alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Post and others *v.*T. C. Richards Hardware Co.1

*Circuit, Court, D. Connecticut.*

December 8, 1885.

1. Patents for Inventions—Design—Description of, in Bill for Injunction —Demurrer.

The bill alleged invention of “a new and original design for a enrtain and loop, ” and that a patent, giving date and number, was granted thereon, but gave no other description of the invention, and made no reference to the patent for a further description. *Held,*on demurrer, that the bill did not sufficiently describe the invention.

2. Same—Requisite of Injunction Bill to Restrain Infringement.

It is necessary that a bill in equity for an injunction against the infringement of letters patent for an invention should contain such a description of the invention, as patented, as will apprise the court of its nature and character, and the particulars in which the improvement consists.

8. Same—How Supplied.

This may he done by a full and accurate description in the pleader’s own language, care being taken not to depart from the legal effect of the language of the patent, or by employing the language of the specification, or by a reference to and profert of the patent. The last-named course is the usual and most convenient one.

In Equity.

*Wm. Edgar Simonds,*for plaintiff.

*Frank L.*Hungerford, for defendant.

1

 Reported by Charles C. Linthieum, Esq., of the Chicago bar.

Shipman, J.

This is a demurrer to a bill in equity for an injunction against the alleged infringement of a design patent. The bill alleges that the inventor invented “a new and original design for a curtain and loop,” and that letters patent therefor, of a specified number and date, were granted and delivered to the inventor. The usual averments are made in regard to the execution of the letters patent. No other description of the invention is given, and no reference is made to the patent for a further description. The ground of the demurrer is that the hill “does not set out the nature, character, or description of the pretended patented design referred to in said bill, nor the letters patent alleged to have been obtained therefor, nor make any profert of the same.”

It is necessary that a hill in equity for an injunction against the infringement of letters patent for an invention should contain such a *906description of the invention, as patented, as will apprise the court of its nature and character, and the particulars in which the improvement consists. This may be done by a full and accurate description in the pleader’s own language, care being taken not to depart from the legal effect of the language of the patent, or by employing the language of the specification, or by a reference to and proferí of the patent.- The last-named course is the usual and most convenient one. The bare averment that the design was “a design for a curtain and loop” is not sufficient.

The demurrer is allowed, with leave to amend.
---

EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICERPURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT BYSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the quarterly report of Lincoln Mining Corp. (the Company) on Form 10-QSB for the nine months ended March 31, 2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, John Pulos, Chief Executive Officer of Lincoln Mining Corp., certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge:

(1) the Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13 (a) or 15 (d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

(2) the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.

|Date: May 20, 2008 | /s/ John Pulos                      | 
|------------------ | ----------------------------------- | 
|                   | John Pulos, Chief Executive Officer | 

---
1

 

September 13, 2023

(Submitted via the CFTC Portal)

Assistant Secretary of the Commission

FOIA, Privacy and Sunshine Act Compliance

Commodity Futures Trading Commission

Three Lafayette Centre

1155 21st Street, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20851

RE: FOIA Request for Confidential Treatment

Dear Sir or Madam:

The Minneapolis Grain Exchange, LLC (“MGEX”) has submitted to the Commission a Rule Certification 

Submission pursuant to CFTC Regulation 40.6(a) for modifications to the SPIKES Customer Volume 

Incentive Program (hereinafter referred to as the “Confidential Submission” or “Program”). This Confidential 

Submission included as Exhibit A contains confidential commercial or financial information. MGEX 

respectfully requests that the Commission not release the Confidential Submission. 

MGEX specifically requests confidential treatment of the Confidential Submission pursuant to Commission 

Regulations 145.9 and 145.5. Under Commission Regulation 145.9, a submitter making this request “shall 

specify the grounds on which confidential treatment is being requested.” Confidential treatment is being 

sought on the basis that the Confidential Submission contains confidential commercial or financial 

information under Commission Regulation 145.9(d)(1)(ii). In addition, MGEX represents that the 

Confidential Submission is a nonpublic record pursuant to Commission Regulation 145.5. 

In accordance with Commission Regulation 145.9(d)(5), MGEX asks the Commission to afford confidential 

treatment to the Confidential Submission in perpetuity.

Should the Commission receive a Freedom of Information Request for the Confidential Submission, MGEX 

acknowledges that it will be notified of the request and then instructed to provide a detailed written 

justification for confidential treatment, per Commission Regulation 145.9(e)(1). 

If there are any questions regarding this request, please contact me at (612) 321-7128 or 

psparby@mgex.com.

Sincerely,

Peter D. Sparby

Vice President, Counsel

Enclosure
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-6821

JOHN ALLEN ALEXANDER, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus K. V. BONNER; MS. HOWELL, Defendants - Appellees.Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Henry C. Morgan, Jr., District Judge. (CA-99-630) Submitted: August 5, 1999 Decided: August 11, 1999 Before MURNAGHAN and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. John Allen Alexander, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: John Allen Alexander, a Virginia inmate, appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 1999) complaint under 28 U.S.C.A. § 1915A(b)(1) (West Supp. 1999). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find that this appeal is frivolous. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. See Alexander v. Bonner , No. CA-99-630 (E.D. Va. June 3, 1999). We dispense withoral 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
#### Hudson Valley Federal Credit Union, Appellant, v New York State Department of Taxation and Finance et al., Respondents.

Submitted January 3, 2012;

decided January 5, 2012

Reported below, 85 AD3d 415.

Motion by National Association of Federal Credit Unions for leave to appear amicus curiae on the appeal herein granted only to the extent that the proposed brief is accepted as filed. Two copies of the brief must be served and 19 copies filed within seven days.
Exhibit 99(c)

 

 

 

	Certificate as to Compliance
 

	I, Steven H. Smith, Servicing Officer of Household Finance Corporation (the "Master Servicer"), DO HEREBY CERTIFY, in accordance with Section 4.10 of the Master Sale and Servicing Agreement dated as of July 2, 2001 among Household Automotive Trust 2001-2, Household Auto Receivables Corporation, as Seller, the Master Servicer and U.S. Bank National Association, as Indenture Trustee (the "Master Sale and Servicing Agreement"), that:

	1.  A review of the activities of the Master Servicer from January 1 through December 31, 2003 (the "Year") and of its performance under the Master Sale and Servicing Agreement has been made under my supervision; and

	2.  To the best of my knowledge, based on my review, the Master Servicer has fulfilled all of its material obligations under the Master Sale and Servicing Agreement throughout the Year.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have signed this certificate this 25th day of March, 2004.

 

						/s/ Steven H. Smith		 
					Steven H. Smith

					Servicing Officer

 

 

AUTO 2001-2
```

[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 103 (Tuesday, May 29, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Pages 29079-29080]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-13389]

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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

Bureau of Export Administration

Regulations and Procedures Technical Advisory Committee; Notice 
of Partially Closed Meeting

    The Regulations and Procedures Technical Advisory Committee (RPTAC) 
will meet June 12, 2001, 9 a.m., Room 3884, in the Herbert C. Hoover 
Building, 14th Street between Constitution and Pennsylvania Avenues, 
NW., Washington, DC. The Committee advises the Office of the Assistant 
Secretary for Export Administration on implantation of the Export 
Administration Regulations (EAR) and provides for continuing review to 
update the EAR as needed.

Agenda

Public Session

1. Opening remarks by the Chairman.
2. Presentation of papers or comments by the public.
3. Update on pending regulations.
4. Work group activity reports and discussion.
5. Update on Bureau of Export Administration initiatives.

Closed Session

6. Discussion of matters properly classified under Executive Order 
12958, dealing with the U.S. export control program and strategic 
criteria related thereto.

    A limited number of seats will be available for the public session. 
Reservations are not accepted. To the extent that time permits, members 
of the public may present oral statements to the Committee. The public 
may submit written statements at any time before or after the meeting. 
However, to facilitate the distribution of public presentation 
materials to the Committee members, the Committee suggests that 
presenters forward the public presentation materials prior to the 
meeting to the following address: Ms. Lee Ann Carpenter, OSIES/EA/BXA 
MS: 3876, 14th St. & Constitution Ave., NW., U.S. Department of 
Commerce, Washington, DC 20230.
    The Assistant Secretary for Administration, with the concurrence of 
the delegate of the General Counsel, formally determined on February 
12, 2001, pursuant to Section 10(d) of the

[[Page 29080]]

Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, that the series of meetings 
or portions of meetings of the Committee and of any Subcommittees 
thereof, dealing with the classified materials listed in 5 U.S.C. 
552b(c)(1) shall be exempt from the provisions relating to public 
meetings found in sections 10(a)(1) and 10(a)(3) of the Federal 
Advisory Committee Act. The remaining series of meetings or portions 
thereof will be open to the public.
    A copy of the Notice of Determination to close meetings or portions 
of meetings of the Committee is available for public inspection and 
copying in the Central Reference and Records Inspection Facility, Room 
6020, U.S. Department of Commerce, Washington, DC. For more 
information, call Lee Ann Carpenter at (202) 482-2583.

    Dated: May 23, 2001.
Lee Ann Carpenter,
Committee Liaison Officer.
[FR Doc. 01-13389 Filed 5-25-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-JT-M
```
EXHIBIT 32.1



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 of Dotronix, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-KSB for the year ended June 30, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), I, Russell W. Mitchell, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



(1)         The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and



(2)         The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



September 28, 2006
        
        
        /s/ Russell W. MitchellRussell W. Mitchell
Principal Executive Officer and
Principal Financial Officer of Dotronix, Inc.


---
# C_2018399EN.01003103.xml

| 5.11.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 399/31 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.11.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 399/31

---

Order of the President of the Court of 9 August 2018 (request for a preliminary decision from the Corte suprema di cassazione — Italy) — Equitalia centro SpA v Poste Italiane SpA

(Case C-284/18) (1)

(2018/C 399/42)

Language of the case: Italian

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

---

(1)  OJ C 249, 16.7.2018.

---
**EXHIBIT 23.4****CONSENT OF EXPERT**     Reference is made to the Annual Report on Form 40-F (the “40-F”) of Ivanhoe Mines Ltd. (the“Company”) to be filed with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission pursuant to theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.     I hereby consent to the use of and reference to my name as a Qualified Person for the OyuTolgoi Technical Report dated March 2007, under the heading “Item 3: Description of the Business –Oyu Tolgoi Copper and Gold Project” in the Company’s Annual Information Form for the year endedDecember 31, 2006, dated March 30, 2007, and in the 40-F.Sincerely,   */s/ Bernard Peters* Title: Principal Mining Consultant  Company: GRD Minproc Limited  Date: March 30, 2007
14
[Cite as State v. Pocock , 2014-Ohio-3787.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO

CLINTON COUNTY

STATE OF OHIO, : Plaintiff-Appellee, : CASE NO. CA2014-03-006

: D E C I S I O N - vs - 9/2/2014 : DUSTIN W. POCOCK, : Defendant-Appellant. :

CRIMINAL APPEAL FROM CLINTON COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Case No. 2013-5387

Richard W. Moyer, Clinton County Prosecuting A ttorney, 103 West Main Street, Wilmington, Ohio 45177, for plaintiff-appellee Foster Law, LLC, Mary T. Foster, 636 Northl and Blvd., Suite 100, Cinci nnati, Ohio 45240, for defendant-appellant

Per Curiam

. {¶ 1} This cause came on to be considered upon a notice of appeal, the transcript of the docket and journal entries, the transcript of proceedings and original papers from the Clinton County Court of Comm on Pleas, and upon a brief fil ed by appellant's counsel. {¶ 2} Counsel for defendant-appellant, Dustin W. Pocock, has filed a brief with this court pursuant to Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396 (1967), which (1)Clinton CA2014-03-006 indicates that a careful review of the record from the proceedings below fails to disclose any errors by the trial court prejudicial to the rights of appellant upon which an assignment of error may be predicated; (2) lists potential errors "that might arguably support the appeal,"

Anders at 744, 87 S.Ct. at 1400; (3) requests that this court review the record independently to determine whether the proceedings are free from prejudicial error and without infringement of appellant's constitutional rights; (4) req uests permission to withdraw as counsel for appellant on the basis that the appeal is wholly frivolous; and (5) certifies that a copy of both the brief and motion to withdraw have been served upon appellant. {¶ 3} Although the brief filed by appellant's counsel does not specifically suggest potential errors that may have been committed at t he trial level, counsel does "note that there were no motions filed on the defendant-appellant's behalf. There were no motions made by the defendant-appellant or counsel on his behalf to withdraw his guilty plea at anytime, the Court did not impose the maximum sentence in this case and the Court appeared to have complied with Crim.R. 11 in accepting appell ant's plea." The cour t will construe this statement as suggesting potential errors involving (1) the lack of pretrial motions filed on appellant's behalf; (2) the appropriateness of appe llant's sentence; and (3) compliance with

Crim.R. 11. {¶ 4} Having allowed appellant sufficient time to respond, and no response having been received, we have accordingly examined the record and find no error prejudicial to appellant's rights in the proceedings in the tr ial court. The motion of counsel for appellant requesting to wit hdraw as counsel is grant ed, and this a ppeal is dismissed for the reason that it is wholly frivolous.

S. POWELL, P.J., PIPER and M. POWELL, JJ., concur.
EXHIBIT 32.1





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 Quarterly Report of Carbon Sciences, Inc (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Byron Elton, Chief Executive Officer and Acting Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:





(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934; and





(2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.





A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 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.








August 4, 2010
/s/ Byron EltonByron EltonChief Executive Officer andActing Chief Financial Officer (Principal Executive Officer and Principal Accounting and Financial Officer)
#### THE NEWS AND OBSERVER PUBLISHING COMPANY, INC.; CAPITAL BROADCASTING COMPANY, INC.; ABC, INC.; NATIONAL BROADCASTING COMPANY; WLFL, INC.; NORTH CAROLINA PRESS ASSOCIATION; and NORTH CAROLINA ASSOCIATION OF BROADCASTERS, INC. v. PAUL COBLE; TOM FETZER; MARC SCRUGGS, JR.; and KIERAN SHANAHAN

No. 53PA98

(Filed 4 December 1998)

On discretionary review pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 7A-31 of a unanimous decision of the Court of Appeals, 128 N.C. App. 307, 494 S.E.2d 784 (1998), reversing a judgment entered on 7 February 1997 which dismissed plaintiffs’ complaint, and reversing an order entered on 11 February 1997 which taxed attorneys’ fees against plaintiffs, by Farmer, J., in Superior Court, Wake County. Heard in the Supreme Court 29 September 1998.

*Brooks, Pierce, McLendon, Humphrey & Leonard, L.L.P., by Mark J. Prak and David Kushner; and Everett, Gaskins, Hancock & Stevens, by Hugh Stevens and C. Amanda Martin, for plaintiff-appellees.*

*Eugene Boyce and Philip Isley for defendant-appellants.*

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

Justice Wynn did not participate in the consideration or decision of this case.
## In The Court of Appeals Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo

No. 07 - 18 - 00332 - CV IN THE INTEREST OF T .J.B. - T., A CHILD On Appeal from the 72nd District Court Lubbock County, Texas Trial Court No. 2017 - 526,502, Honorable Ruben Gonzales Reyes, Presiding



### October 3 , 2018 MEMORANDUM OPINION Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and PARKER , JJ. Appellant Kory Thiel filed a notice of appeal without pay ing the filing fee. See T EX . R. A PP . P. 5 , 20.1 . By letter of September 14, 2018 , we n otified Thiel that the filing fee had not been paid and that the appeal was subject to dismissal if he failed to pay the fee , or comply with Appellate Rule 20.1, by September 24 . Se e T EX . R. A PP . P. 20.1, 42.3(c). Thiel did not pay the filing fee . Instead, he filed a motion to voluntarily dismiss the appeal pursuant to Appellate Rule 42.1 . Se e T EX . R. A PP . P. 42.1 . The Rules of Appella te Procedure require a party who is not excused by law from paying costs to pay the required fees. See T EX . R. A PP . P. 5 . Accordingly, t he appeal is dismissed because of Thiel’s2

failure to comply with a requirement of the appellate rules and by virtue of his voluntary dismissal . Se e T EX . R. A PP . P. 42.3(c) , 42.1(a)(1). Per Curiam
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Elizabeth A. Weaver

Maura D. Corrigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

 _________________________________________ 

 Clerk

January 30, 2009 

Order 

 

January 30, 2009 

135546(32)(35)(37) 

DAVID ROMAIN and JOANN ROMAIN, 

Plaintiffs-Appellees, 

 SC: 135546 

v COA: 278591 

Wayne CC: 05-512147-NO 

FRANKENMUTH MUTUAL INSURANCE 

and IAQ MANAGEMENT, INC., 

Defendant, 

and 

INSURANCE SERVICES CONSTRUCTION, 

 Defendant-Appellant. 

_____________________________________ 

 On order of the Chief Justice, motions by John A. Braden and the Michigan 

Manufacturers Association for leave to file briefs amicus curiae are considered and they 

are GRANTED. The motion by the Michigan Association for Justice for extension of the 

time for filing their brief amicus curiae is GRANTED.