alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT
      10.2

    Agreement
      For Use And Disposal Of Patent

    


    Party
      A: Nianfu Huo

    


    Party
      B: Winner Medical & Textile Ltd. Zhuhai

    


    


    Party
      A
      and Party B unanimously confirm as follows:

    


    
      	1.	
              Party
                A confirms that the patent numbered ZL01256074.X (the “Patent”) held by
                him is a service invention obtained during his employment service
                for
                Party B.

            


    

    


    
      	
              2.

            	
              Party
                B confirms that it has been utilizing the Patent free of charge since
                its
                announcement by the Intellectual Property Rights Bureau of the PRC
                on
                August 21st
                2002.

            


    

     

    
      	
              3.

            	
              Party
                A confirms he has never transferred or pledged the Patent right nor
                has he
                licensed use of the Patent to any third
                party.

            


    

    


    
      	
              4.

            	
              Party
                A hereby confirms he grants Party B the perpetual use right for the
                Patent
                from the signing date of this Agreement free of charge and Party
                B shall
                have full right of disposal over the
                Patent.

            


    

    


    
      	
              5.

            	
              This
                Agreement is signed in two originals and shall come into effect once
                it is
                signed or stamped by both parties.

            


    

    


    


     

    
      	Party A: Nianfu Huo
              Party	B: Winner Medical & Textile Ltd.
              Zhuhai
	
              (Signature)

            	
              (Official
                Seal)

            
	 	Legal Representative: Jianquan
              Li
	 	
              (Signature)

            
	 	 


    

     

    Date:
      August 5th,
      2005


     

     

    
      
         

      

      
        1
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Theodore HOWZE, Jr., Defendant-Appellant.

No. 13-6467.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: May 7, 2013.

Decided: May 10, 2013.

*165Theodore Howze, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Amy Elizabeth Ray, Assistant United States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Before KING and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Theodore Howze, Jr., a federal prisoner, appeals the district court’s order denying his petition for writ of error coram nobis. Finding no error, we affirm.

“Coram nobis is an extraordinary remedy that has traditionally been used to attack [federal] convictions with continuing consequences when the petitioner is no longer in custody for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 2255.” *United States v. Rhines,*640 F.3d 69, 71 (3d Cir.2011) (internal quotation marks omitted). A petitioner “may not resort to a writ of error coram nobis simply because he cannot meet the standards for filing a second or successive § 2255 motion.” *Id.*at 72.

Here, Howze sought, by way of coram nobis, to benefit from our decision in *United States v. Simmons,*649 F.3d 237 (4th Cir.2011) (en banc). We previously denied Howze’s 28 U.S.C. § 2244 (2006) motion, in which he sought leave to file a successive § 2255 motion raising the *Simmons*issue. Howze also has sought relief under *Simmons*by way of a § 2255 motion, which the district court denied.

We conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying relief. Not only is Howze incarcerated, but coram nobis is unavailable to a petitioner, such as Howze, who seeks through the writ to evade the limitation on second or successive § 2255 motions.

We therefore affirm. 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.

*AFFIRMED.*
#### Miguel Angel MENDOZA-CALVILLO, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 12-70723.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted May 14, 2013.*

May 28, 2013.

Miguel Angel Mendoza-Calvillo, Panorama City, CA, pro se.

Dara Smith, Trial, Oil, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel Ice, Office of the Chief Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.

Before: LEAVY, THOMAS, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Miguel Angel Mendoza-Calvillo, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to reconsider and to reopen removal proceedings. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo claims of constitutional violations. *Ram v. INS,*243 F.3d 510, 516 (9th Cir.2001). We dismiss in part, and deny in part, the petition for review.

We lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s denial of Mendoza-Calvillo’s motion to reconsider the BIA’s discretionary hardship determination. *See Vilchiz-Soto v. Holder,*688 F.3d 642, 644 (9th Cir.2012) (order) (“[T]he BIA’s denial of the motion to reconsider falls outside the court’s jurisdiction because the court cannot reconsider the discretionary, fact-based determination that petitioners failed to demonstrate the requisite hardship.”). Mendoza-Calvillo’s contentions that the BIA’s decision was inadequate and legally incorrect, and that the BIA should have reopened his case are not sufficiently colorable legal or constitutional claims to establish our jurisdiction. *See Mendez-Castro v. Mukasey,*552 F.3d 975, 978 (9th Cir.2009) (“To be colorable in this context ..., the claim must have some possible validity.” (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)).

We also lack jurisdiction to review Mendoza-Calvillo’s challenge to the underlying orders denying his application for cancellation of removal because the petition for review is not timely as to those orders. *See*8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(1); *Singh v. INS,*315 F.3d 1186, 1188 (9th Cir.2003).

We lack jurisdiction to consider Mendoza-Calvillo’s request for prosecutorial discretion. *See Vilchiz-Soto,*688 F.3d at 644.

Mendoza-Calvillo’s claim that the denial of cancellation of removal violated the due process rights of his United States citizen son is foreclosed by *De Mercado v. Mukasey,*566 F.3d 810, 816 n. 5 (9th Cir.2009).

Finally, the BIA sufficiently addressed Mendoza-Calvillo’s request to reopen his proceedings. *See Najmabadi v. Holder,**580597 F.3d 983, 990 (9th Cir.2010) (the BIA need only “announce its decision in terms sufficient to enable a reviewing court to perceive that it has heard and thought and not merely reacted” (internal quotations omitted)).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Case 1:07-cv-01538-AKH Document 25 Filed 11/09/2007 Page 1 of 8
Case 1:07-cv-01538-AKH Document 25 Filed 11/09/2007 Page 2 of 8
Case 1:07-cv-01538-AKH Document 25 Filed 11/09/2007 Page 3 of 8
Case 1:07-cv-01538-AKH Document 25 Filed 11/09/2007 Page 4 of 8
Case 1:07-cv-01538-AKH Document 25 Filed 11/09/2007 Page 5 of 8
Case 1:07-cv-01538-AKH Document 25 Filed 11/09/2007 Page 6 of 8
Case 1:07-cv-01538-AKH Document 25 Filed 11/09/2007 Page 7 of 8
Case 1:07-cv-01538-AKH Document 25 Filed 11/09/2007 Page 8 of 8
DOCSNY-271429v01 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK 

----------------------------------------------------------------X 

IN RE WORLD TRADE CENTER LOWER 

MANHATTAN DISASTER SITE LITIGATION 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

21 MC 102 (AKH) 

 : 

----------------------------------------------------------------X 

MARIA DE LA CRUZ, 

 Plaintiff, 

 - against - 

80 LAFAYETTE ASSOCIATES, LLC, et al., 

 Defendants. 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

07-CV-04464-AKH 

APPEARANCE 

ELECTRONICALLY FILED 

----------------------------------------------------------------X 

To the Clerk of this Court and all parties of record: 

Enter my appearance as counsel in this case for: 

MERRILL LYNCH & CO., INC. 

I certify that I am admitted to practice in this court.

Dated: New York, New York 

 October 3, 2007 

 By:

DICKSTEIN SHAPIRO LLP 

 /s/ Judith R. Cohen 

______________________________________ 

Judith R. Cohen (JC-8614) 

1177 Avenue of the Americas 

New York, New York 10036 

Phone: (212) 277-6500 

Fax: (212) 277-6501 

Attorney for Defendant 

MERRILL LYNCH & CO., INC. 

Case 1:07-cv-04464-AKH Document 23 Filed 10/03/2007 Page 1 of 1
November13, 2006

Ms. Eileen A. Donovan

Acting Secretary

Commodity Futures Trading Commission

Three Lafayette Center .

1155 21* Street, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20581
Reference File #2739.01
Rule Certification

Dear Ms. Donovan:

Pursuant to Commission Regulation 40.6(a), the Chicago Board of Trade (CBOT®) hereby
submits the following:

- Discontinuance of trading authorization for contract months beyond December
2006 for CBOT Dow Jones AIG Commodity IndexTM futures.

December 2006 is the only month currently authorized for trading the above-referenced contract.
The December 2006 contract will remain listed for trading until its normal expiration (last
trading day December 15, 2006). Thereafter, the CBOT has no immediate intention to authorize
trading in additional (new) months for this contract.

There were no opposing views with respect to this action.

The CBOT certifies that this action complies with the Commodity Exchange Act and the rules
thereunder.

Sincerely,

Paul J. Draths
Vice President and Secretary

b071806

“Dow Jones,” AIG ®" Dow Jones-AIG Commodity Index[SM],” and DJ-AIGCI[SM]" are service marks of Dow Jones & Company, Inc. and
American International Group, Inc., as the case may be, and have been licensed for use for certain purposes by the CBOT. The CBOT Dow
Jones- AIG Commodity Index futures and futures options are not sponsored, endorsed or sold by Dow Jones, AIG, American International
Group, or any of their respective subsidiaries or affiliates, and none of Dow Jones, AIG, American International Group, or any of their respective
subsidiaries or affiliates, makes any representation regarding the advisability of investing in such product(s).”
[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 94 (Tuesday, May 15, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Page 26912]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-12205]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

Customs Service

[T.D. 01-40]


Customs Broker License Revocation

AGENCY: U.S. Customs Service, Department of the Treasury.
    I, as Assistant Commissioner, Office of Field Operations, pursuant 
to section 641 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1641), 
and the Customs Regulations (19 CFR 111), hereby revoke the following 
customs broker's license based on the authority as annotated:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                    License
                 Name                              Port               No.                 Authority
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Escort Forwarding Inc.................  New York.................     14739  19 CFR 111.45(a)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


    Dated: May 8, 2001.
Bonni G. Tischler,
Assistant Commissioner, Office of Field Operations.
[FR Doc. 01-12205 Filed 5-14-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4820-02-P
[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 95 (Wednesday, May 16, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Page 27062]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-12255]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE


Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request

    The Department of Commerce (DOC) has submitted to the Office of 
Management and Budget (OMB) for clearance the following proposal for 
collection of information under provisions of the Paperwork Reduction 
Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35).
    Agency: Bureau of Export Administration (BXA).
    Title: Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements Under the Wassenaar 
Arrangement.
    Agency Form Number: N/A.
    OMB Approval Number: 0694-0106.
    Type of Request: Extension of a currently approved collection of 
information.
    Burden: 559 hours.
    Average Time Per Response: 12 minutes per response.
    Number of Respondents: 1,525 respondents.
    Needs and Uses: To fulfill U.S. commitments to the Wassenaar 
Arrangement with regard to dual-use items, Section 743 of the EAR 
imposes reporting and recordkeeping requirements for license exception 
exports of certain items controlled under the Wassenaar Arrangement.
    Affected Public: Individuals, businesses or other for-profit 
institutions.
    Respondent's Obligation: Required to obtain or retain a benefit.
    OMB Desk Officer: David Rostker.
    Copies of the above information collection proposal can be obtained 
by calling or writing Madeleine Clayton, Departmental Paperwork 
Clearance Officer, (202) 482-3129, Department of Commerce, Room 6086, 
14th and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230.
    Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information 
collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice 
to David Rostker, OMB Desk Officer, Room 10202, New Executive Office 
Building, Washington, DC 20230.

    Dated: May 10, 2001.
Madeleine Clayton,
Departmental Forms Clearance Officer, Office of the Chief Information 
Officer.
[FR Doc. 01-12255 Filed 5-15-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-33-P
#### Samuel T. SIMMONS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Warden McCABE, Respondent-Appellee, and South Carolina, The State of, Respondent.

No. 13-6310.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: April 25, 2013.

Decided: April 30, 2013.

Samuel T. Simmons, Appellant Pro Se. William Edgar Salter, III, Assistant Attorney General, Donald John Zelenka, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Before AGEE and WYNN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Samuel T. Simmons seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition. The district court referred this case to a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C.A. § 636(b)(1)(B) (West 2006 & Supp.2012). The magistrate judge recommended that relief be denied and advised Simmons that failure to file timely objections to this recommendation could waive appellate review of a district court order based upon the recommendation.

The timely filing of specific 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 of the consequences of noncompliance. *Wright v. Collins,*766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th Cir.1985); *see also Thomas v. Arn,*474 U.S. 140, 106 S.Ct. 466, 88 L.Ed.2d 435 (1985). Simmons has waived appellate review by failing to file objections after receiving proper notice. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal.

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*DISMISSED.*
Case 1:07-cv-05734-SHS Document 4 Filed 07/12/2007 Page 1 of 2Case 1:07-cv-05734-SHS Document 4 Filed 07/12/2007 Page 2 of 2
EXHIBIT 32.1











CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER


CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO


18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,


AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002








Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as created by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned officer of DecisionPoint Systems, Inc. (“ Company ”) hereby certifies, to such officer’s knowledge, that:





(1) the accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2010, (the “ Report ”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 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.





Date:  November 2, 2010





/s/ Nicholas R. Toms


Name: Nicholas R. Toms


Title: President and Chief Executive Officer








THIS CERTIFICATION “ACCOMPANIES” THE REPORT, IS NOT DEEMED FILED WITH THE SECAND IS NOT TO BE INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE INTO ANY FILING OF THE COMPANY UNDER THE SECURITIES ACT OF 1933, AS AMENDED, OR THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934, AS AMENDED (WHETHER MADE BEFORE OR AFTER THE DATE OF THE REPORT), IRRESPECTIVE OF ANY GENERAL INCORPORATION LANGUAGE CONTAINED IN SUCH FILING. A SIGNED ORIGINAL OF THIS CERTIFICATION HAS BEEN PROVIDED TO THE COMPANY AND WILL BE RETAINED BY THE COMPANY AND FURNISHED TO THE SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION OR ITS STAFF UPON REQUEST.
# C_2019004EN.01002602.xml

| 7.1.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 4/26 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.1.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 4/26

---

Judgment of the General Court of 25 October 2018 — DI v EASO

(Case T-129/17 RENV)

(Civil service - EASO staff - Members of the contract staff - Fixed-term contract - Probationary period - Decision to dismiss at the end of the probationary period - Rule of correspondence between the application and the complaint - Liability)

(2019/C 4/36)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: DI (represented by: I. Vlaic and G. Iliescu, lawyers)

Defendant: European Asylum Support Office (represented by: W. Stevens, acting as Agent, and by D. Waelbroeck and A. Duron, lawyers)

Re:

Application under Article 270 TFEU for, first, annulment of the decision of the Executive Director of EASO of 28 February 2013 to dismiss the applicant at the end of his probationary period and, second, damages for the damage allegedly suffered by him and his family.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders each party to bear its own costs, including those relating to Case F-113/13 and to Case T-730/15 P. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders each party to bear its own costs, including those relating to Case F-113/13 and to Case T-730/15 P.

---
Case 1:07-cr-00562-NRB Document 3 Filed 06/22/2007 Page 1 of 2
Case 1:07-cr-00562-NRB Document 3 Filed 06/22/2007 Page 2 of 2
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.                  

###### Department of Labor

###### Pension and Welfare Benefits Administration

Pursuant to the authority contained in Section 512 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), 29 U.S.C. 1142, a public meeting will be held Monday, June 11, 2001, of the Advisory Council on Employee Welfare and Pension Benefit Plans Working Group assigned to study planning for retirement.

The session will take place in Room N-5437 A-C, U.S. Department of Labor Building, Second and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20210. The purpose of the open meeting, which will run from 1 p.m. to approximately 4 p.m., is for working group members to hear testimony on ways in which individuals can be encouraged to better plan for retirement.

Members of the public are encouraged to file a written statement pertaining to the topic by submitting 20 copies on or before June 4, 2001, to Sharon Morrissey, Executive Secretary, ERISA Advisory Council, U.S. Department of Labor, Room N-5677, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20210. Individuals or representatives of organizations wishing to address the Working Group should forward their request to the Executive Secretary or telephone (202) 219-8753. Oral presentations will be limited to 20 minutes, but an extended statement may be submitted for the record. Individuals with disabilities, who need special accommodations, should contact Sharon Morrissey by June 4, at the address indicated in this notice.

Organizations or individuals may also submit statements for the record without testifying. Twenty (20) copies of such statements should be sent to the Executive Secretary of the Advisory Council at the above address. Papers will be accepted and included in the record of the meeting if received on or before June 4.

Dated: Signed at Washington, DC this 11th day of May 2001.

Ann L. Combs,

Assistant Secretary, Pension and Welfare Benefits Administration.

[FR Doc. 01-12475 Filed 5-16-01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4510-29-M
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C.

                                                                    Exhibit 99.1

 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 Oxford  Investments
Holdings Inc., a company  organized under the laws of under the laws of Ontario,
Canada (the  "Company"),  for the period ending  December 31, 2007 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),  each
of the undersigned officers 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, to
such officer's knowledge, that:

1.   the Report fully complies, in all material respects,  with the requirements
     of Section 13(a) or 15(d) 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
     as of, and for, the periods presented in the Report.




By:            /S/ Michael Donaghy
               -------------------
                   Michael Donaghy
               Chief Executive Officer


Date:  June 29, 2009