an opinion endorsing the proposed text.

Brussels, 22 September 2021.

The President of the European Economic and Social Committee

Christa SCHWENG

---
I 

113TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 888 

To amend section 112(r) of the Clean Air Act (relating to prevention of 

accidental releases). 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 28, 2013 

Mr. POMPEO (for himself, Mr. MATHESON, Mr. LONG, and Mr. LATTA) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Energy 

and Commerce 

A BILL 

To amend section 112(r) of the Clean Air Act (relating 

to prevention of accidental releases). 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘General Duty Clari5 fication Act of 2013’’. 

6 SEC. 2. PREVENTION OF ACCIDENTAL RELEASES. 

7 (a) PURPOSE AND GENERAL DUTY.—Paragraph (1) 

8 of section 112(r) of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7412(r)) 

9 is amended— 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 888 IH

1 (1) by striking ‘‘It shall be the objective’’ and 

2 inserting the following: 

3 ‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—It shall be the objec4 tive’’; and 

5 (2) by adding at the end the following: 

6 ‘‘(B) REGULATIONS.— 

7 ‘‘(i) REGULATIONS.—Not later than 

8 12 months after the date of enactment of 

9 the General Duty Clarification Act of 

10 2013, the Administrator shall promulgate 

11 regulations establishing criteria defining, 

12 for purposes of this paragraph, the terms 

13 ‘extremely hazardous substance’, ‘appro14 priate hazard assessment techniques’, and 

15 ‘design and maintain a safe facility’. 

16 ‘‘(ii) UNIFORMITY.—Not later than 18 

17 months after the date of enactment of the 

18 General Duty Clarification Act of 2013, 

19 the Administrator shall issue guidelines to 

20 ensure that enforcement of this paragraph 

21 is handled by the regional offices of the 

22 Environmental Protection Agency in a uni23 form and appropriate manner across all re24 gions of the United States.’’. 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 888 IH

1 (b) DEFINITION OF ACCIDENTAL RELEASE.—Sub2 paragraph (A) of section 112(r)(2) of the Clean Air Act 

3 (42 U.S.C. 7412(r)(2)) is amended by inserting before the 

4 period at the end the following: ‘‘, other than such an 

5 emission resulting from an act intended to cause harm’’. 

6 (c) DESIGNS, APPROACHES OR TECHNOLOGIES.— 

7 Subsection (r) of section 112 of the Clean Air Act (42 

8 U.S.C. 7412(r)) is amended by adding at the end the fol9 lowing: 

10 ‘‘(12) DESIGNS, APPROACHES, OR TECH11 NOLOGIES.—In exercising any authority under this 

12 subsection, the Administrator shall not, directly or 

13 indirectly, impose any obligation on any owner or 

14 operator of any stationary source to consider or im15 plement particular designs, approaches, or tech16 nologies relating to manufacturing, processing, han17 dling, or storage.’’. 

Æ 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with BILLS
M.T., the Father, appellant(s)/Petitioner(s), v. DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES, et al., Appellee(s)/Respondent(s),

CASE NO.: 3D17-2440

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

NOVEMBER 15, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Dismissed.
**EXHIBIT 13.1****GRUPO TMM, S.A.B.****SECTION 906 CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER**      I, Javier Segovia Serrano, the Chief Executive Officer of Grupo TMM, S.A.B. (the “Company”),hereby certify pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 that:      1. the Company’s annual report on Form 20-F for the year ended December 31, 2006, to whichthis statement is filed as an exhibit (the “Report”), fully complies with the requirements ofsection 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and     2. the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.Date: July 16, 2007         /s/ Javier Segovia Serrano   Javier Segovia Serrano   Chief Executive Officer
---

---

Exhibit 32.2

# 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
of ACRO Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-KSB for the period ended December 31,
2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
Report), I, Jacob Bar-Shalom, the Acting Chief Financial Officer (Principal
Financial Officer and Principal Accounting 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 to the best of my knowledge:

|(1) | the Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 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 result of operations of the Company.
|--- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dated: March 28, 2007
/s/ Jacob Bar-Shalom

Jacob Bar-Shalom
Acting Chief Financial Officer
(Principal Financial Officer and
Principal Accounting Officer)



---

---
Trevor Ewell THOMAS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 1D17-5045

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

November 6, 2018

Andy Thomas, Public Defender, and Justin F. Karpf, Assistant Public Defender, Tallahassee, for Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General; Tabitha Herrera and Kaitlin Weiss, Assistant Attorneys General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

Per Curiam.

We affirm the revocation of Appellant's probation and his resulting sentence without discussion, but we remand for entry of a corrected revocation order that conforms to the trial court's oral pronouncement that Appellant committed one violation (not two) of condition 3, one violation of condition 7, and two violations (not six) of condition 5. Appellant need not be present.

AFFIRMED and REMANDED with instructions.

Wetherell, Rowe, and Winokur, JJ., concur.
NOTE: Pursuant to Fed. Cir. R. 47.6, this disposition is 

not citable as precedent. It is a public record. 

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 

 

 

04-1516 

KÁLMÁN GYÖRY, 

 Plaintiff-Appellant, 

v. 

REEBOK INTERNATIONAL, LTD., 

 Defendant-Appellee. 

 __________________________ 

 DECIDED: February 14, 2005 

 __________________________ 

Before MAYER, Circuit Judge, FRIEDMAN, Senior Circuit Judge, CLEVENGER, Circuit 

Judge. 

PER CURIAM. 

Kálmán Györy (“Györy”) appeals the dismissal of his suit against Reebok 

International, Ltd. (“Reebok”) for alleged infringement of United States Patent No. 

4,134,156 (“the ’156 patent”). Györy v. Reebok Int’l Ltd., No. 03-CV-10077 (D. Mass. 

June 4, 2004). We affirm. 

 With the benefit of an earlier application, Györy’s ’156 patent claimed priority 

from June 11, 1976, and it issued on January 16, 1979. Under 35 U.S.C. § 154(c)(1), 

the term of the ’156 patent expired on June 11, 1996. Györy commenced this action on 
January 6, 2003. Because “no recovery shall be had for any infringement committed 

more than six years prior to the filing of the complaint,” 35 U.S.C. § 286, and because 

an act must be performed “during the term of the patent” to constitute an act of

infringement, 35 U.S.C. § 271(a), Györy cannot recover and his complaint was properly 

dismissed for failure to state a claim. We have considered Reebok’s request for

attorney fees, and we decline to award them. 

04-1516 2