alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### In the Matter of Rovondis Cooper, Petitioner, v Supreme Court of Queens County, Respondent.

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to prohibit the enforcement of a judgment rendered against the petitioner in the Supreme Court, Queens County, in the case of *People v Cooper*(indictment No. 661/86), on the ground that the court lacked jurisdiction to render a judgment because the criminal action was commenced upon the filing of a perjured accusatory instrument.

Adjudged that the proceeding is dismissed, without costs or disbursements.

The extraordinary remedy of a writ of prohibition does not properly lie under the instant circumstances in view of the apparent lack of merit of the petitioner’s contentions and the availability of an adequate remedy at law *(see, Matter of Lipari v Owens,*70 NY2d 731; *Matter of Molea v Marasco,*64 NY2d 718). Mollen, P. J., Mangano, Thompson and Spatt, JJ., concur.
#### In the Matter of Richard G. Wall, for Reinstatement to the Bar of the State of New York.

Application for reinstatement denied. Concur—Murphy, P. J., Sandler, Sullivan, Wallach and Smith, JJ.
#### *In re*ROBINSON, Thomas A.

(MR 21005)

Henderson, NV

Order of the Court:

The petition by the Administrator of the Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission to impose discipline on consent pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 762(b) is allowed, and respondent Thomas A. Robinson is suspended from the practice of law for one year. Suspension effective October 11, 2006. Respondent Thomas A. Robinson shall reimburse the Client Protection Program Trust Fund for any Client Protection payments arising from his conduct prior to the termination of the period of suspension.
ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS 

Appeal of -- ) 

) 

Ceres Caribe, Inc. ) 

) 

Under Contract No. W912EP-07-C-0017 ) 

APPEARANCE FOR THE APPELLANT: 

APPEARANCES FOR THE GOVERNMENT: 

ASBCA No. 60530 

Karl Dix, Jr., Esq. 

Smith, Currie & Hancock LLP 

Atlanta, GA 

Thomas H. Gourlay, Jr., Esq. 

Engineer Chief Trial Attorney 

Carolyn J. Fox, Esq. 

Engineer Trial Attorney 

U.S. Army Engineer District, Jacksonville 

OPINION BY ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE STEMPLER 

It is the Board's decision, pursuant to 41 U.S.C. §§ 7105(e), 7108(b), and the 

parties' stipulation and agreement, that the appeal is sustained. In the nature of a 

consent judgment, the Board makes a monetary award to appellant in the amount of 

$250,000. Interest shall be paid on this amount pursuant to 41 U.S.C. § 7109 from 

18 August 2009 until date of payment. 

Dated: 11 August 2016 

(Signatures continued) 

Administrative Judge 

Acting Chairman 

Armed Services Board 

of Contract Appeals 
I concur 

<V1A 

RICHARD SHACKLEFORD 

Administrative Judge 

Vice Chairman 

Armed Services Board 

of Contract Appeals 

I concur 

KE@;Ir?loB~ Administrative Judge 

Armed Services Board 

of Contract Appeals 

I certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the Opinion and Decision of the 

Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals in ASBCA No. 60530, Appeal of Ceres 

Caribe, Inc., rendered in conformance with the Board's Charter. 

Dated: 

2 

JEFFREY D. GARDIN 

Recorder, Armed Services 

Board of Contract Appeals
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 03-6027

RICKY A. WALKER,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

JAMES V. PEGUESE, Warden,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

Maryland, at Baltimore. Andre M. Davis, District Judge. (CA-02-

3863-AMD)

Submitted: February 20, 2003 Decided: February 28, 2003

Before LUTTIG, MOTZ, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Ricky A. Walker, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Ricky A. Walker appeals the district court’s order denying his

petition, which the district court construed as a petition for a

writ of mandamus and a habeas corpus petition. We have reviewed

the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible

error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and

dismiss for the reasons stated by the district court. Walker v.

Peguese, No. CA-02-3863-AMD (D. Md. filed Dec. 6, 2002 & entered

Dec. 9, 2002). 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.

DISMISSED
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Robert Deas, Appellant.

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Milton Williams, J.), rendered on December 3, 1982, unanimously affirmed.

Application by appellant’s counsel to withdraw as counsel is granted. *(See, Anders v California,*386 US 738; *People v Saunders,*52 AD2d 833.) We have reviewed this record and agree with appellant’s assigned counsel that there are no nonfrivolous points which could be raised on this appeal. Concur—Kupferman, J. P., Ross, Asch, Rosenberger and Wallach, JJ.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### General Services Administration

# AGENCY:

General Services Administration.

# ACTION:

Notice. 

# SUMMARY:

                        The General Services Administration/ICMR revised the SF                               ( print page 20996)                            533, Medical Record—Prenatal and Pregnancy to comply with the Antepartum College of  Obstetrics and Gynecology standards. You can obtain the updated form through the Federal Supply Service using National Stock Number 7540-00-634-4276 (Revision 12/1999).                    

                        You can also obtain a sample copy from the internet. Address:                         *http://www.gsa.gov/​forms/​forms.htm*

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Ms. Barbara Williams, General Services Administration, (202) 501-0581.

# DATES:

Effective April 26, 2001.

Dated: April 11, 2001.

Barbara M. Williams,

Deputy Standard and Optional Forms Management Officer, General Services Administration.

[FR Doc. 01-10350 Filed 4-25-01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6820-34-M
Exhibit 10.2


 


AMENDMENT NO. 1


TO


RGN-259 LICENSE AGREEMENT


(PAN ASIA)


 


This Amendment No. 1 to License
Agreement (this “Amendment”), dated September 17, 2019, amends that certain License Agreement (the “Agreement”
or the “License Agreement”), dated effective March 7, 2014, by and between RegeneRx Biopharmaceuticals,
Inc., (hereinafter “Licensor”), and GtreeBNT Co., Ltd. (formerly Digital Aria Co., Ltd.) (hereinafter “Licensee”),
each a “Party” and, collectively, the “Parties.”


 


RECITALS


 


WHEREAS, pursuant to the
terms of the License Agreement, Licensor has licensed certain rights to the drug candidate referred to as RGN-259, which utilizes
Tβ4 as the biologically active ingredient, pursuant to the terms of the License Agreement; and


 


WHEREAS, the Parties wish
to extend and amend the early termination provision set forth in Section 2.1(d) of the License Agreement;


 


WHEREAS, the Parties wish
to enter into this Amendment, pursuant to Section 14.2 of the License Agreement, a provided herein;


 


NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration
of the premises and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the Parties
agree as follows:


 


AGREEMENT


 


		Section 1.	Definitions



 


Capitalized terms used but
not defined in this Amendment shall have the meanings provided in the License Agreement.


 


		Section 2.	Amendment to License Agreement



 


The License Agreement is
hereby amended by deleting the text of Section 2.l(d) in its entirety and replacing it with the following text:


 


		2.1(d)	Early Termination of License



 


Subject to the terms of this
Agreement, the License granted to Licensee with respect to the countries of Australia, New Zealand, and Kazakhstan, shall terminate
if Licensee does not receive regulatory approval of Licensed Product for marketing and sale from the Therapeutic Goods Administration
(TGA) in Australia on or before March 31, 2021.


 


		Section 3.	Reaffirmation of License Agreement. Except as
explicitly modified hereby, the License Agreement shall continue in full force and effect.



 


		Section 4.	Counterparts; Facsimile Signature. This Amendment
may be executed in counterparts (and transmitted by facsimile or “pdf” format).



 




     


     


    

 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


[Signature Page Follows]


 




     


     


    

 


 


 


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Amendment
has been executed by a duly authorized officer of each Party as of the Effective Date.


 


 


	 	RegeneRX Biopharmaceuticals, Inc.	 
	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 	 
	 	By:	/s/ J.J. Finkelstein	 
	 	Name:   	J.J. Finkelstein	 
	 	Title:     	President & CEO	 
	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 	 
	 	GtreeBNT Co., Ltd.	 
	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 	 
	 	By:	/s/ Won S. Yang	 
	 	Name:   	Won S. Yang	 
	 	Title:     	President & CEO
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 Active Power, Inc. (the Company) for the period ending September 30, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
hereof (the Report), I, John K. Penver, 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, to my knowledge:



|(1) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13a or 15d, as applicable, 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/    JOHN K.
PENVERJohn K. PenverVice President of Finance and Chief Financial OfficerOctober 26, 2005
NUMBER 13-10-00333-CR

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

MATTHEW RIOS, Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee.

On appeal from the 24th District Court 

of De Witt County, Texas.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Yañez, Garza, and Benavides

Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam

Appellant, Matthew Rios, attempts to appeal his conviction for manslaughter. The 

trial court has certified that this Ais a plea-bargain case, and the defendant has NO right of 

appeal.@ See TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2(a)(2).
2

On June 18, 2010, this Court notified appellant=s counsel of the trial court=s 

certification and ordered counsel to: (1) review the record; (2) determine whether 

appellant has a right to appeal; and (3) forward to this Court, by letter, counsel=s findings 

as to whether appellant has a right to appeal, or, alternatively, advise this Court as to the 

existence of any amended certification.

Upon suggestion of death of appellant’s attorney, Lawrence D. Elliott, the Court 

abated the appeal and remanded the cause to the trial court for further proceedings. 

The trial court conducted a hearing on August 19, 2010 and made a finding that the 

appellant made a knowing waiver of his right to appeal and has no right of appeal.

The Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure provide that an appeal must be 

dismissed if the trial court=s certification does not show that the defendant has the right of 

appeal. TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2(d); see TEX. R. APP. P. 37.1, 44.3, 44.4. Accordingly, this 

appeal is DISMISSED. 

PER CURIAM

Do not publish. 

TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).

Delivered and filed the 

21st day of October, 2010.
---

---

Exhibit 15.3

# REPORT OF INDEPENDENT
REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM AUDITORS

To the shareholders of: KEDDEM BIOSCIENCE LTD.

We have audited the balance sheets of
Keddem Bioscience Ltd. an Israeli corporation in the development stage (hereafter-
the Company) as of December 31, 2007 and 2006 and the related
statements of operations, capital deficiency and cash flows for the years then ended and
for the period from August 1, 2004 (date of commencement of operation) to December 31,
2007. These financial statements are the responsibility of the Companys Board of
Directors and management. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on these financial
statements based on our audit.

We conducted our audits in accordance
with standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States of
America). Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable
assurance about whether the financial statements are free of material misstatement. An
audit includes examining, on a test basis, evidence supporting the amounts and disclosures
in the financial statements. An audit also includes assessing the accounting principles
used and significant estimates made by the Companys Board of Directors and
management, as well as evaluating the overall financial statement presentation. We believe
that our audits provide a reasonable basis for our opinion.

In our opinion, the financial
statements referred to above present fairly, in all material respects, the financial
position of the Company as of December 31, 2007 and 2006 and the results of its
operations, changes in capital deficiency and its cash flows for the years then ended and
for the period from August 1,2004 (date of commencement of operation) to December 31,
2007, in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of
America.

The accompanying financial statements
have been prepared assuming that the Company will continue as a going concern.  As
discussed in Note 1a(1) to the financial statements, the Company has suffered recurring
losses from operations and has a net capital deficiency that raise substantial doubt about
its ability to continue as a going concern.  Managements plans in regard to
these matters are also described in Note 1a(1). The financial statements do not
include any adjustments that might result from the outcome of this uncertainty.

Tel-Aviv, Israel
   March 13, 2008



---

---
#### Michael WEST, Plaintiff, v. Margaret SPELLINGS, Secretary, U.S. Department of Education, Defendant.

Civil Action No. 06-1012 (RMC).

United States District Court, District of Columbia.

Aug. 29, 2007.

Michael West, St. Charles, MO, pro se.

Oliver W. McDaniel, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Washington, DC, for Defendant.

*MEMORANDUM OPINION*

ROSEMARY M. COLLYER, District Judge.

Michael West, proceeding pro se, sued Margaret Spellings, Secretary of the U.S. Department of Education (“DOEd”), in her official capacity. Counts 1 and 2 of the Complaint allege violations of the Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”), 5 U.S.C. § 552. Counts 3 through 12 seek to compel DOEd under the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”), 5 U.S.C. § 701*et seq.,*the All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1691, and Mandamus, 28 U.S.C. § 1361, to use its enforcement authority in a manner favorable to Mr. West under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. § 794 (“Seetion 504”).1 The factual basis for Mr. West’s Complaint is his dissatisfaction with DOEd’s investigation of his complaints of disability discrimination and retaliation allegedly committed by Webster University.

On March 29, 2007, the Court granted summary judgment in favor of DOEd on Counts 3 though 12 and denied summary judgment without prejudice on Counts 1 and 2 based on the inadequacy of the agency’s search for responsive records. *See*Mem. Op. and Order [Dkt. Nos. 24 & 25], Mr. West then filed a motion to disqualify the Court [Dkt. Nos. 26 *&*31] and a motion for reconsideration of the order granting summary judgment in part to DOEd [Dkt. No. 27], DOEd then moved to dismiss or for summary judgment on Counts 1 and 2 [Dkt. No. 28]. In an Opinion and Order dated July 18, 2007, the Court denied Mr. West’s motion for disqualification and his motion for reconsideration, and required that Mr. West file a response to DOEd’s motion to dismiss or for summary judgment no later than August 20, 2007. *See*Mem. Op. and Order [Dkt. Nos. 32 *&*33], Mr. West failed to file such a response. Thus, the Court treats DOEd’s motion to dismiss or for summary judgment as conceded. *See Neal v. Kelly,*963 F.2d 453, 456 (D.C.Cir. 1992); *Fox v. Strickland,*837 F.2d 507, 509 (D.C.Cir.1988). Accordingly, the Complaint is dismissed. A memorializing order accompanies this Memorandum Opinion.

1

. Section 504 is effectuated by various regulations set forth in 34 C.F.R. Part 104.
- Home
- Media Center
- Yearly Press Archive

# 2005  Press Releases

### Sojourner Protest on Capitol Hill

December 14, 2005

### Accreditation Assessment Team Invites Public Comment

November 29, 2005

### Events in the Capitol Honoring Rosa Parks

October 28, 2005

### Suspicious Vehicle at First Street, NW

October 21, 2005

### Capitol Police Announce the Appointment of Assistant Chief Christopher M. McGaffin

October 20, 2005

### Million More Movement Activity on Capitol Hill

October 13, 2005

### Capitol Police announce the Departure of Assistant Chief James P. Rohan

October 12, 2005

### United States Capitol Police Hurricane Katrina Relief Efforts 

September 23, 2005

### ADAPT Protests on Capitol Hill

September 19, 2005

### Additional Security for the U.S. Capitol Complex

July 7, 2005

-               Current page            1
-               Page            2
- Next page››
- Last pageLast »

## Media Center

              - Press Releases
              - USCP Arrests
              - USCP FAST FACTS

## Yearly Archive

                  - 2024               (4)          
                  - 2023               (26)          
                  - 2022               (36)          
                  - 2021               (73)          
                  - 2020               (9)          
                  - 2019               (15)          
                  - 2018               (14)          
                  - 2017               (28)          
                  - 2016               (18)          
                  - 2015               (10)          
                  - 2014               (14)          
                  - 2013               (10)          
                  - 2012               (10)          
                  - 2011               (13)          
                  - 2010               (10)          
                  - 2009               (18)          
                  - 2008               (11)          
                  - 2007               (14)          
                  - 2006               (23)          
                  - 2005               (18)          
                  - 2004               (24)          
                  - 2003               (15)
<PAGE>

                                                                   EXHIBIT 31.2


                                 CERTIFICATIONS

I, Lau Kwok Hung, certify that:

1.   I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Centiv, Inc.;

2.   Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of
     a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the
     statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements
     were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this
     report;

3.   Based on my knowledge, the financial statements and other financial
     information included in this report, fairly present in all material
     respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of
     the small business issuer as of, and for, the periods presented in this
     report;

4.   The Company's other certifying officer and I are responsible for
     establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined
     in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) [language omitted pursuant
     to SEC Release 34-47986] for the Company and have:

        (a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such
     disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to
     ensure that material information relating to the Company, including its
     consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those
     entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being
     prepared;

        (b) [Omitted pursuant to SEC Release 34-47986];

        (c) Evaluated the effectiveness of the Company's disclosure controls and
     procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the
     effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of
     the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

        (d) Disclosed in this report any change in the Company's internal
     control over financial reporting that occurred during the Company's most
     recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely
     to materially affect, the Company's internal control over financial
     reporting; and

5.   The Company's other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our
     most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the
     Company's auditors and the audit committee of the Company's board of
     directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

        (a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design
     or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are
     reasonably likely to adversely affect the Company's to record, process,
     summarize and report financial information; and

        (b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or
     other employees who have a significant role in the Company's internal
     control over financial reporting.

Date:  November 26, 2004

/s/  Lau Kwok Hung
------------------------------------
Chief Financial Officer and Director