alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
CERTIFICATION
                     PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                  AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE
                           SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


      The undersigned hereby 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
undersigned's best knowledge and belief, the Annual Report on Form 10-K for the
Geodyne Energy Income Limited Partnership II-A ("Issuer") for the period ending
December 31, 2002 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the
date hereof (the "Report"):

      (a)   fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of
            the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

      (b)   the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
            material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
            of the Issuer.

      Dated this 25th  day of March, 2003.

                                   GEODYNE ENERGY INCOME LIMITED
                                   PARTNERSHIP II-A
                                   ("Issuer")

                                    //s// Dennis R. Neill
                                    -----------------------------------
                                    Dennis R. Neill
                                    President (Chief Executive Officer)

                                    //s// Craig D. Loseke
                                    -----------------------------------
                                    Craig D. Loseke
                                    Chief Accounting Officer
                                    (Chief Financial Officer)
EXHIBIT 32.1
 
 STATEMENT OF
 PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER
 PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
 
 
 I, Kanwar J. S. Chadha, certify that pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002:
 
 The Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended July 31, 2004 of Entrada Networks, Inc. fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and the information contained in the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended July 31, 2004 of Entrada Networks, Inc. fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Entrada Networks, Inc.
 
 
 _/s/ Kanwar J. S. Chadha ___
 Name: Kanwar J. S. Chadha, Ph.D.
 President and Chief Executive Officer
 Date: September 14, 2004
# L_2011041DE.01001001.xml

| 15.2.2011 | DE | Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union | L 41/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.2.2011

DE

Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union

L 41/10

---

Berichtigung der Verordnung (EG) Nr. 272/2009 der Kommission vom 2. April 2009 zur Ergänzung der im Anhang der Verordnung (EG) Nr. 300/2008 des Europäischen Parlaments und des Rates festgelegten gemeinsamen Grundstandards für die Sicherheit der Zivilluftfahrt

(
  Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union L 91 vom 3. April 2009
  )

Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union L 91 vom 3. April 2009

Seite 12, Anhang Teil H Nummer 2 Punkt 2:

anstatt:

„Bekannte Lieferanten von Bordvorräten sind von dem Unternehmen oder der Stelle zu benennen, von denen sie beauftragt sind.

Vor der Benennung als bekannter Lieferant von Bordvorräten stellt das ihn beauftragende Unternehmen oder die ihn beauftragende Stelle sicher, dass der zu benennende bekannte Lieferant Informationen über Luftsicherheitsstandards vorlegt, und unterzieht diese einer Validierung.“

muss es heißen:

„Bekannte Lieferanten von Bordvorräten sind von dem Betreiber oder der Stelle zu benennen, die sie beliefern.

Vor der Benennung als bekannter Lieferant von Bordvorräten stellt der zu beliefernde Betreiber oder die zu beliefernde Stelle sicher, dass der zu benennende bekannte Lieferant Informationen über Luftsicherheitsstandards vorlegt, und unterzieht diese einer Validierung.“

---
#### Abraham E. Jacobs et al., Appellants, v Allison Schleicher, III, Respondent.

The complaint alleges that on or about June 20, 1983 the plaintiff Abraham E. Jacobs (hereinafter Jacobs) was injured while crossing a street when he was struck by a vehicle which was being driven by the defendant in a negligent manner. In his answer, the defendant did not deny the allegation that his vehicle had struck Jacobs. Following joinder of issue, the plaintiffs moved for summary judgment. In support of their application, the plaintiffs offered an affidavit of Jacobs in which he asserted that he had been crossing the street with the traffic light in his favor, and that as he passed in front of the defendant’s car, which had been stopped for the red light, the car moved forward and struck him in the leg.

In both his MV104 statement and during his deposition testimony, the defendant had unequivocally stated that he had struck the injured plaintiff after stopping to make a right-hand turn at a red light, and that he did not see him step in front of the car as he proceeded to make the turn. In opposing the motion for summary judgment, however, the defendant submitted an unsworn statement of an alleged eyewitness to the accident who claimed, in essence, that the vehicle never struck the plaintiff but rather that he fell down in front of the vehicle and then maneuvered himself underneath its front end. The defendant also submitted his own affidavit, in which, based upon this witness’ statement, he recanted his earlier admissions, claiming that he had previously merely presumed that his vehicle had struck the plaintiff.

Although generally the question of whether a defendant’s conduct constitutes negligence is one for the trier of the facts, in a rare case, such as in the case at bar, where the defendant’s own deposition inculpates him, summary judgment may be an appropriate remedy *(see, Andre v Pomeroy,*35 NY2d 361). Here the defendant unequivocally admitted in both his *786MV104 and in his deposition that he had struck the injured plaintiff as he, the defendant, was making a right-hand turn at a red light and that he had not seen Jacobs until he stepped in front of his car. The unsworn statement of the alleged eyewitness obtained nearly two years after the accident does not constitute evidentiary proof in admissible form sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact and overcome a motion for summary judgment (CPLR 3212 [b]; *Zuckerman v City of New York,*49 NY2d 557). Nor has the defendant proffered any acceptable excuse for his failure to meet the requirement that he tender proof in admissible form to raise such issue *(see, Zuckerman v City of New York, supra,*at p 562; *Alvord & Swift v Muller Constr. Co.,*46 NY2d 276, 281-282). Nor do we find that, after having unequivocally admitted in his answer, in his MV104 and during his deposition that his vehicle had struck Jacobs, the defendant’s sudden, equivocal recantation of those admissions, is sufficient to raise a triable material issue of fact. Mollen, P. J., Brown, Weinstein and Rubin, JJ., concur.
#### NYCTL 1998-2 Trust et al., Respondents, v Zoila Lucinda Avila, Appellant, et al., Defendants. RSL Holdings, LLC, Nonparty Respondent.

Submitted February 5, 2007;

decided April 3, 2007

Motion for leave to appeal dismissed upon the ground that the order sought to be appealed from does not finally determine the action within the meaning of the Constitution.
<PAGE>   1
                                                                  Exhibit 10.30

February 27, 2001



            Re: Employment Arrangement with Digital Lightwave, Inc.
                --------------------------------------------------

Dear _____________:

         As a condition to the grant of options authorized by the Company's
compensation committee in February 2001 (the "February 2001 Options"), you have
agreed to waive and hereby do waive and confirm your waiver of any purported
right of or claim with respect to, acceleration of vesting of the February 2001
Options (or any other future options to be granted to you pursuant to the terms
of the Company's 2001 Stock Option Plan) based upon and resulting solely from:
any reduction or other change in the number of shares of the Company's common
stock, owned, beneficially, in trust or otherwise, or of record, or subject to
the voting control of Dr. Bryan J. Zwan, members of his family, or their 50% or
greater controlled affiliates, trustees for beneficial interests held by Dr.
Bryan J. Zwan, or members of his family, or their 50% or greater controlled
affiliates, including without limitation ZG Nevada Limited Partnership.

         You hereby acknowledge that the Company has relied in part on your
waiver herein in determining to submit the Company's 2001 Stock Option Plan to
the Company's stockholders. The Company hereby acknowledges that this letter
agreement shall not in any way affect any options previously granted to you
under the Company's 1996 Stock Option Plan.

         This letter agreement replaces in its entirety, the letter agreement
between you and the Company dated February 26, 2001.

         This letter agreement may be executed in one or more counterparts.

                                          DIGITAL LIGHTWAVE, INC.

                                          By:
                                             ----------------------------------
                                          Name:
                                               --------------------------------
                                          Title:
                                                -------------------------------


-------------------------------
AGREES TO AND ACKNOWLEDGES THE
AFOREMENTIONED LETTER AGREEMENT

By:
    --------------------------------
Name:
     -------------------------------
Title:
      ------------------------------
# L_2010026EN.01003601.xml

| 30.1.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 26/36 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.1.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 26/36

---

Corrigendum to Commission Decision 2009/867/EC of 30 November 2009 granting certain parties an exemption from the extension to certain bicycle parts of the anti-dumping duty on bicycles originating in the People’s Republic of China imposed by Council Regulation (EEC) No 2474/93, last maintained and amended by Regulation (EC) No 1095/2005, and lifting the suspension of the payment of the anti-dumping duty extended to certain bicycle parts originating in the People’s Republic of China granted to certain parties pursuant to Commission Regulation (EC) No 88/97

(
  Official Journal of the European Union L 314 of 1 December 2009
  )

On page 107, in table 1, second line, second column, on page 108, in table 1, second line, second column:

for:

‘
  Bucuresti, Sector 6, Splaiul Independentei no. 319, OB. 152
  ’,

read:

‘
  Hipermagazin Decathlon, corp 2, bd. Iuliu Maniu nr. 546-560, sector 6, 061129 București
  ’.

---
NO. 12-13-00296-CV

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

TYLER, TEXAS

IN RE: §

ELIZABETH THURMAN, § ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

RELATOR §

MEMORANDUM OPINION

PER CURIAM

On September 25, 2013, Relator, Elizabeth Thurman, filed a petition for writ of habeas 

corpus in which she alleges that she is being unlawfully confined in the Cherokee County Jail 

pursuant to a void contempt order. Based upon the grounds stated in her petition, she seeks to be

released from custody.

In an original habeas proceeding, the relator has the burden to provide this court with a 

record sufficient to establish her right to habeas corpus relief. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.3(k)(1), 

52.7(a); Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 837 (Tex. 1992) (orig. proceeding). Here, however, 

Thurman has failed to provide us with a record that is sufficient to support her claims.1

Accordingly, we deny the petition for writ of habeas corpus.

Opinion delivered October 31, 2013.

Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Griffith, J., and Hoyle, J.

(PUBLISH)

 

1

 On the date the petition was filed, the court sent Thurman a letter notifying her of the deficiencies.
COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT OF TEXAS

JUDGMENT

OCTOBER 31, 2013

NO. 12-13-00296-CV

IN RE: ELIZABETH THURMAN, RELATOR

 

 

 ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

ON THIS DAY came to be heard the petition for writ of habeas corpus filed 

by Relator, ELIZABETH THURMAN, who is the Respondent in Cause No. 2012-01-0001, 

styled “In the Interest of Hannah Dianne Thurman, Allissa Mae Thurman, and Kyle Wain 

Thurman, Children,” pending on the docket of the County Court at Law of Cherokee County, 

Texas. Said petition for writ of habeas corpus having been filed herein on September 25, 2013, 

and the same having been duly considered, because it is the opinion of this court that a writ of 

habeas corpus should not issue, it is therefore CONSIDERED, ADJUDGED and ORDERED that 

the said petition for writ of habeas corpus be, and the same is here by denied. 

By per curiam opinion.

Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Griffith, J., and Hoyle, J.
EX-10.12






 Exhibit 10.12 

[*] Certain information in this document has been omitted from this exhibit because it is both (i) not material and (ii) would be competitively
harmful if publicly disclosed. 
 Amendment to License Agreement between CGA 369 Intellectual Holdings, Inc and Kiromic, Inc 

Date: October 16, 2019 
 “Improvements” shall
mean any patent application that are developed by an inventor which if practiced would infringe or be necessary or useful in the practice of any of the Licensed Patents. For clarity, Improvements are included as a Licensed Patents, if any new IP or know-how is either developed, discovered, or applied as a result of utilizing, implementing, or incorporating the licensed technology of which the new IP will be the sole property of the Licensee. 

3.1. License Fee. 
 Conditioned upon the result of a
sublicense with a third-party entity an upfront fee of no less than *. COMPANY shall pay LICENSOR a one-time payment of no less than * (collectively “Conditions for License
Fee”). 
  

			
	CGA 369 INTELLECTUAL HOLDINGS INC
		
	By: 	 	/s/ David Aguilar
		
	Name: 	 	David Aguilar
		
	Title: 	 	President/CEO
	
	Kiromic
		
	By: 	 	/s/ Maurizio Chiriva-Internati
		
	Name: 	 	Maurizio Chiriva-Internati
		
	Title: 	 	CEO
734 A.2d 1284

#### COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania, Appellant, v. Carl S. DAVIS, III, Appellee.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

Submitted Aug. 3, 1999.

Decided Sept. 9, 1999.

Joseph C. Madenspacher, District Attorney, Susan E. Moyer, Asst. District Attorney, District Attorney’s Office, for Com.

J. Richard Gray, Lancaster, for Carl S. Davis, III.

Before FLAHERTY, C.J., and ZAPPALA, CAPPY, CASTILLE, NIGRO, NEWMAN and SAYLOR, JJ.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

Based upon our disposition in *Commonwealth v. Williams,*557 Pa. 285, 733 A.2d 593 (1999), we affirm the Order of the Lancaster County Court of Common Pleas dated January 28, 1999. Furthermore, we remand the matter to the common pleas court for disposition of any remaining issues.

Jurisdiction is relinquished.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                           5,089
<SECURITIES>                                     1,897
<RECEIVABLES>                                    1,046
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  53,273
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            80
<OTHER-SE>                                       8,163
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    53,273
<SALES>                                            936
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 4,046
<CGS>                                              775
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    3,927
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    120
<INCOME-TAX>                                        48
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                 72
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                        72
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .01
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Martin L. McCutcheon, Respondent.

— Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Suffolk County (Ingraham, J.), rendered November 12, 1982, convicting him of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, following a hearing, of that branch of the defendant’s omnibus motion which was to suppress evidence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

That branch of the defendant’s omnibus motion which was to suppress a gun allegedly found on his person by the police was properly denied. The actions of the police were at all times reasonably related in scope and intensity to the information available to them as their encounter with the defendant unfolded *(see, People v De Bour,*40 NY2d 210; *People v Finlayson,*76 AD2d 670, *lv denied*51 NY2d 1011, *cert denied*450 US 931). Although an anonymous tip of a "man with gun” does not, without more, rise to the level of reasonable suspicion so as to justify the stop and frisk of a suspect *(People v Benjamin,*51 NY2d 267, 270; *People v Milton,*115 AD2d 666, 667), the informant in this case presented himself in person to *604the police and told them that two men were walking nearby and that one of them, whom he described, possessed a gun. Moreover, as the two men came into the officers’ view, the informant specifically pointed out and identified the defendant as the person whom he claimed was carrying a gun. Thus, although the informant left the scene before the police could ascertain his identity or the basis of his tip, there was no reasonable possibility that the defendant was not the person to whom the informant had referred *(see, People v Milton, supra,*at p 667), and the information imparted by the informant prior to his departure provided justification for the police to stop the defendant for the purpose of further inquiry *(see, People v Middleton,*119 AD2d 593, 595). Thereafter, when a police officer stopped the defendant to make such inquiry, the defendant held his left arm out to keep the officer at a distance, and he thrust his right hand into his coat pocket and turned that side of his body away from the officer so as to conceal it. Under these circumstances, the officer had a reasonable suspicion that the defendant was armed, thereby justifying the protective pat-down search which revealed the presence of the gun *(see, People v Alexander,*120 AD2d 537; *People v Middleton, supra,*at p 595). Mangano, J. P., Bracken, Niehoff and Spatt, JJ., concur.
U.S. flagAn official website of the United States government
                    Here's how you know **Official websites use .gov**
                            
                            A **.gov** website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.
 **Secure .gov websites use HTTPS**
                            
                            A **lock** (                            
                              A locked padlock                                                      
                            
                            ) or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.


Menu Agricultural Research Service
						
                    U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
 Cropping Systems Research Laboratory: Lubbock, TX
 close



    Research

                    Research Projects
                                    Publications
                                    Collaborations
                                    News
                                    Software
                People

                    Staff Listing
                                    CareersSearch small
                    Search
            
            ARS Home
                                About ARS
                                Contact Us






2020 Field Dayheadline bar 2020 CSRL Virtual Field Day!


Return to top


Connect with ARS Sign up


ARS Home
                            USDA.gov
                            Plain Writing
                            Policies & Links
                            Civil Rights Statements
                            FOIA
                            Accessibility Statement
                            Privacy Policy
                            Non-Discrimination Statement
                            Quality of Information
                            USA.gov
                            WhiteHouse.gov