alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 173 (Friday, September 10, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 50751-50752]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-19546]


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

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

[Public Notice 11523]


Notice of Determinations; Culturally Significant Objects Being 
Imported for Exhibition--Determinations: ``Jasper Johns: Mind/Mirror'' 
Exhibition

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given of the following determinations: I 
hereby determine that certain objects being imported from abroad 
pursuant to agreements with their foreign owners or

[[Page 50752]]

custodians for temporary display in the exhibition ``Jasper Johns: 
Mind/Mirror'' at the Philadelphia Art Museum, Philadelphia, 
Pennsylvania, and at possible additional exhibitions or venues yet to 
be determined, are of cultural significance, and, further, that their 
temporary exhibition or display within the United States as 
aforementioned is in the national interest. I have ordered that Public 
Notice of these determinations be published in the Federal Register.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Chi D. Tran, Program Administrator, 
Office of the Legal Adviser, U.S. Department of State (telephone: 202-
632-6471; email: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#e2918781968b8d8cd0d6d7dba29196839687cc858d94"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="9ae9fff9eef3f5f4a8aeafa3dae9eefbeeffb4fdf5ec">[email protected]</span></a>). The mailing address is U.S. 
Department of State, L/PD, 2200 C Street NW (SA-5), Suite 5H03, 
Washington, DC 20522-0505.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The foregoing determinations were made 
pursuant to the authority vested in me by the Act of October 19, 1965 
(79 Stat. 985; 22 U.S.C. 2459), Executive Order 12047 of March 27, 
1978, the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998 (112 
Stat. 2681, et seq.; 22 U.S.C. 6501 note, et seq.), Delegation of 
Authority No. 234 of October 1, 1999, and Delegation of Authority No. 
236-3 of August 28, 2000.

Matthew R. Lussenhop,
Acting Assistant Secretary, Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs, 
Department of State.
[FR Doc. 2021-19546 Filed 9-9-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4710-05-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
EX-10.25





 Exhibit 10.25 

Certain identified information marked with [***] has been excluded from the exhibit because it is both not material and is the type that the registrant
treats as private or confidential. 
 AMENDMENT # 3 TO EXCLUSIVE LICENSE AGREEMENT 

BETWEEN IONQ, INC. DUKE UNIVERSITY AND UNIVERSITIY OF MARYLAND 

This Amendment #3 to the Exclusive License Agreement entered into by and between Duke University, a nonprofit educational and research
institution organized under the laws of North Carolina (“DUKE”) and IonQ, Inc. (“Licensee”) is effective as of the date of last signature below. 

Background: UMD and Licensee executed an Exclusive License Agreement dated effective July 19, 2016 and amended September 22, 2017 and
October 4, 2018 (collectively “Exclusive License Agreement”). In connection with the Exclusive License Agreement, DUKE and Licensee executed an Exclusive Option Agreement, effective July 15, 2016, which was amended on
December 17, 2020 (“Option Agreement”). Under the terms and conditions of the Option Agreement, DUKE granted Licensee, and Licensee accepted, an exclusive option during the Option Period (as defined in the Option
Agreement) to obtain a worldwide exclusive license, with the right to sublicense, under the Exclusive License Agreement to DUKE’s rights in Option IP (the “Option”). DUKE has disclosed certain Option IP to Licensee and Licensee elects
to exercise its Option to license such Option IP by executing this Amendment #3 to the Exclusive License Agreement. To that end, DUKE and Licensee hereby agree that the Exclusive License Agreement is amended as follows: 

1. The definition of Licensed Inventions in Section 1.09 is modified to add at the end of the definition: “and [***] and the related detailed
descriptions.” 
 2. Appendix A to the Exclusive License Agreement shall be replaced with the attached Appendix A. 

3. All other terms and conditions of the Exclusive License Agreement shall apply to the Option Intellectual Property (as that term is defined in the Option
Agreement) optioned by Licensee pursuant to the Option Agreement and identified in this Amendment as if such intellectual property had been included in the scope of the Exclusive License Agreement as of its Effective Date 

4. Except for the amendments set forth herein, all other terms and conditions of the Exclusive License Agreement remain in full force and effect. 

 

			
	ACCEPTED AND AGREED TO	  	
		
	DUKE UNIVERSITY	  	IONQ, INC.
		
	BY /s/ Robin L.
Rasor                                    	  	BY /s/ Francisco
Castro                                    
	NAME: Robin L. Rasor, MS	  	NAME: Francisco Castro, Ph.D.
	Title: Executive Director	  	Title: Chief IP Counsel
	Office of Licensing &Ventures	  	
		
	DATE: April 27, 2021	  	DATE: April 27, 2021













 APPENDIX A – Duke Patents and IP 

[***]
CURRANT CREEK RESERVOIRLatitude: 40.338Longitude: -111.058Elevation: 7696

CURRANT CREEK RESERVOIR

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Wolf Creek Peak Site Page...



Wolf Creek Peak

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Currant Creek Site Page...



Currant Creek

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Daniels-Strawberry Site Page...



Daniels-Strawberry
*

After examining the briefs and the record, we have concluded that oral argument is

unnecessary.  Thus the appeal is submitted on the briefs and the record.  See FED. R. APP. P.

34(a)(2)(C).

United States Court of Appeals

For the Seventh Circuit

Chicago, Illinois 60604

Submitted February 9, 2011*

Decided February 9, 2011

Before

FRANK H. EASTERBROOK, Chief Judge

MICHAEL S. KANNE, Circuit Judge

ANN CLAIRE WILLIAMS, Circuit Judge

No. 10‐2580

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff‐Appellee,

v.

JERMAINE JONES,

Defendant‐Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District

Court for the Northern District of Illinois,

Eastern Division.

No. 09 CR 565‐2

Elaine E. Bucklo,

Judge.

O R D E R

Jermaine Jones and his wife stole more than 2,100 Social Security numbers from her

workplace and used this information to obtain loans over the Internet.  Jones pleaded guilty

to wire fraud, see 18 U.S.C. § 1343, and was sentenced to a below‐guidelines term of

58 months’ imprisonment.  In calculating Jones’s imprisonment range, the district court

followed our decision in United States v. Demaree, 459 F.3d 791 (7th Cir. 2006), and used the

guidelines manual in effect on the date of sentencing.  If the court had used the guidelines

NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION

To be cited only in accordance with

Fed. R. App. P. 32.1
No. 10‐2580 Page 2

manual in effect when Jones committed his crime, however, Jones’s offense level would

have been lower—and thus too his imprisonment range.

On appeal Jones asks us to overrule Demaree, which held not only that the district

court must use the guidelines manual in effect on the date of sentencing but also that the Ex

Post Facto Clause poses no obstacle.  This is not the first time we have been invited to

abandon Demaree, but we have yet to be offered a compelling reason.  See, e.g., United States

v. Favara, 615 F.3d 824, 829 (7th Cir. 2010), petition for cert. filed sub nom. Custable v. United

States, 79 U.S.L.W. 3310 (U.S. Nov. 9, 2010) (No. 10‐631); United States v. Nurek, 578 F.3d 618,

625‐26 (7th Cir. 2009), cert. denied, 130 S. Ct. 2093 (2010); United States v. Patterson, 576 F.3d

431, 444 (7th Cir. 2009), cert. denied, 130 S. Ct. 1284 (2010).  In fact Jones does not even offer a

new argument.  He acknowledges, though, that he does not anticipate our upsetting

precedent but simply wishes to preserve the issue for presentation to the Supreme Court.

AFFIRMED.
---

---

Exhibit 1.4

# AMENDMENT TO THE
COMPANYS ARTICLES OF ASSOCIATION

# Adopted February 2,
2006

The
existing subsections (a) through (g) of Section 23.5 of the Articles of Association are
hereby replaced in their entirety with the following new subsections (a) through (e):

| | (a) | approve any material transaction involving Blue Square group which
requires the                     Blue Square group to invest in equity a sum exceeding 20
Million US Dollars;
| | ---- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

| | (b) | approve
the entering into new fields of business by the Blue Square Group;
| | --- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------

| | (c) | approve
transactions between Blue Square group and Interested Parties;
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------

| | (d) | approve
amendments to the Articles of Association of the Company;
| | --- | -----------------------------------------------------------------

| | (e) | approve
a merger between the Company and Blue Square Investments &                    Properties
LTD (BSIP); or an acquisition offer regarding BSIP shares
                    held by the public; or reorganizational structural changes of the
Company or                     BSIP.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



---

---
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 on Form 10-K of Capital Title Group, Inc., (the Company) for the year ended December 31, 2004, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the undersigned, Mark C. Walker, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that;



| | (3) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
| | --- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | (4) | the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of the operations of the Company.
| | --- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|    |  |                        
|--- |  | -----------------------
|By: |  | /s/ Mark C. Walker     
|    |  | Mark C. Walker         
|    |  | Chief Financial Officer
|    |  | March 11, 2005
#### Green *et al.,*Respondents, v. Weston *et al.,*Appellants.

*(Supreme Court, General Term, Third Department.*

May 26, 1890.)

Appeal from special term, Fulton county.

Action by James W. Green and George R. Hannon against Abijah Weston and Charles Weston.

Argued before Learned, P. J., and Landon and Mayham, JJ.

*jElias Boot,*for appellants. *William Green,*for respondents.

Learned, P. J.

Appeal from an order denying motion to change place of trial for convenience of witnesses from Fulton county to Niagara county. Action to recover $105.60 damages for defect in lath sold by defendants to plaintiffs’ assignors. Order affirmed, with $10 costs. All concur.
EXHIBIT 13.1




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 on Form 20-F of RADCOM Ltd. (the "Company") for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, David Ripstein, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby 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), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; 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/ David RipsteinDavid RipsteinChief Executive Officer(Principal Executive Officer)
#### In the Matter of the Claim of Kim M. Cagle, as Voluntary Administrator of the Estate of John R. Cagle, Deceased, Appellant, v Judge Motor Corporation et al., Respondents. Workers’ Compensation Board, Respondent.

Submitted February 5, 2007;

decided March 22, 2007

Motion for reargument of motion for leave to appeal denied *[see*7 NY3d 922].
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF FIRST INDUSTRIAL SECURITIES, L.P. FOR THE SIX MONTHS
ENDED JUNE 30, 1997 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                           1,758
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      512
<ALLOWANCES>                                      (50)
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 2,220
<PP&E>                                          76,585
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (4,518)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  76,124
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                              999
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                      74,570
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    76,124
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 5,556
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  (1,733)
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 (890)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  2,933
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              2,933
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     2,933
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
**THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS**

**Post Office Box 12248**

**Austin, Texas 78711**

**(512) 463-1312**

November 19, 2004

Mr. Robert F. Scheihing

Adami Goldman & Shuffield, Inc.

9311 San Pedro, Suite 900

San Antonio, TX 78216

Mr. Christopher W. Martin

Martin Disiere Jefferson & Wisdom, L.L.P.

808 Travis, Suite 1800

Houston, TX 77002-2781

Mr. Robert L. Templeton

Templeton Smithee Hayes Heinrich & Russell, LLP

320 South Polk, Suite 1000-L.B.5

Amarillo, TX 79101

Mr. Levon G. Hovnatanian

Martin Disiere Jefferson & Wisdom, L.L.P.

808 Travis, Suite 1800

Houston, TX 77002

RE:Case Number:  03-0662

Court of Appeals Number:  07-01-00396-CV

Trial Court Number:  86,842-E

Style:REPUBLIC UNDERWRITERS INSURANCE COMPANY

v.

MEX-TEX, INC.

Dear Counsel:

Today the Supreme Court of Texas delivered the enclosed opinions and judgment in the above-referenced cause.  (Justice Medina not sitting)

Encl.

Sincerely,

Andrew Weber, Clerk

by Nancy J. Vega, Chief Deputy Clerk

**Case No. 03-0662Page 2**
#### Richard J. Ham et al., Respondents, v City of Syracuse et al., Appellants.

Submitted April 2, 2007;

decided May 8, 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.
#### All data considered provisional and subject to revision.

      Pool Elevation                    
csv

      Storage                    
csv

      Total Release                    
csv

      Release Volume                    
csv

      Area                    
csv

      Inflow Volume                    
csv

      Bypass Release Volume                    
csv

      Delta Storage                    
csv

#### All data considered provisional and subject to revision.

      Pool Elevation                    
json

      Storage                    
json

      Total Release                    
json

      Release Volume                    
json

      Area                    
json

      Inflow Volume                    
json

      Bypass Release Volume                    
json

      Delta Storage                    
json
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-664

In Re: BERNARD LAMBRIGHT,

Petitioner.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.

Submitted: September 25, 1997 Decided: October 20, 1997

Before LUTTIG, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Bernard Lambright, Petitioner Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Bernard Lambright filed a petition for a writ of mandamus asking this court to compel the dismissal of an indictment in a state

court action. Federal courts have no general power to compel action

by state courts. See Davis v. Lansing, 851 F.2d 72, 74 (2d. Cir.

1988); Gurley v. Superior Court of Mecklenburg County, 411 F.2d

586, 587 (4th Cir. 1969). Accordingly, although we grant the motion

for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, we deny the petition for a

writ of mandamus. We 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.

PETITION DENIED
```

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 172 Engrossed in House (EH)]

114th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 172

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
  To designate the United States courthouse located at 501 East Court 
 Street in Jackson, Mississippi, as the ``R. Jess Brown United States 
                             Courthouse''.

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

SECTION 1. DESIGNATION.

    The United States courthouse located at 501 East Court Street in 
Jackson, Mississippi, shall be known and designated as the ``R. Jess 
Brown United States Courthouse''.

SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

    Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, paper, or other 
record of the United States to the United States courthouse referred to 
in section 1 shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``R. Jess Brown 
United States Courthouse''.

            Passed the House of Representatives April 28, 2015.

            Attest:

                                                                 Clerk.
114th CONGRESS

  1st Session

                               H. R. 172

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

  To designate the United States courthouse located at 501 East Court 
 Street in Jackson, Mississippi, as the ``R. Jess Brown United States 
                             Courthouse''.
```
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v.
GUADALUPE BELTRAN

- ARAIZA ,

Defendant

- Appellant. No. 18

- 50429
D.C. No. 3:18

- cr - 03160

- LAB

- 1

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California Larry A. Burns , District Judge, Presiding Submitted January 8, 2020 * *
Before: CALLAHAN, NGUYEN, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges. Guadalupe Beltran

- Araiza appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 48

- month sentence imposed following his guilty

- plea conviction for attempted reentry of a removed alien, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1 291, and we affirm

.

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 

# FILED

JAN 14 2020
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS2 18

- 50429

Beltran

- Araiza argues that his sentence is substantively unreasonable in light of his familial obligations , his employment history , the allegedly non

- violent nature of his criminal history , and his expectation that he would receive a mo re
substantial fast

- track departure

. The district court did not abuse its discretion. See
Gall v. United States , 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). The sentence is substantively reasonable in light of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors and the totality of the circumstances, including Beltran

- Araiza’s significant criminal and immigration history and his failure to be deterred by prior sentences for illegal reentry

. See
United States v. Rosales

- Gonzales , 801 F.3d 1177, 118 4 (9th Cir. 2015)

. Moreover , Beltran

- Araiza has not shown that his sentence creates an unwarranted sentencing disparity with any similarly situated defendant. See United States v.
Carter , 560 F.3d 1107, 1121 (9th Cir. 2009).
AFFIRMED.
| datetime   | inflow |
|------------|--------|
| 2014-06-01 | 1000.0 |
| 2014-06-02 | 1000.0 |
| 2014-06-03 | 1000.0 |
| 2014-06-04 | 1000.0 |
| 2014-06-05 | 1000.0 |
| 2014-06-06 | 1000.0 |
| 2014-06-07 | 1000.0 |
| 2014-06-08 | 1000.0 |
| 2014-06-09 | 1000.0 |
| 2014-06-10 | 1000.0 |
Petition for Writ of Mandamus Denied and Majority and Dissenting 

Memorandum Opinions filed April 18, 2023.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14-22-00776-CV

IN RE DENA HALL AND DE’VON BANKETT, Relators

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

WRIT OF MANDAMUS

400th District Court

Fort Bend County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 16-DCV-236116

MAJORITY MEMORANDUM OPINION

On October 24, 2022, relators Dena Hall and De’Von Bankett filed a 

petition for writ of mandamus in this Court. See Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. § 22.221; 

see also Tex. R. App. P. 52. In the petition, relators ask this Court to compel the 

Honorable Tameika Walker, presiding judge of the 400th District Court of Fort 

Bend County, to vacate a May 4, 2020 “Order of Sale” signed by former Judge 

Maggie Perez-Jaramillo and void the foreclosure sale of July 7, 2020.
2

Relators have not established that they are entitled to mandamus relief. 

Accordingly, we deny relators’ petition for writ of mandamus.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Spain, Poissant and Wilson (Spain, J., dissenting).
**C M**  **F** IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA No. DA 18 - 0597 STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee, v. VAUGHN DAVID JAMES ,

Defendant and Appellant.

**GRANT OF EXTENSION** Upon consideration of Appellee’s motion for a 30 - day extension of time, and good cause appearing therefor, Appellee is granted an extension of time to and including Dece mber 24 , 202 1 , within which to prepare, serve, and file its response brief

.

Electronically signed by: Bowen Greenwood Clerk of the Supreme Court November 15 2021

11/15/2021

Case Number: DA 18-0597