alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
## U NITED 

## S TATES 

## A IR 

## F ORCE 

## C OURT OF 

## C RIMINAL 

## A PPEALS

________________________

No. ACM 39596 (f rev)

________________________ UNITED STATES Appellee

v.
Barret D

. SMITH Airman Firs t Class (E

- 3 ) , U.S. Air Force, Appellant

________________________ Appeal from the United States Air Force Trial Judiciary Upon Further Review
Decided 13 November 20 20

________________________ Military Judge: Andrew Kalavanos (arraignment); L. Martin Powell

. Approved sentence: Bad

- conduct discharge , confinement for 6 month s , and reduction to E

- 1

. Sentence adjudged 3 August 2018 by G CM convened at MacDill Air Force Base, Florida

. For Appellant: Major M. De d ra Campbell , USAF

. Before J. JOHNSON
, KEY
, and RAMÍREZ

, Appellate Military Judges

.

________________________ This is an unpublished opinion and, as such, does not serve as precedent under AFCCA Rule of Practice and Procedure 30 .4.

________________________ PER CURIAM : Appellant’s case is before this court for the second time. In United States v. Smith , No. ACM 39 596 , 2020 CCA LEXIS 214 (A.F. Ct. Crim. App. 25 Jun

. 2020) ( unpub. op.), we affirmed the findings and sentence. However, because the action failed to include 14 days of confinement credit ordered by the military judge for illegal pretrial confinement, we returned the record to the JudgeUnited States v. Smith , No. ACM 39596 (f rev)

2 Advocate General for remand to the convening authorit y to withdraw the incomplete ac tion, substitute a corrected action, and iss ue a corrected court

- martial order.
On 7 J uly 2020, the convening authority withdrew the action and substituted a corrected action in accordance with the court’s direction. Appellant has not raised any additional issues for our consideration upon further r eview, and we find the corrected action and court

- martial order are complete. The approved findings and sentence were previously affirmed by this c ourt,and no error materially prejudicial to the substantial rights of Appellant occurred. Articles 59(a) and 66(c), UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. §§ 859(a), 866(c)
, Manual for Courts

- Martial, United States (2016 ed.). Accordingly, our review pursuant to Article 66(c), UCMJ, is complete.

FOR THE COURT

CAROL K. JOYCE Clerk of the Court
(8 Misc. Rep. 319.)

#### LOWEY v. GRANITE STATE PROVIDENT ASS’N.

(Common Pleas of New York City and County. General Term.

May 7, 1894.)

Contracts—Validity—Unlawful Subject.

Commissions for selling shares of stock of a building association, which sales are forbidden by Laws 1890, c. 146, § 9, cannot be recovered, though the contract of employment to sell on commission was made before the enactment of the prohibitory law.

Appeal from first district court.

Action by William Lowey against the Granite State Provident Association. A judgment was rendered by the justice without a jury in favor of plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Reversed.

Argued before BISCHOFF and GIEGERICH, JJ.

Jonathan C. Ross, for appellant.

Wakeman & Campbell, for respondent.

GIEGERICH, J.

This action was brought against the defendant, a foreign building and loan association, to recover the agreed compensation for selling shares of stock of the defendant company. The defense was a general denial. Judgment was given the plaintiff for the full amount he claimed, from which the defendant has appealed.

By the plaintiff’s own testimony it appears that some of the sales upon which he seeks to recover commissions were made during the periods in which the defendant company was not allowed to do business in this state. It is conceded that the sale of shares of stock in such corporations was prohibited by section 9, c. 146, of the Laws of 1890. The plaintiff boasts that they nevertheless continued the business, and “used to beat the devil around the bush.” But, however adroit his work in thus evading or violating

*561our laws may have been, he can hardly expect the court to reward him for it. Any contract which is repugnant to or contravenes a statute of the state is unlawful, and cannot be enforced. Grain-Binder Co. v. Stayner, 25 Hun, 91, and cases cited; Bilordeaux v. Lithographic Co. (Com. Pl. N. Y.) 9 N. Y. Supp. 507; Honegger v. Wettstein, 94 N. Y. 252, 260; Story v. Bank, 18 Wkly. Dig. 269. Ho claim is made that this contract was illegal at its inception; but, upon the principle of the above cases, no recovery can be allowed for sales made subsequent to April 21,1890, on which day the above-cited statute went into effect. Since the evidence on the part of the plaintiff as to the date of some of the sales is vague or conflicting, the judgment cannot be modified, but should be reversed, and a new trial ordered, with costs to the appellant to abide the event.

BISCHOFF, J.

I concur. See, also, Dowley v. Schiffer (Com. Pl. N. Y.) 13 N. Y. Supp. 552.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE
TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                         0001043476
<NAME>                        OAO TECHNOLOGY SOLUTIONS, INC.
<MULTIPLIER>                                     1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                          19,735
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   20,977
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                42,738
<PP&E>                                           5,184
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  48,665
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            8,804
<BONDS>                                            868<F1>
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           163
<OTHER-SE>                                      38,830
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    48,665
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                23,006
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   18,724
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 3,403
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 186
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  1,065
<INCOME-TAX>                                       427
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                638
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       638
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.04
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.04
<FN>
Represents the long-term portion of capital lease obligations.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
#### FAXON, Respondent, v. MASON et al., Appellants.

(Supreme Court, General Term, First Department.

May 18, 1894.)

Action by Edith M. Faxon against John Mason and another.

Argued before VAN BRUNT, P. J., and FOLLETT and PARKER, JJ.

No opinion. Order modified so as to deny the motion, unless defendant Ball, within five days, file return on appeal, and execute undertaking on appeal, in which case motion granted. The order, as so modified, affirmed, without costs. See 21 N. Y. Supp. 737; 27 N. Y. Supp. 1025.
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER

PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

In connection with the accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Transgenomic, Inc. for the quarter ended June 30, 2010, I,
Brett L. Frevert, Interim Chief Financial Officer of Transgenomic, Inc., hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to my knowledge, that:



| | (1) | Such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Transgenomic, Inc. for the quarter ended June 30, 2010, 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 such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Transgenomic, Inc. for the quarter ended June 30, 2010, fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Transgenomic, Inc.
| | --- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



/s/ Brett L. FrevertBrett L. FrevertInterim Chief Financial Officer


Date:
August 13, 2010

A signed original of the certification required by Section 906 has been provided to Transgenomic,
Inc. and will be retained by Transgenomic, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.



31
# Scams, Fraud, and Misconduct

## Topics

Report Fraud

USCIS Tip Form

Avoid Scams

Common Scams

Report Immigration Scams

Report USCIS Employee Misconduct

0 / 2000To protect your privacy, please do not include any personal information in your feedback. Review our Privacy Policy.
U.S. DEPARTMENT O F

HOMELAND SECURITY 

U.S. COAST GUARD

C G- 4112 ( Rev. 6-04)

PERSONAL PROPERTY CLAIM

(For use in submitting claims under 31 U.S.C. 240-243)

(Submit original and 2 copies typed if practicable)

(See CLAIMS MANUAL, Enclosure 5)

1. DATE

2. FROM 3. GRADE OR RATE 4. SSN

5. TO

6. VIA

7. CURRENT DUTY STATION 8. AMOUNT OF CLAIM

9. STATUS OF CLAIMANT AT TIME OF DAMAGE OR LOSS (If changed since, explain.)

MEMBER, USCG OR USCGR EMPLOYEE OF USCG OTHER (Specify)

10. Claim is made in the above amount for personal property damaged or lost incident to service. I hereby assign to the U.S., to the extent of any payment

of this claim accepted by me, all my right, title and interest in and to any claim I may have against any carrier, insurer or other party, arising out of the

incident(s) described herein and will, upon request, furnish evidence as may be required to enable the U.S. to enforce such claim.

YES NO

11. I further agree to the checkage of my pay accounts by the U.S. to the extent of any payments made to me by a carrier, insurer, or other party for which I am

also reimbursed by the U.S. in settlement of this claim.

YES NO

12. All applicable certificates, statements, orders, and other documents required are attached hereto.

YES NO

13. In the event any of the property for which this claim is made is later recovered, or reimbursement is received from the carrier, insurer, or other party, I

agree to give written notice immediately to the settlement authority to whom this claim was presented.

YES NO

14. Have you made another claim against the U.S. based on - a. the damage or loss of any of the property for which this claim is made, or b. the incident

described in Block 16.

YES NO (If "YES", explain.)

15. Was demand for this loss or damage made against the common carrier?

If "YES", enclose copies of demand and action, if any, taken by carrier.

(If "NO", explain.)

YES NO

AMOUNT CLAIMED AMOUNT RECOVERED

a. Do you have personal property insurance? YES NO

If "YES", was the property for which this claim is made insured? (If "YES", attach correspondence with letter.)

(If "NO", explain or attach portion of policy excluding the property.)

YES NO

AMOUNT CLAIMED AMOUNT RECOVERED

b. Have the carrier and insurer been requested to address all correspondence to you in care of the settlement authority to whom this claim is presented?

YES NO

16. REMARKS Including the date, place, facts, and circumstances of the incident causing the damage or loss are stated below. (State facts in detail, adding additional sheets if necessary.)

17. ADDRESS TO WHICH CHECK IS TO BE MAILED 18. I make this claim with full knowledge of the penalties involved for willfully

making a false claim (Title 18 U.S. Code Section 287 provides for maximum fine of

$10,000 or imprisonment for 5 years or both.)

YES NO

19. SIGNATURE OF CLAIMANT (OR AGENT)

PREVIOUS EDITIONS ARE OBSOLETE
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                         121,885
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      568
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                        208
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               123,288
<PP&E>                                          15,485
<DEPRECIATION>                                     680
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 146,541
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            5,559
<BONDS>                                        132,467
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                         18
<COMMON>                                            11
<OTHER-SE>                                       8,036
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   146,541
<SALES>                                            995
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                   995
<CGS>                                              961
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    8,979
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               5,867
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (11,704)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (11,704)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (11,704)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (2.31)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (2.31)
        

</TABLE>
#### THOMAS, Respondent, v. DAVIS, Appellant.

(Supreme Court, General Term, Fifth Department.

March 27, 1894.)

Action by John E. Thomas against George A. Davis.

Argued before DWIGHT, P. J., and HAIGHT and BRADLEY, JJ.

No opinion. Judgment and order appealed from affirmed.
**Exhibit
      10.22**





Amendment
      No. 5 dated as of June 30, 2008 to Sub-License, Development and Technology
      Transfer Agreement dated May 1, 2005, as amended by Amendment No. 1 dated July
      13, 2006, Amendment No. 2 dated April 1, 2007, Amendment No. 3 dated September
      18, 2007, and Amendment No. 4 dated January 15, 2008 (as so amended, the
“Sub-License Agreement”) between Sea Change Group, LLC, a New York limited
      liability company (“Licensor”) and Innopump, Inc., a Nevada corporation
      (“Licensee”).





**RECITALS**





Licensee
      and Licensor, having entered into the Sub-License Agreement, now wish to amend
      certain provisions of the Sub-License Agreement regarding the due dates and
      amount of payments to be made by Licensee to Licensor pursuant to the provisions
      of the Sub-License Agreement.





NOW
      THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises, the parties hereto agree as follows:





1.
      Change
      in Installment Payments. Paragraph 4 of the Sub-License Agreement is hereby amended
      as to Subparagraphs 4.2 of Amendment No. 4 as follows:





4.2
      Four
      Hundred Fifty Thousand Dollars ($450,000) on July 1, 2009; and





4.3
      Deleted in its entirety.





2.
      Royalty Waiver and Extension. The total royalty due to Sea Change Group in
      accordance with Paragraph 5.2 of the Sub-License Agreement as of June 30, 2008
      in the aggregate of $140,536 will be deferred to be due on July 1, 2009.
      Royalties will continue until such time that the revenues as stated are
      received. Additional royalties earned from July 1, 2008 through June 30, 2009
      shall be accrued but deferred to be due on July 1, 2009. No interest shall
      be
      due or payable in regard to past due royalties.





3.
      Effect
      of Amendment. Except as amended hereby, the Sub-License Agreement shall remain
      unmodified and in full force and effect, and is ratified and confirmed in all
      respects.





4.
      Entire
      Agreement. This Amendment together with the Sub-License Agreement constitute
      the
      full and entire understanding and agreement between Licensor and Licensee with
      regard to the subjects set forth in the Sub-License Agreement.





5.
      Headings. The headings contained in this Amendment are for convenience of
      reference only
      and
      are not to be given any legal effect and shall not affect the meaning or interpretation
      of this Amendment.









IN
      WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Amendment as of the date first written
      above.





SEA
      CHANGE GROUP, LLC


By:/s/ Geoffrey
      Donaldson


Name:
      Geoffrey Donaldson


Title:
      Managing Member
# C_2021071EN.01005801.xml

| 1.3.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 71/58 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.3.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 71/58

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.10150 — Ares/OTPP/TricorBraun)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2021/C 71/05)

On 23 February 2021, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the internal market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1). The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32021M10150. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32021M10150. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.

---

(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.

---
[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 176 (Wednesday, September 15, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 51369-51370]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-19839]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Bureau of Indian Affairs

[212A2100DD/AAKC001030/A0A501010.999900253G]


Indian Gaming; Approval of Tribal-State Class III Gaming Compact 
in the State of Connecticut

AGENCY: Bureau of Indian Affairs, Interior.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice publishes the approval of the Agreement Between 
the Mohegan Tribe of Indians of Connecticut (Tribe) and the State of 
Connecticut (State) to amend the Tribe's Class III Gaming Compact 
(Amendment) and Memorandum of Understanding (MOU).

DATES: The Amendment takes effect on September 15, 2021.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Paula L. Hart, Director, Office of 
Indian Gaming, Office of the Deputy Assistant Secretary--Policy and 
Economic Development, Washington, DC 20240, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#f48495819895da9c958680b4969d95da939b82"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="96e6f7e3faf7b8fef7e4e2d6f4fff7b8f1f9e0">[email protected]</span></a>, (202) 
219-4066.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Under section 11 of the Indian Gaming 
Regulatory Act (IGRA), Public Law 100-497, 25 U.S.C. 2701 et seq., the 
Secretary of the Interior shall publish in the Federal Register notice 
of approved Tribal-State compacts for the purpose of engaging in Class 
III gaming activities on Indian lands. As required by 25 CFR 293.4, all 
compacts and amendments are subject to review and approval by the 
Secretary. The Amendment, the MOU and the State of Connecticut House 
Bill No. 6451 (State Gaming Act) work in unison to provide the Mohegan 
Tribe and the Mashantucket Pequot Tribe

[[Page 51370]]

with exclusivity for online casino gaming in the State, two of three 
licenses for off-reservation sports wagering, and online on-reservation 
casino gaming and sports wagering. The Amendment and MOU are approved.

Bryan Newland,
Assistant Secretary--Indian Affairs.
[FR Doc. 2021-19839 Filed 9-14-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4337-15-P


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