alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

 

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

HYBIR, INC.,

Appellant

v.

VEEAM SOFTWARE CORPORATION,

Appellee

______________________ 

2022-1443, 2022-1444

______________________ 

Appeals from the United States Patent and Trademark 

Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in Nos. IPR2020-

01039, IPR2020-01040.

______________________ 

JUDGMENT

______________________ 

SETH OSTROW, Meister Seelig & Fein LLP, New York, 

NY, argued for appellant. Also represented by ROBERT 

FEINLAND. 

 BYRON LEROY PICKARD, Sterne Kessler Goldstein & 

Fox, PLLC, Washington, DC, argued for appellee. Also represented by DANIEL S. BLOCK, STEVEN PAPPAS. 

 ______________________ 

THIS CAUSE having been heard and considered, it is 

Case: 22-1443 Document: 38 Page: 1 Filed: 03/14/2023
ORDERED and ADJUDGED: 

 PER CURIAM (LOURIE, CLEVENGER, and TARANTO, Circuit Judges).

AFFIRMED. See Fed. Cir. R. 36.

 

 ENTERED BY ORDER OF THE COURT 

 

March 14, 2023

Date

/s/ Peter R. Marksteiner

Peter R. Marksteiner

Clerk of Court

Case: 22-1443 Document: 38 Page: 2 Filed: 03/14/2023
STATE v. McDONALD.

No. COA06-6.

North Carolina Court of Appeals.

Filed December 19, 2006.

Certification Date January 8, 2007.

Appeal from Davidson (00CRS11820, 00CRS11821, 00CRS11822, 00CRS11823, 00CRS11824, 00CRS11825).

Case reported without published opinion. No error.
STATE v. FLIPPEN

No. COA05-842

North Carolina Court of Appeals

Filed March 21, 2006

Certification Date April 10, 2006

Appeal from Stokes (04CRS3231, 04CRS3357, 04CRS3363).

Case reported without published opinion. No error.
STATE of North Carolina v. Michael Scott McRAE.

No. 540P02-3.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

November 16, 2006.

Michael Scott McRae, Pro Se.

Robert Montgomery, Special Deputy Attorney General, Edward W. Grannis, Jr., District Attorney, for State of NC.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed by Defendant on the 17th day of October 2006 in this matter for a writ of certiorari to review the order of the Superior Court, Cumberland County, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the Superior Court of that County:

"Dismissed by order of the Court in conference, this the 16th day of November 2006."
# L_2016202EN.01005601.xml

| 28.7.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 202/56 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.7.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 202/56

---

Corrigendum to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/973 of 17 June 2016 concerning the authorisation of zinc bislysinate as a feed additive for all animal species

(
  Official Journal of the European Union L 161 of 18 June 2016
  )

On page 23, in the Annex, in line four of the fourth column ‘Composition, chemical formula, description, analytical method’:

for:

‘... lysine ...’,

read:

‘... lysine-HCl ...’.

---
# Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 541/2013Show full title

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 541/2013 of 13 June 2013 establishing the standard import values for determining            the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables         

        - Previous
        - Next

U.K.

# Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 541/2013                     

# of 13 June 2013

# establishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables

THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural                           markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation)(1),                        

Having regard to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 of 7 June 2011 laying down detailed rules for the application                           of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 in respect of the fruit and vegetables and processed fruit and vegetables sectors(2), and in particular Article 136(1) thereof,                        

Whereas:

(1)Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 lays down, pursuant to the outcome of the Uruguay Round multilateral trade negotiations,                              the criteria whereby the Commission fixes the standard values for imports from third countries, in respect of the products                              and periods stipulated in Annex XVI, Part A thereto.

(2)The standard import value is calculated each working day, in accordance with Article 136(1) of Implementing Regulation (EU)                              No 543/2011, taking into account variable daily data. Therefore this Regulation should enter into force on the day of its                              publication in the *Official Journal of the European Union*,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

# Article 1U.K.

The standard import values referred to in Article 136 of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 are fixed in the Annex to                     this Regulation.                  

# Article 2U.K.

This Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the *Official Journal of the European Union*.                  

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 13 June 2013.

*For the Commission, On behalf of the President*,                           

Jerzy Plewa                            

*Director-General for Agriculture and Rural Development*                            

## ANNEXU.K.Standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables

1

OJ L 299, 16.11.2007, p. 1.                           

2

OJ L 157, 15.6.2011, p. 1.
ADDISON v. FERRELL.

No. COA05-221.

North Carolina Court of Appeals.

Filed January 3, 2006.

Certification Date January 23, 2006.

Appeal from Durham (04CVS5491).

Case without published opinion. Reversed.
J

- S20027

- 23

NON

- PRECEDENTIAL DECISION

- SEE SUPERIOR COURT OP 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

v.

JEMEIL MURPHY

Appellant :

:

:

:

:

:

: IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

PENNSYLVANIA

No. 926 EDA 2022

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered November 22, 2021
, i n the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County
, Criminal Division at No(s): CP

- 51

- CR

- 0006738

- 2019

.

BEFORE: DUBOW, J., KUNSELMAN, J., and COLINS, J. *

JUDGMENT ORDER BY KUNSELMAN, J.: FILED JUNE 21, 2023

Jemeil Murphy appeals from the judgment of sentence imposed for his

conviction of persons not to possess firearms. He challenges, inter alia
, the

denial of his motion to suppress. However, Murphy identified the wrong

suppression judge in his statement of errors

. As such, t he Honorable Shanese

Johnson , who presided over Murphy’s suppression hearing, did not address

her reasons for denying suppression in her opinion. Accordingly, we remand

for Judge Johnson to file an opinion of her reasons for the order denying

suppression within 4 0 days of the date of this order. 1 Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a).

Case remanded. Jurisdiction retained.

_________________ __________ ______ ____ _______

* Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.

1 At the suppression hearing, Judge Johnson stated certain factual findings on the record. N.T., 2/21/20, at 61

– 63. The supplemental opinion may include any additional factual findings that formed the basis to conclu de that Officer Harper had reason able suspicion to grab Murphy’s hands and that Officer Barker had reasonable suspicion to inspect Murphy’s pocket.J

- S20027

- 23

- 2

-

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq. Prothonotary

Date: 6/21/2023
Van REYPEN v. TEETER.

No. 84PA06.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

September 5, 2006.

Preston O. Odom, III, Charlotte, Fred P. Parker, IV, for Van Reypen Asso.

D. Lane Matthews, Charlotte, for Gerald Teeter, et al.

Isaac T. Avery, III, Raleigh, for NC Asso. Police Attorneys.

Kimberly N. Overton, for NC Conference of DA.

Christopher G. Browning, Solicitor-General, for Attorney General.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 30th day of August 2006 by Plaintiff for Leave to File Reply Brief:

"Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference this the 5th day of September 2006."
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                         168,073
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   21,052
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               603,339
<PP&E>                                      21,194,381
<DEPRECIATION>                                 585,160
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              21,291,384
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       13,813,003
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         6,780
<OTHER-SE>                                   4,346,034
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                21,291,384
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,867,662
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                 1,447,956
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             887,519
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (467,814)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (467,814)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
IN RE M.G.M.

No. COA05-1671.

North Carolina Court of Appeals.

Filed September 5, 2006.

Certification Date September 25, 2006.

Appeal from Sampson (02J73).

Case reported without published opinion. Vacated and remanded.
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 State

          - [Public Notice 11784]

# SUMMARY:

                        Notice is hereby given of the following determinations: I hereby determine that certain objects being imported from abroad pursuant to agreements with their foreign owners or custodians for temporary display in the exhibition “The Space Between: The Modern in Korean Art” at the Los Angeles County Museum of Art, Los Angeles, California, and at possible additional exhibitions or venues yet to be determined, are of cultural significance, and, further, that their temporary exhibition or display within the United States as aforementioned is in the national interest. I have ordered that Public Notice of these determinations be published in the                         **Federal Register**                        .                    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

                        Chi D. Tran, Program Administrator, Office of the Legal Adviser, U.S. Department of State (telephone: 202-632-6471; email:                         *section2459@state.gov*). The mailing address is U.S. Department of State, L/PD, 2200 C Street NW (SA-5), Suite 5H03, Washington, DC 20522-0505.                    

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    The foregoing determinations were made pursuant to the authority vested in me by the Act of October 19, 1965 (79 Stat. 985; 22 U.S.C. 2459), E.O. 12047 of March 27, 1978, the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998 (112 Stat. 2681,                     *et seq.;*22 U.S.C. 6501 note,                     *et seq.*), Delegation of Authority No. 234 of October 1, 1999, Delegation of Authority No. 236-3 of August 28, 2000, and Delegation of Authority No. 523 of December 22, 2021.                

Stacy E. White,

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Professional and Cultural Exchanges, Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs, Department of State.

[FR Doc. 2022-15202 Filed 7-14-22; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4710-05-P
STATE v. Michael Anthony ELLIOTT.

No. 716P05.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

January 26, 2006.

Daniel P. O'Brien, Assistant Attorney General, Michael Nifong, District Attorney, for State of NC.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 22nd day of December 2005 by Defendant for "Notice of Appeal":

"Motion Dismissed ex mero motu by order of the Court in conference this the 26th day of January 2006."
```

[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 164 (Thursday, August 25, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Page 49952]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-16851]

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

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Notice of Settlement Pursuant to Section 122(h) of the 
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act

    Notice is hereby given that an agreement between the Department of 
the Interior, National Park Service and the Washington Gas Light 
Company has been approved, subject to public comment, by the Department 
of Justice pursuant to Section 122(h) of the Comprehensive 
Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act, 42 U.S.C. 9601 
et seq. The settlement provides for recovery of $285,000 in costs 
incurred by the Park Service in response to contamination on a portion 
of the National Capitol Parks-East, located beside the Anacostia River 
in Washington, DC.
    For a period of thirty (30) days from the date of this publication, 
comments relating to the proposed settlement will be received. Such 
comments should be addressed to Shawn P. Mulligan, National Park 
Service, 1050 Walnut Street, Suite 220, Boulder, Colorado 80302, (303) 
415-9014, or via e-mail at [email protected] and should refer to 
the NPS Washington Gas Light Site.
    A copy of the proposed settlement agreement may be obtained from, 
or reviewed at: National Capital Parks-East Headquarters, 1900 
Anacostia Drive, SE., Washington, DC 20020, (202) 690-5185. In 
requesting a copy, please enclose a check in the amount of $2.75 (25 
cents per page reproduction cost) payable to the U.S. Treasury.

Robert Brook,
Assistant Chief, Environmental Enforcement Section, Environment and 
Natural Resources Division.
[FR Doc. 05-16851 Filed 8-24-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-15-M
```
# Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 199/2013Show full title

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 199/2013 of 7 March 2013 establishing the standard import values for determining            the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables         

        - Previous
        - Next

U.K.

# Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 199/2013                     

# of 7 March 2013

# establishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables

THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural                           markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation)(1),                        

Having regard to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 of 7 June 2011 laying down detailed rules for the application                           of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 in respect of the fruit and vegetables and processed fruit and vegetables sectors(2), and in particular Article 136(1) thereof,                        

Whereas:

(1)Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 lays down, pursuant to the outcome of the Uruguay Round multilateral trade negotiations,                              the criteria whereby the Commission fixes the standard values for imports from third countries, in respect of the products                              and periods stipulated in Annex XVI, Part A thereto.

(2)The standard import value is calculated each working day, in accordance with Article 136(1) of Implementing Regulation (EU)                              No 543/2011, taking into account variable daily data. Therefore this Regulation should enter into force on the day of its                              publication in the *Official Journal of the European Union*,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

# Article 1U.K.

The standard import values referred to in Article 136 of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 are fixed in the Annex to                     this Regulation.                  

# Article 2U.K.

This Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the *Official Journal of the European Union*.                  

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 7 March 2013.

*For the Commission, On behalf of the President*,                           

José Manuel Silva Rodríguez                            

*Director-General for Agriculture and Rural Development*                            

## ANNEXU.K.Standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables

1

OJ L 299, 16.11.2007, p. 1.                           

2

OJ L 157, 15.6.2011, p. 1.
HARRIS, et al. v. MATTHEWS, et al.

No. 479PA05-2.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

September 22, 2006.

Joshua B. Durham, Charlotte, for Matthews.

Lisa Godfrey, Charlotte, for Harris et al.

Kenneth R. Raynor, Charlotte, for Sharla Byrd.

*579David W. Gilpin, Charlotte, for Aaron Moore.

Shirley Fulton, for St. Luke Baptist Church.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 20th day of September 2006 by Plaintiffs for Extension of Time to File Brief:

"Motion Allowed. Plaintiffs (Harris, et al.) shall have up to and including the 26th day of October 2006 to file and serve his/her brief with this Court. By order of the Court in conference this the 22nd day of September 2006."
S. 3035

One Hundred Tenth Congress

of the

United States of America 

AT THE SECOND SESSION 

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Thursday, 

the third day of January, two thousand and eight 

An Act 

To temporarily extend the programs under the Higher Education Act of 1965.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 

the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

SECTION 1. EXTENSION OF HIGHER EDUCATION PROGRAMS. 

(a) EXTENSION OF PROGRAMS.—Section 2(a) of the Higher Education Extension Act of 2005 (Public Law 109–81; 20 U.S.C. 1001 

note) is amended by striking ‘‘May 31, 2008’’ and inserting ‘‘June 

30, 2008’’. 

(b) RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.—Nothing in this section, or in 

the Higher Education Extension Act of 2005 as amended by this 

Act, shall be construed to limit or otherwise alter the authorizations 

of appropriations for, or the durations of, programs contained in 

the amendments made by the Higher Education Reconciliation Act 

of 2005 (Public Law 109–171), by the College Cost Reduction and 

Access Act (Public Law 110–84), or by the Ensuring Continued 

Access to Student Loans Act of 2008 (Public Law 110–227) to 

the provisions of the Higher Education Act of 1965 and the Taxpayer-Teacher Protection Act of 2004.

Speaker of the House of Representatives.

Vice President of the United States and

President of the Senate.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-6275

BRUCE WAYNE KOENIG,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

STATE OF MARYLAND; MARYLAND DIVISION OF CORRECTION; J. MICHAEL 

STOUFFER; ANNE MADDOX; JON GALLEY; BOBBY SHEARIN; KEITH K. 

ARNOLD; LIEUTENANT HARBAUGH; LIEUTENANT PENNINGTON; CHRISTIAN 

WEDLOCK,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

Maryland, at Baltimore. J. Frederick Motz, Senior District Judge. 

(1:13-cv-03082-JFM)

Submitted: June 25, 2015 Decided: June 30, 2015

Before GREGORY, FLOYD, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Bruce Wayne Koenig, Appellant Pro Se. Stephanie Judith LaneWeber, Assistant Attorney General, Baltimore, Maryland, for 

Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Bruce Wayne Koenig appeals the district court’s order denying 

relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) complaint and related claims. 

We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. 

Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district 

court. Koenig v. Maryland, No. 1:13-cv-03082-JFM (D. Md. Feb. 19, 

2015). 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.

AFFIRMED
I 

110TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5122 

To suspend temporarily the duty on Pyrasulfotole. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 23, 2008 

Mr. HULSHOF introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To suspend temporarily the duty on Pyrasulfotole. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. PYRASULFOTOLE. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subchapter II of chapter 99 of 

5 the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States is 

6 amended by inserting in numerical sequence the following 

7 new heading: 

‘‘ 9902.01.00 5-Hydroxy-1,3- 

dimethylpyrazol-4-yl 2-mesyl4-(trifluoromethyl)phenyl ketone (Pyrasulfotole) (CAS 

No. 365400–11–9) (provided 

for in subheading 

2933.19.23) ....................... Free No change No change On or before 

12/31/2011 ’’. 


smartinez on PRODPC61 with BILLS
2 

•HR 5122 IH

1 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

2 subsection (a) applies to goods entered, or withdrawn from 

3 warehouse for consumption, on or after the 15th day after 

4 the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


smartinez on PRODPC61 with BILLS
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

Richard H. Bernstein, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, 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.

 March 3, 2015

h0223

Order 

Clerk

March 3, 2015

149688

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 149688

COA: 320657

Oakland CC: 2010-234230-FC

ANDREW JOSEPH McKNIGHT,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_____________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the May 30, 2014 order 

of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because the defendant has 

failed to meet the burden of establishing entitlement to relief under MCR 6.508(D).