alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### KALISKA v. COE, Commissioner of Patents.

No. 8835.

United States Court of Appeals District of Columbia.

Argued Jan. 29, 1945.

Decided Feb. 19, 1945.

Mr. Robert C. Watson, of Washington, D. C., for appellant.

Mr. R. F. Whitehead, United States Patent Office, of Washington, D. C., with whom Mr. W. W. Cochran, Solicitor, United States Patent Office, of Washington, D. C., was on the brief, for appellee.

Before MILLER, EDGERTON and ARNOLD, Associate Justices.

PER CURIAM.

The court below dismissed a suit to obtain a patent which was brought under Section 4915, R. S.,1 from which judgment this appeal is taken.

The device sought to be patented here is a cardboard contraption attractively colored and designed to induce an ambitious housewife to buy and carry away six bottles at a time. The design has been extensively used. It can be adapted to carry bottles of any shape or size. Paper strips at the ends keep the bottles from falling out. The tops of the bottles protrude through an aperture, a handle is provided for carrying them. The device may be folded flat and easily packed. When loaded and in use it looks like this:

Both the Patent Office and the court below denied patentability on the ground that the device, did not constitute an invention over the prior art as disclosed in previous patents for bottle carriers. The previously patented carriers were based upon the same general idea but were of crude design, less attractive, less secure and not as convenient for folding flat for the purpose of packing and shipping. A typical one of these designs looked like this:

*578If we were to apply to the device before us the same low standard of invention on the basis of which the previous patents were issued it would be difficult to refuse appellant a patent on his improvements. However, we need not discuss the character of these improvements because we do not believe that there is any invention disclosed in either appellant’s application or in the previous designs used by the Patent Office as references. The idea behind them all is as old as a shawl-strap or a valise. If patents were granted on package designs of such a low standard of invention it would tend to tie up retail distribution in an endless network of restrictions.

Affirmed.

1

35 U.S.C.A. § 63.
Stacey D. WILLIAMS, petitioner, v. GEORGIA.

No. 17-5481.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 2, 2017.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals of Georgia denied.
Malcolm J. BEZET, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 17-1365.

Supreme Court of the United States

May 29, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied.
##### 



Exhibit 31.2
 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  1.
    
    I have reviewed this report on Form 10-Q of Standard Management Corporation;
 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 Exchange Act 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 fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report)
that has materially affected, or is reasonably 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 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 controls 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.
  /s/ Daniel K Calvert

Daniel K CalvertChief Accounting Officer
**EXHIBIT 32.1**

 

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18U.S.C. SECTION 1350 AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEYACT OF 2002

 

In connection with theQuarterly Report of Fulton Bancshares Corporation (the “Company”) on Form 10-Qfor the period ending March 31, 2005 as filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, David W. Cathell, ChiefExecutive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350,as adopted pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

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

 

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

 

 
| Date: May 9,  2005 | By:                                           | /s/David W.  Cathell |   |
|--------------------|-----------------------------------------------|----------------------|--------|
|               | David W.  Cathell ,                           |
|               | Acting  President and Chief Executive Officer |

 

----
# L_2008182EN.01002601.xml

| 10.7.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 182/26 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.7.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 182/26

---

DECISION OF THE EEA JOINT COMMITTEE

No 31/2008

of 14 March 2008

amending Annex XIII (Transport) to the EEA Agreement

THE EEA JOINT COMMITTEE,

Having regard to the Agreement on the European Economic Area, as amended by the Protocol adjusting the Agreement on the European Economic Area, hereinafter referred to as ‘the Agreement’, and in particular Article 98 thereof,

Whereas:

| (1) | Annex XIII to the Agreement was amended by Decision of the EEA Joint Committee No 13/2008 of 1 February 2008 (1). |
| --- | --- |

(1)

Annex XIII to the Agreement was amended by Decision of the EEA Joint Committee No 13/2008 of 1 February 2008 (1).

| (2) | Commission Regulation (EC) No 1400/2007 of 28 November 2007 amending Regulation (EC) No 474/2006 establishing the Community list of air carriers which are subject to an operating ban within the Community (2) is to be incorporated into the Agreement, |
| --- | --- |

(2)

Commission Regulation (EC) No 1400/2007 of 28 November 2007 amending Regulation (EC) No 474/2006 establishing the Community list of air carriers which are subject to an operating ban within the Community (2) is to be incorporated into the Agreement,

HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:

Article 1

Annex XIII to the Agreement shall be amended as follows:

The following indent shall be added in point 66zab (Commission Regulation (EC) No 474/2006):

| ‘— | 32007 R 1400: Commission Regulation (EC) No 1400/2007 of 28 November 2007 (OJ L 311, 29.11.2007, p. 12).’ |
| --- | --- |

‘—

32007 R 1400: Commission Regulation (EC) No 1400/2007 of 28 November 2007 (OJ L 311, 29.11.2007, p. 12).’

Article 2

The texts of Regulation (EC) No 1400/2007 in the Icelandic and Norwegian languages, to be published in the EEA Supplement to the Official Journal of the European Union, shall be authentic.

Article 3

This Decision shall enter into force on 15 March 2008, provided that all the notifications under Article 103(1) of the Agreement have been made to the EEA Joint Committee (*1).

Article 4

This Decision shall be published in the EEA Section of, and in the EEA Supplement to, the Official Journal of the European Union.

Done at Brussels, 14 March 2008.

For the EEA Joint Committee

The President

Alan SEATTER

---

(1)  
  OJ L 154, 12.6.2008, p. 27.

1

(2)  
  OJ L 311, 29.11.2007, p. 12.

2

(*1)  No constitutional requirements indicated.

*1

---
* 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.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 00-10287

Summary Calendar

 

PATRICIA L. HOPE,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

GEORGE T. CONNELL, JR.; GEORGE T. CONNELL, SR.,

Defendants-Appellees.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 3:98-CV-929-D

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

November 9, 2000

Before DAVIS, JONES and DEMOSS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Patricia L. Hope has appealed the district court’s grant of

summary judgment to the defendants in her 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil

rights action. We AFFIRM.

Hope contends that the district court abused its discretion

by granting her retained counsel leave to withdraw from

representing her further. Hope is not entitled to relief on this

point because she did not validly object to the district court

concerning the ruling, which is not plainly erroneous. See
No. 00-10287

-2-

Highlands Ins. Co. v. National Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh,

27 F.3d 1027, 1031-32 (5th Cir. 1994).

Hope contends that the district court reversibly erred by

refusing to appoint counsel to represent her and by granting

summary judgment to the defendants. We reject these contentions

substantially for the reasons stated in the district court’s

memorandum opinion. See Hope v. Connell, No. 3:98-CV-929-D (N.D.

Tex. Aug. 12, 1999)(unpublished).

AFFIRMED.
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FIFTH DISTRICT

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO

 FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

ELTON LEE BAKER,

Appellant,

v. Case No. 5D16-3334

DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS 

AND STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellees.

________________________________/

Opinion filed April 28, 2017

Appeal from the Circuit Court 

for Marion County,

Lisa D. Herndon, Judge.

Elton Lee Baker, Lowell, pro se.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, 

Tallahassee, and Robin A. Compton, 

Assistant Attorney General, Daytona 

Beach, for Appellee, State of Florida.

No Appearance for Other Appellee.

WALLIS, J.

Elton Lee Baker appeals the Marion County trial court's denial of his Emergency 

Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus. Baker was convicted and sentenced in Sumter County 

to a twenty-year prison sentence for attempted sexual battery upon a child under twelve

years of age and attempted lewd or lascivious molestation of a child under twelve years 
2

of age. In his petition, Baker challenged his convictions and sentences on the basis that

the State failed to amend the charging information to reflect his conviction for a lesserincluded offense. Baker also challenged the constitutionality of sections 749.011 and 

800.04, Florida Statutes (2007), because they require no mens rea element.

When a petitioner challenges the validity of his or her conviction or sentence, 

jurisdiction in habeas proceedings lies with the trial court that imposed the judgment and 

sentence. See Sheriff v. Moore, 781 So. 2d 1146, 1147 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001); Frederick v. 

State, 714 So. 2d 1043, 1043 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998) ("Habeas petitions directed to trial 

issues must be brought in the circuit court for the county where the trial occurred."). The 

State properly concedes that the Marion County court lacked jurisdiction to rule on the 

merits of Baker's petition, which attacked his Sumter County convictions and sentences.

Accordingly, we quash the trial court's order and remand with instructions to transfer the 

petition to Sumter County. See Bush v. State, 945 So. 2d 1207, 1214–15 (Fla. 2006). 

ORDER QUASHED; REMANDED with Instructions. 

 

BERGER, J., and JACOBUS, B.W., Senior Judge, concur.
Cornelius Oluseyi OGUNSALU, petitioner, v. SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, SAN DIEGO COUNTY; and Cornelius Oluseyi Ogunsalu, petitioner, v. Superior Court of California, San Diego County.

No. 16-9548.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 2, 2017.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeal of California, Fourth Appellate District, Division One denied.
Manuel R. SUAREZ-JIMENEZ, petitioner, v. SUPREME COURT OF PUERTO RICO.

No. 17-5140.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 2, 2017.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit denied.
EXHIBIT 23.1

                         CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

We consent to the use in connection with the registration statements on Form S-8
for the 1999 Stock Option Plan, Registration File No. 333-41788, and the 2000
Stock Option Plan, Registration File No. 333-41786, and the 1999 and 2000 Stock
Option Plans, Registration File No. 333-116671, of IA Global, Inc. formerly
Medium4.com, Inc, incorporated into the Annual Report on Form 10-K of IA Global,
Inc., of our report dated February 8, 2005 relating to the financial statements
of IA Global, Inc. and Subsidiaries as of December 31, 2004 and for the year
then ended December 31, 2004.

                                        /s/ Sherb & Co. LLP
                                        Sherb & Co., LLP
                                        Certified Public Accountants

New York, New York
April 12, 2005
***Exhibit 31.1******CERTIFICATIONS***I, Albert D. Indelicato, certify that: 1. I have reviewed this report on Form 10-Q of AMTROL Inc;  2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a materialfact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light ofthe circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to theperiod covered by this report;  3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial informationincluded 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 periodspresented in this report;  4. The Registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e)and 15d-15(e)) for the Registrant and have: a. Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused suchdisclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensurethat material information relating to the Registrant, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularlyduring the period in which this report is being prepared;  b. (Paragraph omitted in accordance with SEC transition instructionscontained in SEC Release 34-47986 and Release 34-49313);  c. Evaluated the effectiveness of the Registrant’s disclosure controls andprocedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness ofthe disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by thisreport based on such evaluation; and  d. Disclosed in this report any change in the Registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting that occurred during the Registrant’s most recentfiscal quarter (the Registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annualreport) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect,the Registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and 5. The Registrant’s other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our mostrecent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the Registrant’sauditors and the audit committee of the Registrant’s Board of Directors (or personsperforming the equivalent functions): a. All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design oroperation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likelyto adversely affect the Registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize andreport financial information; and  b. Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or otheremployees who have a significant role in the Registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting.          Date:   November 10, 2005  By:  /s/ ALBERT D. INDELICATO    Albert D. Indelicato
# L_2006245EN.01001701.xml

| 7.9.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 245/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.9.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 245/17

---

DECISION OF THE EEA JOINT COMMITTEE No 66/2006

of 2 June 2006

amending Annex XIII (Transport) to the EEA Agreement

THE EEA JOINT COMMITTEE,

Having regard to the Agreement on the European Economic Area, as amended by the Protocol adjusting the Agreement on the European Economic Area, hereinafter referred to as ‘the Agreement’, and in particular Article 98 thereof,

Whereas:

| (1) | Annex XIII to the Agreement was amended by Decision of the EEA Joint Committee No 35/2006 of 10 March 2006 (1). |
| --- | --- |

(1)

Annex XIII to the Agreement was amended by Decision of the EEA Joint Committee No 35/2006 of 10 March 2006 (1).

| (2) | Regulation (EC) No 2320/2002 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2002 establishing common rules in the field of civil aviation security (2)was incorporated into the Agreement by Decision of the EEA Joint Committee No 61/2004 of 26 April 2004 (3), with country specific adaptations. |
| --- | --- |

(2)

Regulation (EC) No 2320/2002 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2002 establishing common rules in the field of civil aviation security (2)was incorporated into the Agreement by Decision of the EEA Joint Committee No 61/2004 of 26 April 2004 (3), with country specific adaptations.

| (3) | Commission Regulation (EC) No 65/2006 of 13 January 2006 amending Regulation (EC) No 622/2003 laying down measures for the implementation of the common basic standards on aviation security (4) is to be incorporated into the Agreement, |
| --- | --- |

(3)

Commission Regulation (EC) No 65/2006 of 13 January 2006 amending Regulation (EC) No 622/2003 laying down measures for the implementation of the common basic standards on aviation security (4) is to be incorporated into the Agreement,

HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:

Article 1

The following indent shall be added in point 66i (Commission Regulation (EC) No 622/2003) of Annex XIII to the Agreement:

| ‘— | 32006 R 0065: Commission Regulation (EC) No 65/2006 of 13 January 2006 (OJ L 11, 17.1.2006, p. 4).’ |
| --- | --- |

‘—

32006 R 0065: Commission Regulation (EC) No 65/2006 of 13 January 2006 (OJ L 11, 17.1.2006, p. 4).’

Article 2

The texts of Regulation (EC) No 65/2006 in the Icelandic and Norwegian languages, to be published in the EEA Supplement to the Official Journal of the European Union, shall be authentic.

Article 3

This Decision shall enter into force on 3 June 2006, provided that all the notifications under Article 103(1) of the Agreement have been made to the EEA Joint Committee (*1).

Article 4

This Decision shall be published in the EEA Section of, and in the EEA Supplement to, the Official Journal of the European Union.

Done at Brussels, 2 June 2006.

For the EEA Joint Committee

The President

R. WRIGHT

---

(1)  
  OJ L 147, 1.6.2006, p. 53.

1

(2)  
  OJ L 355, 30.12.2002, p. 1.

2

(3)  
  OJ L 277, 26.8.2004, p. 175.

3

(4)  
  OJ L 11, 17.1.2006, p. 4.

4

(*1)  No constitutional requirements indicated.

*1

---
Exhibit 10.2


 





 


 


AMENDMENT TO CONSULTING
AGREEMENT


 


This AMENDMENT, dated June 8, 2018,
to the CONSULTING AGREEMENT dated March 19, 2018 (the "Original Agreement") between Synthesis Energy Systems, Inc, (“SES”)
and Robert Anderson (“Consultant”).


 


WHEREAS, SES and Consultant mutually
wish to extend the term of the Original Agreement.


 


NOW THEREFORE, for the mutual promises
and other consideration described herein, the parties hereto agree as follows:


 


	 	1.	Original Agreement. All terms and conditions of the Original Agreement remain in effect unless specifically referenced
herein.






 


		2.	Amendments. Section 2 – Term and Termination shall be amended as follows:



 


SES hereby engages and retains Consultant as a consultant, and Consultant hereby
accepts the engagement, beginning on the date of this Agreement and continuing until six (6) months after the date hereof.


 


 


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have caused this
Agreement to be executed as of the day and year first above written.


 



	SES:	 
	 	 	 
	SYNTHESIS ENERGY SYSTEMS, INC.
	 	 	 
	 	 	 
	By:	/s/ DeLome Fair	 
	 	 	 
	DeLome Fair, President and Chief Executive Officer
	 	 	 
	 	 	 
	 	 	 
	CONSULTANT:	 
	 	 	 
	ROBERT ANDERSON	 
	 	 	 
	By:	/s/ Robert Anderson	 
	 	 	 
	Robert Anderson	 







 


 


 


 


 







1
Christian SANCHEZ-COLBERG, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 17-5555.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 2, 2017.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit denied.
Ruben SANCHEZ, petitioner, v. CITY OF CHICAGO, ILLINOIS, et al.

No. 17M120.

Supreme Court of the United States

May 21, 2018.

Motion to direct the Clerk to file a petition for writ of certiorari out of time denied.
Valerie E. CAMPBELL, petitioner, v. Gloria HENRY, Warden.

No. 17-8674.

Supreme Court of the United States

June 4, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.

Justice BREYER took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.
Anthony TOWNES, petitioner, v. NEW MEXICO.

No. 17-8118.

Supreme Court of the United States

May 14, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the District Court of New Mexico, Bernalillo County denied.
CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350 ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In
connection with the Annual Report of Tactical Air Defense Services, Inc., a
Nevada corporation, (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31,
2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
(the “Report”), I, Alexis Korybut, Chief Executive Officer of the Company,
certify the following pursuant to Section 18, U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant
to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002:





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.





/s/ Alexis
Korybut


Alexis
Korybut


Chief
Executive Officer





April 15,
2010