alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 145 (Monday, August 2, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Page 41453]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-16351]


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

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Department of the Air Force


Notice of Intent To Grant an Exclusive Patent License

AGENCY: Department of the Air Force, Department of Defense.

ACTION: Notice of intent.

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

SUMMARY: Pursuant to the Bayh-Dole Act and implementing regulations, 
the Department of the Air Force hereby gives notice of its intent to 
grant an exclusive patent license agreement to Palladium Labs, a C-
Corporation, having a place of business at 126 Thomas Street NW, 
Washington, DC 20001.

DATES: Written objections must be filed no later than fifteen (15) 
calendar days after the date of publication of this Notice.

ADDRESSES: Submit written objections to Matthew O'Brien, RDOX, 
Technology Transfer Office, Directed Energy Directorate, 3550 Aberdeen 
Avenue, Kirtland AFB, New Mexico 87117-5776; Telephone: 505-846-5028; 
Email: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#0a676b7e7e626f7d24656878636f6424383d4a7f79246b6c24676366"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="b6dbd7c2c2ded3c198d9d4c4dfd3d8988481f6c3c598d7d098dbdfda">[email protected]</span></a>. Include Docket No. PRS283 in the 
subject line of the message.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Shannon Carr, RDOX, Technology 
Transfer Office, Directed Energy Directorate, 3550 Aberdeen Avenue, 
Kirtland AFB, New Mexico 87117-5776; Telephone: 505-321-3542; Email: 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#45362d242b2b2a2b6b262437376b766b2631370530366b24236b282c29"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="72011a131c1c1d1c5c111300005c415c1106003207015c13145c1f1b1e">[email protected]</span></a>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Department of the Air Force intends to 
grant the exclusive patent license agreement for the invention 
described in: U.S. 10,715,615, entitled ``Dynamic Content Distribution 
System and Associated Methods,'' issued 14 July 2020.
    The Department of the Air Force may grant the prospective license 
unless a timely objection is received that sufficiently shows the grant 
of the license would be inconsistent with the Bayh-Dole Act or 
implementing regulations. A competing application for a patent license 
agreement, completed in compliance with 37 CFR 404.8 and received by 
the Air Force within the period for timely objections, will be treated 
as an objection and may be considered as an alternative to the proposed 
license.

Adriane Paris,
Acting Air Force Federal Register Liaison Officer.
[FR Doc. 2021-16351 Filed 7-30-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 5001-10-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Raymond Rossetti, Appellant.

[944 NYS2d 911] —

Appeal by the defendant from a resentence of the County Court, Putnam County (Reitz, J.), imposed December 2, 2008, upon remittitur from this Court *(see People v Rossetti,*55 AD3d 637 [2008]), upon his convictions of assault in the first degree and driving while intoxicated, upon his plea of guilty.

Ordered that the resentence is affirmed.

Contrary to the contention of the defendant, the County Court, which, upon remittitur, had the “discretion” to “afford” him “an opportunity to withdraw his plea” *(People v Rossetti,*55 AD3d 637, 637 [2008]), properly denied his request to withdraw his plea of guilty. A defendant’s request to withdraw a plea of guilty should “not be granted merely for the asking” *(People v Alexander,*97 NY2d 482, 485 [2002]), and the defendant, whose plea was knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently made *(see People v Harris,*61 NY2d 9, 17 [1983]), failed to articulate a persuasive reason warranting vacatur of the plea. Skelos, J.P., Florio, Roman and Miller, JJ., concur.
**UN PUBLISHED** 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 15** 
**- 2501** 

JIANGUAN CHEN ,
Petitioner ,

v.
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General , Respondent

.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals.

Submitted : July 13, 2016 Decided: August 9, 2016

Before NIEMEYER, WYNN, and FLOYD , Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by un published per curiam opinion

.

Gary J. Yerman, New York, New York , for Petitioner. Benjamin C. Mizer, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Daniel E. Goldman, Senior Litigation Counsel, Ashley Martin , Office of Immigration Litigation, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circ uit.2 PER CURIAM:
Jianguan Chen , a native and citizen of the People’s Republic

of China , petitions for review of an order of the Board of
Immigration Appeals (Board) dismissing his appeal from the
immigration judge’s denial of his requests for asylum, wit hholding
of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture.
We have thoroughly reviewed the record, including the transcript
of Chen’s merits hearing and all supporting evidence. We conclude
that the record evidence does not compel a ruling contrary to any
of the administrative factual findings, see 8 U.S.C.

§ 1252(b)(4)(B) (2012), and that substantial evidence supports the

Board’s decision. See INS v. Elias

– Zacarias , 502 U.S. 478, 481

(1992).
Accordingly, we deny the petition for review for the reasons
stated by the Board. See In re Chen (B.I.A. Nov. 9, 2015). We
dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions
are adequately presented in the materials before this court and
argument would not aid the decisional proces s.

PETITION DENIE D
#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT, v. ARCHIE TUCKER, Jr., DEFENDANT-PETITIONER.

June 28, 1960.

*Mr. Halo M. Tarantola*for the petitioner.

*Mr. David D. Furman*and *Mr. William L. Boyan*for the respondent.

Denied.
#### In the Matter of Government Employees Insurance Company, Respondent, v Sinyoung Baik, Appellant.

[941 NYS2d 872]

*889In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 75 to permanently stay arbitration of an uninsured motorist claim, Sinyoung Baik appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Rios, J.), entered April 20, 2011, which granted the petition and denied her motion, inter alia, for certain discovery.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The appellant sought uninsured motorist benefits, under a policy of insurance issued by the petitioner, for physical injuries she allegedly sustained when an unknown hit-and-run driver rear-ended the vehicle' of the insured, in which the appellant was a passenger. The petitioner insurance company commenced this proceeding to permanently stay the arbitration of the appellant’s claim on the ground that the appellant failed to report the accident to the police, a peace or judicial officer, or the Commissioner of Motor Vehicles within 24 hours of the accident or as soon as reasonably possible thereafter, as required by the supplementary uninsured/underinsured motorist endorsement of the subject policy.

Contrary to the appellant’s contention, the Supreme Court properly granted the petition and denied her motion, inter alia, for certain discovery. The petitioner established that neither the appellant nor the policyholder reported the alleged hit-and-run accident to the police, a peace or judicial officer, or to the Commissioner of Motor Vehicles within 24 hours of the accident or as soon as reasonably possible thereafter. Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted a permanent stay of arbitration *(see Matter of Eagle Ins. Co. v Brown,*309 AD2d 749, 750 [2003]; *Matter of State Farm Mut. Ins. Co. v Genao,*210 AD2d 340, 340-341 [1994]; *Matter of United States Fire Ins. Co. v Williams,*166 AD2d 538, 539 [1990]).

The appellant’s remaining contentions are either not properly before this Court or without merit. Rivera, J.E, Dillon, Angiolillo and Leventhal, JJ., concur.
# ORIGINAL

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA DA 23-0433 IN RE THE PARENTING OF; A.M.O., Minor Child. AVANLEE CHRISTINE OKRAGLY,

Petitioner and Appellee, and SEBASTIAN ALEXANDER KEITEL,

Respondent, and FREDERICK J. KEITEL, III,

Proposed Intervenor and Appellant. ORDER 

# FILED APR -2 2024 Bowen Greenwood Clerk of Supreme Court State of Montana

Before the Court are Appellee Avanlee Okragly's motions to strike the Appellant's Reply Briefand to Seal the Case Record in this matter. Appellant Frederick Keitel has not responded to the motions. In a January 4, 2024 Order, this Court granted Avanlee's motion to seal Appellant's opening briefand took under advisement her motion to strike the opening brief. Avanlee assertsthat Keitel has, despite the Court'sorder, submitted in his additional filings "myriad outrageous and disparaging allegations about members ofthis State's Bar Association and judiciary who are not parties to this cause of action
. . . with the sole intent to make this information public." Avanlee seeks additional relief to include restrictions on Keitel's ability tomake additional filingswithout involvement ofcounsel and attorney's feesincurred 04/02/2024

Case Number: DA 23-0433in conjunction with the motions.

Similarto the Opening Brief, the Court finds good cause to seal Keitel's reply brief. Asevidenced by thedecisionrenderedthisdate, however,theissueon appeal is resolved as a matter ofstatutory procedure. The Court has not found it necessary to consider Keitel's other arguments or included the disputed material in its Opinion. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the motion to seal Intervenor and Appellant's Reply Briefis GRANTED. The Clerk is directed to file the briefunder seal. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the motion to strike Intervenor and Appellant's opening and reply briefs and for other reliefis DENIED. The Clerk is directed to provide a copy ofthis Order to all counsel and parties of record. DATED this Z.

-

Uay ofApril, 2024. 

# (r(4--

ig

0 4
, ♦ 0
. ) C0 le 0
. . imi
. Justices

2
# Official Journal C 67A/22 F

| | ISSN 1977-091X |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 67A |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 6122 February 2018 |

ISSN 1977-091X

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 67A

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 6122 February 2018

---

| Notice No | Contents | page |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | V   Announcements |
| | ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES |
| | European Commission |
| 2018/C 67 A/01 | Reserve lists — Open competition EPSO/AD/331/16 — Information and Communication Technology (ICT) experts (AD 7) in the following fields: 1. Data Analysis and IT Service 2. Digital Workplace, Office Automation and Mobile Computing 3. Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) 4. ICT Security 5. IT Infrastructure 6. IT Portfolio/Programme Management and Enterprise Architecture | 1 |

Notice No

Contents

page

V   Announcements

ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES

European Commission

2018/C 67 A/01

Reserve lists — Open competition EPSO/AD/331/16 — Information and Communication Technology (ICT) experts (AD 7) in the following fields: 1. Data Analysis and IT Service 2. Digital Workplace, Office Automation and Mobile Computing 3. Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) 4. ICT Security 5. IT Infrastructure 6. IT Portfolio/Programme Management and Enterprise Architecture

1

---

| EN | |
| --- | --- |

EN
The following cases in which the Court of Appeals issued published opinions have been 

appealed to the Supreme Court: 

 

1. Major Lance Hillman 

 v. Commonwealth of Virginia 

 Record No. 0287-17-3 

 Opinion rendered by Judge Malveaux on 

 April 3, 2018 

2. Patrick Darnell Hill 

 v. Commonwealth of Virginia 

 Record No. 0482-17-1 

 Opinion rendered by Judge O’Brien on 

 April 24, 2018 

3. Leslie Itutu Camp 

 v. Commonwealth of Virginia 

 Record No. 0483-17-2 

 Opinion rendered by Judge Russell on 

 May 8, 2018 
 The following cases in which the Court of Appeals issued published opinions have been 

disposed of by the Supreme Court: 

1. Ashley Jennifer White 

 v. Commonwealth of Virginia 

 Record No. 1322-16-3 

 Opinion rendered by Judge Petty 

 on September 19, 2017 

Refused (171543) 

2. Aaron Markeith Gerald 

 v. Commonwealth of Virginia 

 Record No. 0731-16-1 

 Opinion rendered by Judge Humphreys 

 on October 17, 2017 

 Refused (171405) 

3. Angel Alexis Cartagena, a/k/a 

 Veguilla Angel Alexis Cartegena 

 v. Commonwealth of Virginia 

 Record No. 2002-16-1 

 Opinion rendered by Judge Russell 

 on November 28, 2017 

 Refused (171718)
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 quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Franklin Street
Properties Corp. (the "Company") for the period ended September 30, 2004 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), the undersigned, Barbara J. Fournier, Vice President, Chief Operating
Officer (equivalent of Chief Financial Officer), Treasurer and Secretary of the
Company, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:

            (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 results of
                  operation of the Company.


Date: November 8, 2004             /s/ Barbara J. Fournier
                                   ------------------------
                                   Barbara J. Fournier
                                   Vice President, Chief Operating Officer
                                   (equivalent of Chief Financial Officer),
                                   Treasurer and Secretary
# C_2010111EN.01S00301.xml

| 30.4.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 111/s3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.4.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 111/s3

---

NOTICE

On 30 April 2010, in Official Journal of the European Union C 111 A, the ‘Common catalogue of varieties of vegetable species — Third supplement to the 28th complete edition’ and the ‘Common catalogue of varieties of agricultural plant species — Fourth supplement to the 28th complete edition’ will be published.

Official Journal of the European Union

Subscribers to the Official Journal may obtain the same number of copies and language versions of this Official Journal as those to which they subscribe free of charge. They are requested to return the attached order form, duly completed and bearing their subscription registration number (code appearing on the left of each label and beginning with: O/...). This Official Journal will remain available free of charge for one year from the date of its publication.

Non-subscribers can order this Official Journal against payment from one of our sales offices (see http://publications.europa.eu/others/agents/index_en.htm).

This Official Journal — like all Official Journals (L, C, CA, CE) — can be consulted free of charge online at http://eur-lex.europa.eu

Image

---
<PAGE>



                                                                    Exhibit 32.2




                                  CERTIFICATION
                                     OF THE
                             CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
                         PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE
                           SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


     In connection with the Quarterly Report of Valley National Gases
Incorporated (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2005 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), I, James P. Hart, Chief Financial 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
         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.


                                                /s/ James P. Hart
                                                -------------------------------
                                                James P. Hart
                                                Chief Financial Officer
                                                May 12, 2005
(15 Misc. Rep. 36.)

#### ROUGE v. ROUGE.

(Superior Court of New York City,

General Term.

December 18, 1895.)

Retboactive Statute—Extending Remedy by Attachment.

Laws 1895, c. 578, § 1 (amending Code Civ. Proe. § 635, by extending" the right of attachment to actions for personal injuries), relates solely to-the remedy, and therefore applies to actions for injuries occurring before-it took effect.

Appeal from special term.

Action by Margaret Elizabeth Rouge against Gabriel Mark Rouge-for personal injuries. From an order denying a motion to vacate-an attachment by reducing the amount of the attachment (35 N. Y. Supp. 836), defendant appeals.

Affirmed.

Argued before FREEDMAN and GILDERSLEEVE, JJ.

David Murray, for appellant.

Edward Gebhard, for respondent.

GILDERSLEEVE, J.

This action is for a personal injury.. The plaintiff procured an attachment to be issued for the amount demanded in the complaint. The defendant appeared specially,. *437for the purpose of moving to set aside the attachment, on the ground that the papers upon which it was granted were insufficient. The motion was decided adversely to defendant, and an order was entered sustaining the attachment, but reducing the amount for which defendant’s property was seized or impleaded to the sum of $2,500. The appeal before us is from this order.

It is first urged by the appellant that the superior court of the city of New York has no jurisdiction in the case, for the reason that it does not appear that plaintiff is a resident of the city of New York. This ground is obviously untenable, inasmuch as in the plaintiff’s uncontradicted affidavit, upon which the attachment was granted, she swears that she is “now residing in the city of New York.”

The claim of the defendant that the granting of the attachment, under the facts as they appear, give a retroactive effect to the provisions of section 635 of the' Code of Civil Procedure, which went into operation September 1, 1895, cannot be maintained. The action was not commenced until after September 1, 1895. The statute in question did not create the cause of action, but is only remedial.

The plaintiff seems to have .met all the requirements of section 635 of the Code. For these reasons, and the reasons stated in the opinion of the learned special term judge, the order appealed from should be affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 96-6476
JAMES JOSEPH OWENS, Petitioner - Appellant, versus ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF MARYLAND; RICHARD KASTENDIECK, Assistant Attorney General for the State of Maryland, Respondents - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. J. Frederick Motz, Chief District Judge. (CA-95-3566-JFM) Submitted: September 24, 1996 Decided: October 30, 1996 Before NIEMEYER and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. James Joseph Owens, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).* Because Appellant's 1968 state sentence has expired, he is not in custody for purposes of the federal habeas statutes. See Maleng v. Cook , 490 U.S. 488, 492 (1989). 2 PER CURIAM: Appellant seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on his petition filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (1994), amended by Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104-132, 110 Stat. 1214. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of probable cause to appeal; to the extent that a certificate of appealability is required, we deny such a certificate. We dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. Owens v. Attorney Gen. of Maryland , No. CA-95- 3566-JFM (D. Md. Mar. 6, 1996). * We deny the motion for oral argument and dispense with 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
Exhibit
4.1


 


[FACE
OF CERTIFICATE]


	 	 	 	 	 
	NUMBER
    	 	 	 	SHARES
	 	 	QNERGY
    INC.	 	ISIN:
    
	 	 	 	 	 
	COMMON
    STOCK 	 	 	 	SEE
    REVERSE FOR CERTAIN
	 	 	 	 	DEFINITIONS


 


INCORPORATED
UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE


 


THIS
IS TO CERTIFY that is the owner of


 


FULLY
AND NON-ASSESSABLE SHARES OF COMMON STOCK, $0.0001 PAR VALUE PER SHARE, OF


 


QNERGY
INC.


 


transferable
on the books of the Corporation by the holder hereof in person or by duly authorized attorney upon the surrender of this Certificate
properly endorsed. This Certificate is not valid until countersigned and registered by the Transfer Agent and Registrar.


 


WITNESS
the facsimile signatures of the Corporation’s duly authorized officers.


 


Dated:


	 	 	 
	 	 	 
	[SIGNATURE]

    CHIEF
    FINANCIAL OFFICER
	 	[SIGNATURE]|

    CHIEF
    EXECUTIVE OFFICER



 


COUNTERSIGNED
AND REGISTERED: [  ] TRANSFER AGENT AND REGISTRAR


 


BY


 


AUTHORIZED
SIGNATURE


 




    	 



     


    

 





[REVERSE
OF CERTIFICATE]


 


The
following abbreviations, when used in the inscription on the face of this certificate, shall be construed as though they were written
out in full according to applicable laws or regulations:


	 	 	 
	TEN
    COM — as tenants in common 	 	UNIF
    GIFT MIN ACT -______ Custodian______
	 	 	(Cust)            (Minor)
	TEN
    ENT — as tenants by the entireties 	 	 
	 	 	under
    Uniform Gifts to Minors Act____________
	JT
    TEN — as joint tenants with right of survivorship and not as tenants in common 	 	(State)            
    


 


Additional
abbreviations may also be used though not in the above list.


 


For
Value Received, _________________________ hereby sell, assign and transfer unto


 


PLEASE
INSERT SOCIAL SECURITY OR OTHER

IDENTIFYING NUMBER OF ASSIGNEE


 


____________________________________________


 


_______________________________________________________________________________________________


 


(PLEASE
PRINT OR TYPEWRITE NAME AND ADDRESS, INCLUDING ZIP CODE, OF ASSIGNEE)


 


___________________________Shares
of the Common Stock represented by the within Certificate, and do hereby irrevocably constitute and appoint ________________________
Attorney to transfer the said stock on the books of the within named Company with full power of substitution in the premises.


 


Dated


 


NOTICE:
THE SIGNATURE TO THIS ASSIGNMENT MUST CORRESPOND WITH THE NAME AS WRITTEN UPON THE FACE OF THE CERTIFICATE IN EVERY PARTICULAR, WITHOUT
ALTERATION OR ENLARGEMENT OR ANY CHANGE WHATEVER.


 


Signature(s)
Guaranteed:____________________________________________


 


THE
SIGNATURE(S) MUST BE GUARANTEED BY AN ELIGIBLE GUARANTOR INSTITUTION (BANKS, STOCKBROKERS, SAVINGS AND LOAN ASSOCIATIONS AND CREDIT UNIONS
WITH MEMBERSHIP IN AN APPROVED SIGNATURE GUARANTEE MEDALLION PROGRAM), PURSUANT TO S.E.C. RULE 17Ad-15.