alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 102 (Friday, May 25, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Page 28892]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-13246]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY


Office of Arms Control and Nonproliferation; Proposed Subsequent 
arrangement

AGENCY: Department of Energy.

ACTION: Subsequent arrangement.

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

SUMMARY: This notice has been issued under the authority of section 131 
of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2160). The 
Department is providing notice of a proposed ``subsequent arrangement'' 
under the Agreement for Cooperation Concerning Civil Uses of Atomic 
Energy between the United States and Canada and Agreement for 
Cooperation in the Peaceful Uses of Nuclear Energy between the United 
States and the European Atomic Energy Community (EURATOM).
    This subsequent arrangement concerns the retransfer of 72,414 kg of 
U.S.-origin natural uranium in the form of uranium hexafluoride, 48,952 
kg of which is uranium, from the Cameco Corporation, Ontario, Canada to 
Urenco Capenhurst, England. The material, which is now located at 
Cameco Corp., Port Hope, Ontario, will be transferred to Urenco for 
toll enrichment. Upon completion of the toll enrichment, the material 
will be transferred to the Commonwealth Edison Company, Downers Grove, 
IL for use as fuel. The uranium hexafluoride was originally obtained by 
the Cameco Corp. pursuant to export license number XSOU8744.
    In accordance with section 131 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as 
amended, we have determined that this subsequent arrangement is not 
inimical to the common defense and security.
    This subsequent arrangement will take effect no sooner than fifteen 
days after the date of publication of this notice.

    Dated: May 21, 2001.

    For the Department of Energy.
Trisha Dedik,
Director, International Policy and Analysis for Arms Control and 
Nonproliferation, Office of Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation.
[FR Doc. 01-13246 Filed 5-24-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
142 So. 413

#### WHITMAN v. WHITMAN.

6 Div. 158.

Supreme Court of Alabama.

June 2, 1932.

Amzi G. Barber, of Birmingham, for appellant.

A. Leo Oberdorfer, of Birmingham, for appellee.

ANDERSON, C. J.

The answer and cross-bill set up the facts that the insured reserved the right to change the beneficiary; that he gave written notice to each of the insurance companies of his intent and purpose to change the beneficiary to his wife, the appellee; that he delivered the policies to his wife as the new beneficiary; that he, caused a register to be made of his policies and recorded the fact that he had changed the beneficiary in the policies to his wife; that the companies understood and treated the policies as having changed the beneficiary. The appellant insists that this was but a conclusion of the pleader, and that in order for a valid change to have been made the cross-bill should have set out the terms of the policy providing for a change of the beneficiary and the statement of wh#t was done as to changing the beneficiary. In other words, should have set out the provision of the policy providing for a change and set up a compliance therewith.

Where the insured reserves, in the policy, the right at any time and from time to time to change the beneficiary then subject, only to right of the insurer to insist on the provisions of the policy as to manner of ef*114fecting such change, such change could be effected by parol or written instrument manifesting insured's intent to change the beneficiary. Holt v. Russell (C. C. A.) 30 F.(2d) 597; Arrington v. Grand Lodge (C. C. A.) 21 F.(2d) 914; Missouri State Life Ins. Co. v. Robertson Banking Co., 223 Ala. 13, 134 So. 25, 27. As was said in the last case, supra, quoting from 2 Cooley’s Briefs on Insurance, p. 1827: “But, if there is such a limitation Tas to method of changing the beneficiary], it is solely for the benefit of the company, and, if it does not take advantage of it, no one else may do so.”

 Our case of McDonald v. McDonald, 212 Ala. 137, 102 So. 38, 36 A. L. R. 761, is not opposed to this rule, but expressly recognizes the same. It simply holds, however, that a waiver by the insured of the terms of the change of the beneficiary is not conclusive upon the parties from showing that the beneficiary had or had not been changed, just as we hold here, the method of changing the beneficiary as per the terms and method prescribed by the policy is not the exclusive method of doing so as between the insured and the beneficiaries, and a failure to do so in strict compliance with the policy may be waived by the company. It follows that it was not essential to a valid change of the beneficiary, in the case at bar, to set out that the beneficiary was changed as per the terms of the policy or to set. out in the answer and cross-bill so much of the policy as provided for a change of the beneficiary.

The trial court did not err in overruling the appellant’s demurrer to the cross-bill, and the decree of the circuit court is affirmed.

Affirmed.

GARDNER, BOULDIN, and FOSTER, J.T., concur.
# C_2017213EN.01003002.xml

| 3.7.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 213/30 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.7.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 213/30

---

Action brought on 20 February 2017 — Computer Market v EUIPO (COMPUTER MARKET)

(Case T-111/17)

(2017/C 213/41)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Computer Market (Sofia, Bulgaria) (represented by: B. Dimitrova, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Defendant:

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: EU figurative mark containing the word elements ‘COMPUTER MARKET’ — Application for registration No 14 688 477

Trade mark at issue:

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 13 December 2017 in Case R 1778/2016-2

Contested decision

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision. |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision.

Plea in law

Plea in law

| — | Infringement of Article 60(1) of Regulation No 207/2009. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 60(1) of Regulation No 207/2009.

---
Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed August 22 , 2019.

In The



## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14- 19 -00139- CV

FRAZIER THOMPSON, III, Appellant

V.

URBAN ONE, INC., RADIO ONE OF TEXAS II, LLC, TERRI THOMAS,

BEN THOMAS, AND JAMES GARRETT, Appellees

On Appeal from the 269th District Court

Harris County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. 2018-03317

MEMORANDUM OPINION

This is an appeal from a judgment signed November 26, 2018 . The record was

filed April 9, 2019 . No brief was filed.

On July 23, 2019 , this court issued an order stating that unless appellant filed

a brief on or before August 7, 2019 , the court would dismiss the a ppeal for want of

prosecution. See Tex. R. App. P . 42.3(b ).2

Appellant filed no brief or other response. Accordingly, the appeal is ordered

dismissed.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Christopher, Spain, and Poissant.
# C_2019016EN.01003202.xml

| 14.1.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 16/32 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.1.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 16/32

---

Order of the President of the Court of 22 August 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Düsseldorf — Germany) — Stefan Neldner v Eurowings GmbH

(Case C-299/18) (1)

(2019/C 16/41)

Language of the case: German

The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 285, 13.8.2018.

---
# C_2019263EN.01004002.xml

| 5.8.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 263/40 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.8.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 263/40

---

Judgment of the General Court of 11 June 2019 — TO v EEA

(Case T-462/17) (1)

(Civil service - Contract staff - Contract for a fixed period - Dismissal during sick leave - Article 16 of the CEOS - Article 48(b) of the CEOS - Article 26 of the Staff Regulations - Processing of personal data - Article 84 of the CEOS - Psychological harassment)

(2019/C 263/45)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: TO (represented by: N. Lhoëst, lawyer)

Defendant: European Environment Agency (represented by: O. Cornu, acting as Agent, assisted by B. Wägenbaur, lawyer)

Intervener in support of the defendant: European Parliament (represented by: initially, D. Nessaf and J. Van Pottelberge, and subsequently, J. Van Pottelberge and J. Steele, acting as Agents) and the Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Bauer and R. Meyer, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application pursuant to Article 270 TFEU seeking, on the one hand, annulment, first, of the decision of the Executive Director of the EEA of 22 September 2016 terminating the applicant’s employment as a member of the contract staff and, secondly, that director’s decision of 20 April 2017 rejecting the complaint brought by the applicant against the decision of 22 September 2016 and, on the other hand, compensation for the damage allegedly sustained by the applicant.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls the decision of the Executive Director of the European Environmental Agency (EEA) of 22 September 2016 terminating TO’s employment as a member of the contract staff; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decision of the Executive Director of the European Environmental Agency (EEA) of 22 September 2016 terminating TO’s employment as a member of the contract staff;

| 2. | Orders the EEA to pay to TO a sum equal to one month’s salary in lieu of notice and to one third of TO’s basic salary per month of probation completed, less the dismissal allowance already received by TO; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the EEA to pay to TO a sum equal to one month’s salary in lieu of notice and to one third of TO’s basic salary per month of probation completed, less the dismissal allowance already received by TO;

| 3. | Orders EEA to pay to TO an amount of EUR 6 000; |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders EEA to pay to TO an amount of EUR 6 000;

| 4. | Dismisses the remainder of the action |
| --- | --- |

4.

Dismisses the remainder of the action

| 5. | Orders the EEA to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by TO; |
| --- | --- |

5.

Orders the EEA to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by TO;

| 6. | Orders the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union to bear their own costs. |
| --- | --- |

6.

Orders the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union to bear their own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 347 of 16.10.2017.

---
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-50422

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

ANGELICA MARIA MAURICIO,

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 6:10-CR-268-1

Before REAVLEY, SMITH, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Angelica Mauricio pleaded guilty of possession with intent to distribute at

least five kilograms of cocaine and was sentenced to 120 months in prison. She 

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

April 2, 2012

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Pursuant to 5TH CIR. 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 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

Case: 11-50422 Document: 00511808787 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/02/2012
No. 11-50422

appeals the denial of her motion to suppress evidence that she contends was

unconstitutionally obtained during a traffic stop. We agree with the government

that Mauricio waived her right to appeal by entering an unconditional guilty

plea.

A voluntary and unconditional guilty plea waives all nonjurisdictional

defects in the prior proceedings, including the right to raise any further objections based on a denial of a motion to suppress. United States v. Stevens, 487

F.3d 232, 238 (5th Cir. 2007). Although a defendant may plead guilty conditionally and preserve appeal rights, the plea must be in writing, must have the consent of the prosecution and approval of the court, and must explicitly designate

the issues being preserved for appeal. FED. R. CRIM. P. 11(a)(2); United States

v. Wise, 179 F.3d 184, 186-87 (5th Cir. 1999).

There was no written plea agreement or other evidence in the record that

Mauricio expressed an intent to appeal such that any technical noncompliance

with Rule 11(a)(2) might be excused. See Stevens, 487 F.3d at 238. Because the

record lacks any evidence of a reservation of rights, Mauricio may not appeal the

suppression ruling. See Wise, 179 F.3d at 187. The appeal is entirely without

merit, and it is DISMISSED as frivolous. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.

2

Case: 11-50422 Document: 00511808787 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/02/2012
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Billy RHODES, Jr., also known as Billy Rhodes, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 12-50912.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Oct. 15, 2013.

Joseph H. Gay, Jr., Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, San Antonio, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Steven Gregory White, Esq., Waco, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before JOLLY, JONES, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. *See*5th Cir. R. 47.6.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. 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 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
<PAGE>

                                                                   Exhibit 10.18

                                AMENDMENT NO.1 TO
                          BREW(TM) DEVELOPER AGREEMENT

     This Amendment No. 1 to the BREW Developer Agreement ("Amendment") by and
between QUALCOMM Incorporated ("QUALCOMM"), and Dwango North America Inc.
("Developer"), modifies and amends that certain BREW Developer Agreement (the
"Agreement") agreed to by Developer and QUALCOMM concurrently with this
Amendment. This Amendment shall be effective as of the 17th day of May, 2002
(the "Amendment Effective Date"). Unless otherwise defined herein, all terms
with initial capitals shall have the meaning ascribed to them in the Agreement.

1.   Subsection (i) of Section 11.3 (Further Warranties) of the Agreement is
deleted and replaced with the following:

     "(i) Developer is the owner or authorized licensee of each BREW Application
and Developer has the legal right and authority to grant the licenses set forth
in this Agreement;"

2.   The following sentence is added to the end of Section 12 (Indemnification)
of the Agreement:

     "QUALCOMM acknowledges that Developer shall have no obligation to defend or
indemnify any Indemnified Party under subsection (i) above to the extent that
the claim, demand, cause of action, damage, cost, expense, penalty, loss or
liability results from QUALCOMM's wrongful provision of a BREW Application to
non-U.S. Carriers not authorized by Developer to receive such BREW Application."

     In Witness Whereof, the parties have executed this Amendment as of the
Amendment Effective Date and the parties agree that, except as expressly
provided in this Amendment, all other terms and conditions in the Agreement
shall remain in full force and effect.

QUALCOMM Incorporated                        Dwango North America Inc.


By:  /s/ Gina M. Lombardi                    By:  /s/ Robert E. Huntley
    ----------------------------------           -------------------------------
                                                 Robert E. Huntley, President
Name: Gina M. Lombardi
      --------------------------------

Title: Sr. V.P.
       -------------------------------

Amend 1 to Dev Agt. (Dwango)                                QUALCOMM Proprietary
Gray Cary\GT\6260210.5
May 6, 2002
Rev 1.0
                                        1
Exhibit 31.1
 CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
PURSUANT TO EXCHANGE ACT RULE 13a-14(a)/15d-14(a)
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 302
OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  1.
    
    I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Titanium Asset Management Corp. (the
Registrant);
 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 Registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this
report;
 4.
    
    The Registrants other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and
maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Securities Exchange Act of 1934
Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the Registrant 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 Registrant, 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)
    
    Evaluated the effectiveness of the Registrant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; andc)
    
    Disclosed in this report any change in the Registrants internal control over
financial reporting that occurred during the Registrants most recent fiscal quarter
(the Registrants fourth quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially
affected, or is reasonable likely to materially affect, the Registrants internal
control over financial reporting; and
 5.
    
    The Registrants other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent
evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the Registrants auditors and the
audit committee of the Registrant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 registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial
information; andb)
    
    Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees
who have a significant role in the registrants internal control over financial
reporting.
 Dated: August 11, 2009
    
    /s/ Nigel Wightman

Nigel WightmanChairman and Chief Executive Officer
#### Dominika Zakrzewska, Respondent, v The New School, Appellant, et al., Defendant.

Submitted February 16, 2010;

decided February 18, 2010

*760Motion by National Employment Lawyers Association/New York Chapter et al. for leave to appear amici curiae on consideration of the certified question herein granted only to the extent that the proposed brief is accepted as filed. Two copies of the brief must be served and 24 copies filed within seven days.
#### Gary JONES, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Paul GRAZIANO; Reba Anderson-Graham; Ursel Cherry-Tucker; Christa Phillips; Wallace Sampson; Reginal Scribber; Mildred Brown; Cornelius Harrison; Beatrice Rose; Robert Thompson; Robin Mack; Curtis Burrell, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 13-1631.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Sept. 30, 2013.

Decided: Oct. 9, 2013.

Gary Jones, Appellant Pro Se. Carrie Blackburn Riley, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.

Before WILKINSON, SHEDD, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Gary Jones appeals the district court’s order denying relief in this action raising various claims concerning his residency in public housing facilities. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. *Jones v. Graziano,*No. 1:12-cv-03314-JKB, 2013 WL 1459188 (D.Md. Apr. 10, 2013). We grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis and 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.

*AFFIRMED.*
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

The undersigned hereby certifies that, to the best of his knowledge, the Form 10-Q Quarterly Report of NGA HoldCo, LLC (the Company) for the six months ended June 30, 2009 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the
date hereof (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
condition and results of operations of the Company.



|                      |  |     |  |                                      
|--------------------- |  | --- |  | -------------------------------------
|Date: August 14, 2009 |  | By: |  | /S/ ROGER A. MAY                     
|                      |  |     |  | Roger A. May                         
|                      |  |     |  | Manager (Principal Financial Officer)