alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# EUR-Lex - 52005AP0195 - EN

Important legal notice

*|*

# 52005AP0195

**European Parliament legislative resolution on the Council common position for adopting a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Council Directive 74/408/EEC relating to motor vehicles with regard to the seats, their anchorages and head restraints (11935/3/2004 - C6-0031/2005 - 2003/0128(COD)) **

*
Official Journal 117 E , 18/05/2006 P. 0134 - 0139 *

P6_TA(2005)0195

Seats and head restraints in motor vehicles ***II

European Parliament legislative resolution on the Council common position for adopting a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Council Directive 74/408/EEC relating to motor vehicles with regard to the seats, their anchorages and head restraints (11935/3/2004 — C6-0031/2005 — 2003/0128(COD))

(Codecision procedure: second reading)

The European Parliament,

- having regard to the Council common position (11935/3/2004 — C6-0031/2005) [1],

- having regard to its position at first reading [2] on the Commission proposal to Parliament and the Council (COM(2003)0361),

- having regard to Article 251(2) of the EC Treaty,

- having regard to Rule 62 of its Rules of Procedure,

- having regard to the recommendation for second reading of the Committee on Transport and Tourism (A6-0115/2005),

1. Approves the common position as amended;

2. Instructs its President to forward its position to the Council and Commission.

[1] OJ C 111 E, 11.5.2005, p. 33.

[2] OJ C 91 E, 15.4.2004, p. 487.

--------------------------------------------------
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 99-6019

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

SCOTTY ROACH,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Winston-Salem. Frank W. Bullock, Chief

District Judge. (CR-93-122, CA-98-432)

No. 99-6082

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

SCOTTY ROACH,

Defendant - Appellant.
2

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Frank W. Bullock, Chief

District Judge. (CR-93-205, CA-98-431)

Submitted: May 25, 1999 Decided: June 1, 1999

Before ERVIN, WILKINS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Scotty Roach, Appellant Pro Se. John Warren Stone, Jr., Assistant

United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
* In addition, Roach appealed the district court’ts orders

denying his motion for an extension of the time in which to object

to the magistrate judge’s report and for the production of

documents. We have reviewed the district court’s orders and find

no abuse of discretion.

3

PER CURIAM:

In these consolidated cases, Scotty Roach seeks to appeal the

district court’s orders dismissing his motions filed under 28

U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West 1994 & Supp. 1998).* In both cases, Roach’s

motion was referred to a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ 636(b)(1)(B) (1994). The magistrate judge recommended that relief be denied and advised Roach that failure to file timely objections to the recommendations could waive appellate review of a

district court order based upon the recommendations. Despite this

warning, Roach failed to file timely objections to the magistrate

judge’s recommendations.

The timely filing of objections to a magistrate judge’s

recommendation is necessary to preserve appellate review of the

substance of that recommendation when the parties have been warned

that failure to object will waive appellate review. See Wright v.

Collins, 766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th Cir. 1985). See generally Thomas

v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985). Roach has waived appellate review by

failing to file timely objections after receiving proper notice.

We accordingly deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the

appeals. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and
4

legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before

the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
Clear All

        11 January 2023    

#                     SURFACE NAVY ASSOCIATION NATIONAL SYMPOSIUM                 

                REMARKS AS DELIVERED  Well, good morning everyone. Thank you for being here – more importantly, thanks to Rick, Dave, and Bill for inviting me to speak again! To be honest, as a submariner, when I spoke here last year I wasn’t sure I’d make it through my remarks without at least a few surface            

        05 March 2022    

#                     2022 SEABEE BIRTHDAY BALL                  

                Thank you, Lore (RDML Aguayo), for the kind introduction - and let me start off by saying, ‘Happy Birthday’ Seabees! You don’t look a day over 80 years old!             

        12 January 2022    

#                     2022 Surface Navy Association National Symposium Remarks - ADM Caudle                 

                Well, good morning! I’m going to make this really easy. For our representatives here today, you can put me down on the record – I want more ships! I don’t want a CR. I want a bigger budget, and I want more than one-third. Thank you, Roy, for the kind introduction – and a            

        18 September 2020    

#                     ASNE Fleet Maintenance and Modernization Symposium                 

                Remarks as delivered by Adm. Christopher W. Grady, commander, U.S. Fleet Forces Command.            

        15 August 2019    

#                     2019 AFCEA/USNI West Conference                 

                Remarks as delivered by Adm. Christopher W. Grady, commander, U.S. Fleet Forces Command.             

        13 August 2019    

#                     Virginia Peninsula Chamber of Commerce Leadership Forum                 

                Remarks as delivered by Adm. Christopher W. Grady, commander, U.S. Fleet Forces Command.             

        17 January 2019    

#                     2019 Surface Navy Association (SNA) Symposium                 

                Remarks as delivered by Adm. Christopher W. Grady, commander, U.S. Fleet Forces Command.             

        05 November 2018    

#                     2018 Norfolk Naval Shipyard (NNSY) Apprenticeship Program Graduation                 

                Remarks as delivered by Adm. Christopher W. Grady, commander, U.S. Fleet Forces Command.             

        24 August 2018    

#                     Commander, U.S. 2nd Fleet Establishment Ceremony                 

                Remarks as delivered by Adm. Christopher W. Grady, commander, U.S. Fleet Forces Command.             

#####  

##### Navy.mil  |  Navy.com  |  Navy FOIA  |  DoD Accessibility/Section 508  |  No Fear Act  |  Open Government  |  Plain Writing Act USA.gov  |  Veterans Crisis Line  |  VA Vet Center  |  FVAP  |   DoD Safe Helpline  |  Navy SAPR  |  NCIS Tips  |  Privacy Policy  |  Site Map  |  Contact US

###### Commander, U.S. Fleet Forces Command   |   1562 Mitscher Ave., Suite 250   |   Norfolk, Virginia 23551-2487

###### Official U.S. Navy Website
Case 1:07-cv-05322-AKH Document 3 Filed 08/03/2007 Page 1 of 5
Case 1:07-cv-05322-AKH Document 3 Filed 08/03/2007 Page 2 of 5
Case 1:07-cv-05322-AKH Document 3 Filed 08/03/2007 Page 3 of 5
Case 1:07-cv-05322-AKH Document 3 Filed 08/03/2007 Page 4 of 5
Case 1:07-cv-05322-AKH Document 3 Filed 08/03/2007 Page 5 of 5
# C_2011048EN.01016901.xml

| 15.2.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 48/169 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.2.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 48/169

---

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the ‘Proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the marketing of material for the vegetative propagation of the vine (Recast)’

COM(2010) 359 final — 2010/0194 (COD)

2011/C 48/33

On 8 July 2010 the European Parliament and on 7 September 2010 the Council decided to consult the European Economic and Social Committee, under Article 43 (2) and 304 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the EU, on the

‘Proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the marketing of material for the vegetative propagation of the vine (Recast)’

‘Proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the marketing of material for the vegetative propagation of the vine (Recast)’

COM(2010)359 fin – 2010/0194 (COD).

Since the Committee endorses the contents of the proposal and has already set out its views on the subject in its earlier opinions CES 807/2000 and CESE 1360/2002, adopted on 13 July 2000 (1) and on 11 December 2002 (2), it decided unanimously, at its 465th plenary session of 15 and 16 September 2010 (meeting of 15 September), to issue an opinion endorsing the proposed text and to refer to the position it had taken in the above-mentioned documents.

1

2

Brussels, 15 September 2010.

The President of the European Economic and Social Committee

Mario SEPI

---

(1)  ESC opinion on the ‘Proposal for a Council Directive amending Directive 68/193/EEC on the marketing of material for vegetative propagation of the vine’, OJ C 268, p. 42 of 19.9.2000.

1

(2)  EESC opinion on the ‘Proposal for a Council Directive amending Directives 66/401/EEC on the marketing of fodder plant seed, 66/402/EEC on the marketing of cereal seed, 68/193/EEC on the marketing of material for the vegetative propagation of the vine, 92/33/EEC on the marketing of vegetable propagating and planting material, other than seed, 92/34/EEC on the marketing of propagating and planting material of fruit plants, 98/56/EC on the marketing of propagating material of ornamental plants, 2002/54/EC on the marketing of beet seed, 2002/55/EC on the marketing of vegetable seed, 2002/56/EC on the marketing of seed potatoes and 2002/57/EC on the marketing of seed of oil and fibre plants as regards Community comparative tests and trials’, OJ C 85, p. 43-44 of 8.4.2003.

2

---
Exhibit 31.2CERTIFICATIONI, Laura M. Bray, certify that:1) I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of CLAIMSNET.COM INC.; 2) Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report; 3) Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the small business issuer as of, and for, the periods presentedin this report; 4) The small business issuer’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishingand maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e)and 15d-15(e)) for the small business issuer and have: a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controlsand procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material informationrelating to the small business issuer, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is madeknown to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which thisreport is being prepared;  b) [Reserved]  c) Evaluated the effectiveness of the small business issuer’s disclosure controls andprocedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this reportbased on such evaluation; and  d) Disclosed in this report any change in the small business issuer’s internal controlover financial reporting that occurred during the small business issuer’s most recentfiscal quarter (the small business issuer’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annualreport) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, thesmall business issuer’s internal control over financial reporting; and5) The small business issuer’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our mostrecent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the small business issuer’sauditors and the audit committee of the small business issuer’s board of directors (or personsperforming the equivalent functions): a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonable likely to adversely affectthe small business issuer’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financialinformation; and  b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees whohave a significant role in the small business issuer’s internal control over financialreporting.      Date: July 24, 2006     /s/ Laura M. Bray     Laura M. Bray  Chief Financial Officer
Case 1:07-cv-05370-AKH Document 30 Filed 11/09/2007 Page 1 of 8
Case 1:07-cv-05370-AKH Document 30 Filed 11/09/2007 Page 2 of 8
Case 1:07-cv-05370-AKH Document 30 Filed 11/09/2007 Page 3 of 8
Case 1:07-cv-05370-AKH Document 30 Filed 11/09/2007 Page 4 of 8
Case 1:07-cv-05370-AKH Document 30 Filed 11/09/2007 Page 5 of 8
Case 1:07-cv-05370-AKH Document 30 Filed 11/09/2007 Page 6 of 8
Case 1:07-cv-05370-AKH Document 30 Filed 11/09/2007 Page 7 of 8
Case 1:07-cv-05370-AKH Document 30 Filed 11/09/2007 Page 8 of 8
**ADDENDUM TOEMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT**

The **EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT** entered into betweenenherent Corp. f/k/a PRT Group Inc. (herein called The Company) located at12300 Ford Rd., Suite 450, Dallas, Texas, 75234, and Jack Mullinax (hereincalled EMPLOYEE), with an effective date of July 26, 1999, is hereby amended asfollows:
| 2. | Term:  The term of employment shall be extended  for an additional twelve (12) month period beginning August 1, 2001 and  ending July 31, 2002. |
|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

             EMPLOYEEand Company agree that all other provisions of the **EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT** shallcontinue in full force and effect and that both EMPLOYEE and Company shall bebound by said **EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT**.

 
| **EMPLOYEE:**          |   | **ENHERENT  CORP.:**           |
|------------------------|--------|--------------------------------|
|                   |   |                           |
|                        |   |                                |
| **SIGNATURE**          |   | **SIGNATURE**                  |
| Jack  Mullinax         |   | Dan  S. Woodward               |
|                   |   | President,  CEO & Chairman |
|                   |   |                           |
|                        |   |                                |
| **DATE**               |   | **DATE**                       |
|                   |   |                           |
|                        |   |                                |
| **WITNESSED  BY** |   | **DATE**                       |
N OTE : This o rder is non precedential.


# United States **Court of Appeals**  **for the Federal Circuit**

______________________

IN RE JOHN NICHOLAS GROSS

______________________

2014

- 1073

______________________

Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in No. 10/770,937.

______________________

ON MOTION

______________________

Before P ROST

, O’M ALLEY

, and T ARANTO

, Circuit Judges

.
T ARANTO

, Circuit Judge.

O R D E R

The parties jointly move to remand this appeal for further proceedings before the Patent Trial and Appeal
Board

. A Board decision sustain ed the examiner’s rejection of
various claims of John N. Gross’s patent application a s obvious over a combination of prior art r eferences. After the Board’s decision, Gross requested a rehearing arguing that the Board’s decision constituted a new ground of rejection. The Board disagreed and denied the rehearing. Gross timely appealed to this court. Case: 14-1073 Document: 19 Page: 1 Filed: 03/27/2014IN RE JOHN GROSS 2

The parties state that Gross now intends to raise the new ground of rejection issue on appeal. Because this court agrees with the parties that it would be best for all
involved to remand this case to the Board for reconsider ation of Gross’s n ew ground of reje c tion argument in light
of Rambus Inc. v. Rea , 731 F.3d 1248 (Fed. Cir. 2013) , the parties’ joint motion to remand the case for additional proceedings is granted.

Accordingly,

I T I S O RDERED T HAT :
(1) The motion is granted. The Board’s decision is vacated and the case is remanded for additional procee dings consistent with this order.

(2) Each side shall bear its own costs.

F OR THE C OURT

/s/ Daniel E. O’Toole
Daniel E. O’Toole
Clerk of Court

s26

ISSUED AS A MANDATE: March 27, 2014 Case: 14-1073 Document: 19 Page: 2 Filed: 03/27/2014
# United States Court of Appeals **for the Federal Circuit**

______________________

September 12, 2011
ERRATA

______________________

2006-1634, -1649

CLASSEN IMMUNOTHERAPIES, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

BIOGEN IDEC, Defendant-Appellee,

and

GLAXOSMITHKLINE,

Defendant-Appellee,

and

MERCK & CO., INC., Defendant-Cross Appellant,

and

CHIRON CORPORATION, KAISER-PERMANENTE, INC., KAISER PERMANENTE VENTURES, KAISER PERMANENTE INTERNATIONAL, KAISER PERMANENTE INSURANCE COMPANY, THE PERMANENTE FEDERATION, LLC, THE PERMANENTE COMPANY, LLC, THE PERMANENTE FOUNDATION, THE PERMANENTE MEDICAL GROUP, INC., KAISER FOUNDATION HOSPITALS,
KAISER FOUNDATION ADDED CHOICE HEALTH PLAN, INC., and KAISER FOUNDATION HEALTH PLAN INC.,

Defendants.______________________

Decided August 31, 2011 Precedential Opinion

______________________

Please make the following change:

Page 2, the following corrections

Donald R. Ware, Foley Hoag LLP, of Boston, Massachusetts, for defendant-appellee, Biogen IDEC. With him on the brief were Barbara A. Fiacco and Jeremy A. Younkin. Of counsel were Joshua M. Hiller, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP, of Boston, Massachusetts, and David A. Wilson, of Washington, DC.
Case 1:07-cv-05394-AKH Document 27-2 Filed 12/06/2007 Page 1 of 2
Case 1:07-cv-05394-AKH Document 27-2 Filed 12/06/2007 Page 2 of 2
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-40139 Conference Calendar

ROBERT LAMARR ALLEN, Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus KARL BROWN, Sergeant, Coffield Unit Individually and in official capacity; ET AL., Defendants-Appellees.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas USDC No. 6:97-CV-930

- - - - - - - - - - December 9, 1998 Before DAVIS, DeMOSS, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Robert Lamarr Allen, Texas state prisoner # 636644, is BARRED from proceeding in forma pauperis (IFP) under the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA), 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), because, on at least three prior occasions while incarcerated, Allen has brought an action or appeal in a court of the United States that was dismissed as frivolous or for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. See Allen v. Price , No. 96-40697 (5th Cir. Nov. 7, 1996) (unpublished; affirmance by this court of theNo. 98-40139 -2- district court’s dismissal of Allen’s civil rights complaint as frivolous; counts as one strike); Allen v. Price , No. 95-40984 (5th Cir. June 26, 1996) (unpublished; affirmance by this court of the district court’s dismissal of Allen’s civil rights complaint as frivolous; counts as second strike); Allen v. Klevenhagen , No. 95-20271 (5th Cir. Oct. 17, 1995) (unpublished; affirmance by this court of the district court’s dismissal of Allen’s civil rights complaint as frivolous; counts as third strike); see Adepegba v. Hammons , 103 F.3d 383, 387 (5th Cir. 1996). Accordingly, Allen’s IFP status is DECERTIFIED, and he may not proceed IFP in any civil action or appeal filed while he is in prison unless he is under imminent danger of serious physical injury. See § 1915(g). The appeal is DISMISSED. Allen has 15 days from the date of this opinion to pay the full appellate filing fee of $105 to the clerk of the district court, should he wish to reinstate his appeal.
IFP DECERTIFIED; APPEAL DISMISSED.
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.                  

###### Small Business Administration

# AGENCY:

Small Business Administration. 

# ACTION:

Notice of reporting requirements submitted for OMB review. 

# SUMMARY:

                        Under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35), agencies are required to submit proposed reporting and recordkeeping requirements to OMB for review and approval, and to publish a notice in the                         **Federal Register**                         notifying the public that the agency has made such a submission.                     

# DATES:

Submit comments on or before June 11, 2001. If you intend to comment but cannot prepare comments promptly, please advise the OMB Reviewer and the Agency Clearance Officer before the deadline. 

*Copies:*                         Request for clearance (OMB 83-1), supporting statement, and other documents submitted to OMB for review may be obtained from the Agency Clearance Officer.                     

# ADDRESSES:

Address all comments concerning this notice to: Agency Clearance Officer, Jacqueline White, Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street, SW., 5th Floor, Washington, DC 20416; and OMB Reviewer, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 20503. 

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Jacqueline White, Agency Clearance Officer, (202) 205-7044. 

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

*Title:*                     Notice of Award/GrantCooperative Agreement Cost Sharing Proposal.                 

*No's:*                     1222 and 1224.                 

*Frequency:*                     On Occasion.                 

*Description of Respondents:*                     Participating Colleges and Grants Management Office.                 

*Annual Responses:*                     477.                 

*Annual Burden:*                     34,191.                 

Jacqueline White, 

Chief, Administrative Information Branch. 

[FR Doc. 01-11797 Filed 5-9-01; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 8025-01-P
Case 1:07-cv-01524-AKH Document 7 Filed 09/10/2007 Page 1 of 2
Case 1:07-cv-01524-AKH Document 7 Filed 09/10/2007 Page 2 of 2
Case 1:07-cv-01538-AKH Document 49 Filed 04/01/2008 Page 1 of 3Case 1:07-cv-01538-AKH Document 49 Filed 04/01/2008 Page 2 of 3Case 1:07-cv-01538-AKH Document 49 Filed 04/01/2008 Page 3 of 3